Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
By following Bush's timetable for troop withdrawal?
No, by purposefully fucking up the Status of Forces Agreement.
Comedy Central is no place to get your news
The one with the 12/31/11 withdrawal date? The one they tried to extend but Iraq wouldn't give our armed forces immunity? Please tell me how that was purposefully fucked up. How long was long enough to stay in Iraq?
More reading on the incompetence of the stupidest motherfucker to ever hold the office of president....
Iraqi politicians backed into a corner on a Status of Forces Agreement? - Threat Matrix
But recent reporting by The New York Times' Michael Gordon paints a more complicated picture of U.S. incompetence and disengagement. Most notably, the Obama administration's insistence that any Status of Forces Agreement be ratified by Iraq's parliament set the stage for the inevitable failure of any agreement.
Simply put, while a number of Iraqi political leaders may have privately wished for continued American involvement to serve as a buffer and broker between both domestic rivals and neighboring regimes, far fewer were willing to support this position in a public, contentious debate. No one wants to be regarded as an American stooge in the prideful arena of Iraqi politics. Backing parliamentarians into a corner by demanding public ratification doomed a new SOFA to failure.
Like I said, educate yourself.....
But if you did that, you wouldn't be a dimocrap.....
More reading on the incompetence of the stupidest motherfucker to ever hold the office of president....
Iraqi politicians backed into a corner on a Status of Forces Agreement? - Threat Matrix
But recent reporting by The New York Times' Michael Gordon paints a more complicated picture of U.S. incompetence and disengagement. Most notably, the Obama administration's insistence that any Status of Forces Agreement be ratified by Iraq's parliament set the stage for the inevitable failure of any agreement.
Simply put, while a number of Iraqi political leaders may have privately wished for continued American involvement to serve as a buffer and broker between both domestic rivals and neighboring regimes, far fewer were willing to support this position in a public, contentious debate. No one wants to be regarded as an American stooge in the prideful arena of Iraqi politics. Backing parliamentarians into a corner by demanding public ratification doomed a new SOFA to failure.
Like I said, educate yourself.....
But if you did that, you wouldn't be a dimocrap.....
So we were going to have a SOFA not ratified by the Iraqi parliament like the 2008 SOFA was? Yeah, that wasn't going to happen.
More reading on the incompetence of the stupidest motherfucker to ever hold the office of president....
Iraqi politicians backed into a corner on a Status of Forces Agreement? - Threat Matrix
Like I said, educate yourself.....
But if you did that, you wouldn't be a dimocrap.....
So we were going to have a SOFA not ratified by the Iraqi parliament like the 2008 SOFA was? Yeah, that wasn't going to happen.
Quibbling little girl......
We gave Iraq to Iran when we didn't have to.
Iraqi MP: ?Obama has Handed Iraq over to Iran and said ?Do What You Like.? | FrontPage Magazine
Quibble away.
bitch
Absolutely! I knew that, when he appointed Robert Gates as Sec of Defense.Haven't we seen enough to admit that Obama is the worst president in terms of foreign policy ever?
Sometimes adjust is mistakenly labeled retreat.
We need to adjust our foreign policy away from goals into lines in the sand.
Oh good grief...
The fact of the matter is that the SOFA expired on 12/31/11. There was no way that the Iraqis would continue the SOFA as previously agreed upon going forward. The Iraqis wanted us there but couldn't do it politically.
America's Foreign Policy is failure. you make it sound like Obama is doing something different than Bush did. He's not. It's just your belief bias.
The Obama doctrine: Leading from behind
By Charles Krauthammer,April 28, 2011
Obama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine. One of his advisers described the presidents actions in Libya as leading from behind.
Ryan Lizza, the New Yorker, May 2 issue
To be precise, leading from behind is a style, not a doctrine. Doctrines involve ideas, but since there are no discernible ones that make sense of Obama foreign policy Lizzas painstaking two-year chronicle shows it to be as ad hoc, erratic and confused as it appears this will have to do.
And it surely is an accurate description, from President Obamas shocking passivity during Irans 2009 Green Revolution to his dithering on Libya, acting at the very last moment, then handing off to a bickering coalition, yielding the current bloody stalemate. Its been a foreign policy of hesitation, delay and indecision, marked by plaintive appeals to the (fictional) international community to do what only America can.
But underlying that style, assures this Obama adviser, there really are ideas. Indeed, two unspoken beliefs, explains Lizza. That the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world.
Amazing. This is why Obama is deliberately diminishing American presence, standing and leadership in the world?
Take proposition one: We must lead from behind because U.S. relative power is declining. Even if you accept the premise, its a complete non sequitur. What does Chinas rising GDP have to do with American buck-passing on Libya, misjudging Iran, appeasing Syria?
True, China is rising. But first, it is the only power of any significance rising militarily relative to us. Russia is recovering from levels of military strength so low that it barely registers globally. And European power is in true decline (see Europes performance excepting the British in Afghanistan and its current misadventures in Libya).
And second, the challenge of a rising Chinese military is still exclusively regional. It would affect a war over Taiwan. It has zero effect on anything significantly beyond Chinas coast. China has no blue-water navy. It has no foreign bases. It cannot project power globally. It might in the future but by what logic should that paralyze us today?
Proposition two: We must lead from behind because we are reviled. Pray tell, when were we not? During Vietnam? Or earlier, under Eisenhower? When his vice president was sent on a goodwill trip to Latin America, he was spat upon and so threatened by the crowds that he had to cut short his trip. Or maybe later, under the blessed Reagan? The Reagan years were marked by vast demonstrations in the capitals of our closest allies denouncing America as a warmongering menace taking the world into nuclear winter.
Can We Say Obama's Foreign Policy is a Failure?
Let me put it this way...I don't think Gates is a neocon, and certainly Hagel, Kerry and Biden are not. However, except for China, our FP is grounded on the belief that most individuals are willing to sacrafice liberty property and even their lives for individual rights. Queen Noor and both King Abdullahs tried to explain to the boy warrior king that this is not so. Obama is learning the same lesson, although to his credit, he didn't view the US Army as an oil exploration team.
Sound familiar?PNAC letter to __________ (fill in the blank)
The Honorable ____________
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward ____ is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of __________ regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish ________ when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that __________ is not producing ____________, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor ______'s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many ____'s facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of ____s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether ____ does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if ____ does acquire the capability to deliver __________, as ______ is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the worlds supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of ____, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that ____ will be able to use or threaten to use ___________. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing ____________ and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing _____'s regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of ________ against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
ALL obama's policies are a failure
Yeah, we can say Obama is a failure.
The fact that most of the middle east has gone from moderates(friends) to extremist....>bad foreign policy.
