How come no one cares about Obama's surge in Iraq?

[Wry Catcher]

And here everybody thought Obama didn't care...
So he's been careful, strategic and focused wit

Because obie fucked it up. He made a political decision to get out quick and the SOFA timeline came about because of him in the first place. He got out too quickly and created a vacuum for ISIS to thrive in now eight years later right before the elections he's going to do something about it? Are you blind?

LIAR. The choice was made by the Iraqi government, not Obama, and agreed to by GWB before Obama was in the Oval. You must know that, so why do you always need to lie?

 

[Iceweasel]

Obama is their "Black God" they will support him no matter what he does.

Obama is measured in his words and actions, something bigots, racists and all around ne'er-do-wells can't or won't understand.

obama talks down to his political enemies all the time. It doesn't penetrate your filters because you are a left wing political fundamentalist.

He should kiss their ass like Trump does? Oh! (Stepped in that one, didn't you Sparky?)

Is that supposed to mean something? Looks like you tripped over your cvnt again, witch.

 

[easyt65]

'How come no one cares about Obama's surge in Iraq?'

Any Focus on Iraq reminds people:

1. He promised to bring the troops home.

2. He promised 'No Boots On The Ground.'

3. He promised the 'War on Terror' is over'

4. He has brought more American troops home in body bags since he said these things

5. HE allowed ISIS to flow into Iraq, taking over much of the territory our military had already liberated.

6. He and Hillary financed / supplied / armed/trained / protected / enabled / facilitated ISIS and its rise to current levels.

7. He and Hillary ran weapons to Al Qaeida in Libya and to ISIS in Syria through Benghazi

8. He called ISIS a JV team, and now to force the entrenched 'JV Team' out of Mosul it could take up to a year (reportedly)

9. He is the Nobel Peace Prize winner that made all of this possible / happen

10. He is a liar, his foreign policy is a failure, and he has made the world less safe.

 

[Rustic]

And here everybody thought Obama didn't care...
So he's been careful, strategic and focused with the Iraqi military and our military in order to kick ISIS ass and what? Righties wanted "shock and awe" instead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/w...hints-of-resistance-as-battle-nears.html?_r=0

There's never going to be peace in the Middle East… Fact.... so quit talking out of your ass. LOL

Lacking any kind of coherent comment, you just attack the messenger, troll. I have no idea what it's like to live in your myopic world, and I'm so grateful.

He is the textbook example of a modern American conservative.

You do realize Islam will never want any peace, it is not in their cult to do so. They never have been a peaceful cult never will be. Only a fool would think there will be peace in the Middle East. It's best if you stay in your moms basement in seclusion

Uh-huh. But before now all we heard was that Obama was doing nothing, that he must be a Muslim himself, yadda, yadda, yadda. So when he does show that he's obviously been planning and now implementing a force to combat ISIS, the little right wing weenies say shit like this.

The Middle East has never known peace, only a fool would ever think that it will ever see peace… LOL

 

[Iceweasel]

And here everybody thought Obama didn't care...
So he's been careful, strategic and focused wit

Because obie fucked it up. He made a political decision to get out quick and the SOFA timeline came about because of him in the first place. He got out too quickly and created a vacuum for ISIS to thrive in now eight years later right before the elections he's going to do something about it? Are you blind?

LIAR. The choice was made by the Iraqi government, not Obama, and agreed to by GWB before Obama was in the Oval. You must know that, so why do you always need to lie?

LIAR. They put pressure on Bush because obama was poised to win.

No, U.S. Troops Didn't Have to Leave Iraq
THE CORNER THE ONE AND ONLY. No, U.S. Troops Didn’t Have to Leave Iraq PRINT ARTICLE ADJUST FONT SIZEAA by PATRICK BRENNAN June 16, 2014 3:53 PM @PTBRENNAN11 One of the key points of debate in the U.S. over the recent events in Iraq is over what the U.S. could have done to avert them. If the U.S. still had troops there, would Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have become the sectarian strongman he has, would ISIS have established the stronghold it has, etc.?

This is a complicated question, and one should never be too confident in counterfactuals. But there’s a compelling case articulated by a range of people that a U.S. presence there could have made today’s situation less likely, and certainly allowed us to have more options to respond today. But here’s an easy way for Democrats to avoid the debate entirely: Claim that President Obama had no choice about whether to keep troops in Iraq or not, and blame Bush.

The inconvenient aspect of this argument is that it’s not true. Chris Hayes laid out four points in the opening monologue of his show on Friday night, three of which consituted the above argument: The three problematic claims: [1] Any residual U.S. force we might have left in Iraq would have been minimal and in a non-combat role, somewhere on the order of 2–3,000 [troops]. . . . [2] We could not have stayed unless the Iraqi government let us stay — Iraq is a sovereign nation and the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave. . . . [3] The status-of-forces agreement, the basic framework upon which American withdrawal was based, came from the administration of George W. Bush. These claims don’t jibe with what we know about how the negotiations with Iraq went. It’s the White House itself that decided just 2–3,000 troops made sense, when the Defense Department and others were proposing more.

Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him — the problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war. Having a very small American force wasn’t worth the domestic political price Maliki would have to pay for supporting their presence. In other words, it’s not correct that “the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave.” That contradicts the reporting that’s been done on the issue by well-known neocon propaganda factories The New Yorker and the New York Times.

Prime Minister Maliki did say in public, at times, that he personally couldn’t offer the guarantees necessary to keep U.S. troops in the country, but it’s well-established that behind closed doors, he was interested in a substantial U.S. presence. The Obama administration, in fact, doesn’t even really deny it: For Dexter Filkins’s New Yorker story, deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes didn’t dispute this issue, he just argued that a U.S. troop presence wouldn’t have been a panacea.

Read more at: No, U.S. Troops Didn't Have to Leave Iraq

 

[NYcarbineer]

'How come no one cares about Obama's surge in Iraq?'

Any Focus on Iraq reminds people:

1. He promised to bring the troops home.

2. He promised 'No Boots On The Ground.'

3. He promised the 'War on Terror' is over'

4. He has brought more American troops home in body bags since he said these things

5. HE allowed ISIS to flow into Iraq, taking over much of the territory our military had already liberated.

6. He and Hillary financed / supplied / armed/trained / protected / enabled / facilitated ISIS and its rise to current levels.

7. He and Hillary ran weapons to Al Qaeida in Libya and to ISIS in Syria through Benghazi

8. He called ISIS a JV team, and now to force the entrenched 'JV Team' out of Mosul it could take up to a year (reportedly)

9. He is the Nobel Peace Prize winner that made all of this possible / happen

10. He is a liar, his foreign policy is a failure, and he has made the world less safe.

ISIS is being defeated and the US has 3 combat deaths. Compare that to Bush's record in Iraq.

 

[MarcATL]

And here everybody thought Obama didn't care...
So he's been careful, strategic and focused with the Iraqi military and our military in order to kick ISIS ass and what? Righties wanted "shock and awe" instead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/w...hints-of-resistance-as-battle-nears.html?_r=0

There's never going to be peace in the Middle East… Fact.... so quit talking out of your ass. LOL

Lacking any kind of coherent comment, you just attack the messenger, troll. I have no idea what it's like to live in your myopic world, and I'm so grateful.

He is the textbook example of a modern American conservative.

You do realize Islam will never want any peace, it is not in their cult to do so. They never have been a peaceful cult never will be. Only a fool would think there will be peace in the Middle East. It's best if you stay in your moms basement in seclusion

Uh-huh. But before now all we heard was that Obama was doing nothing, that he must be a Muslim himself, yadda, yadda, yadda. So when he does show that he's obviously been planning and now implementing a force to combat ISIS, the little right wing weenies say shit like this.

Basically.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[rightwinger]

Obama sneaks back into Iraq after his idiotic, politically motivated retreat against the advice of his Generals. This is the cost of inept leadership, turning victories into losses, more battles more deaths and more money.

Looks like our Presidents strategy is working with 500 Americans participating in the battle

What happened to all the Republicans rooting for an ISIS victory in order to exploit it for the elections?

Obama is "soft" on ISIS

My ass

 

[MarcATL]

And here everybody thought Obama didn't care...
So he's been careful, strategic and focused wit

Because obie fucked it up. He made a political decision to get out quick and the SOFA timeline came about because of him in the first place. He got out too quickly and created a vacuum for ISIS to thrive in now eight years later right before the elections he's going to do something about it? Are you blind?

You've been crying, bitching and moaning all this time calling him feckless, wishing he should do something, anything...now he's doing something you're bitching and moaning that he is.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[OldLady]

And here everybody thought Obama didn't care...
So he's been careful, strategic and focused with the Iraqi military and our military in order to kick ISIS ass and what? Righties wanted "shock and awe" instead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/w...hints-of-resistance-as-battle-nears.html?_r=0

There's never going to be peace in the Middle East… Fact.... so quit talking out of your ass. LOL

So walk away and let ISIS have its way? Continue spreading its terrorist tactics? Let them keep their little caliphate with its oil fields and millions of civilians to carry on the work of their twisted government that has declared war on America and its allies?

The battle is lost, Barry is a fuck up

That would be too bad, and no, he's not.

I do wish they wouldn't teach little ones that so they can get a picture.

 

[2aguy]

And here everybody thought Obama didn't care...
So he's been careful, strategic and focused with the Iraqi military and our military in order to kick ISIS ass and what? Righties wanted "shock and awe" instead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/w...hints-of-resistance-as-battle-nears.html?_r=0

No.....he wanted to take isis off of the table for the last part of the election........if the Iraqi do not succeed in the next 20 days...then he will pull his support the Wednesday after the election.........

 

[MarcATL]

And here everybody thought Obama didn't care...
So he's been careful, strategic and focused wit

Because obie fucked it up. He made a political decision to get out quick and the SOFA timeline came about because of him in the first place. He got out too quickly and created a vacuum for ISIS to thrive in now eight years later right before the elections he's going to do something about it? Are you blind?

LIAR. The choice was made by the Iraqi government, not Obama, and agreed to by GWB before Obama was in the Oval. You must know that, so why do you always need to lie?

Because if Republicans didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama the clown is yesterdays news.

 

[deltex1]

And here everybody thought Obama didn't care...
So he's been careful, strategic and focused with the Iraqi military and our military in order to kick ISIS ass and what? Righties wanted "shock and awe" instead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/w...hints-of-resistance-as-battle-nears.html?_r=0

Stupidest post of the month.

 

[easyt65]

ISIS is being defeated and the US has 3 combat deaths. Compare that to Bush's record in Iraq.

OK, I will:

Liberals argued FOR the war in Iraq before voting to GIVE Bush the AUTHORITY to take the country to war in Iraq.

COMPARATIVELY....

Hillary and Barry UN-Constitutionally by-passed Congress to drag the United States into the middle of a civil war between terrorists and dictators, into their own personal war in which they have helped Al Qaeida and ISIS.


Thank you for admitting that Obama's failure to contain ISIS - HIS CHOICE not to contain ISIS by allowing mile-long convoys into Iraq - has resulted in more American soldiers dying NEEDLESSLY, no to mention resulting in thousands of innocent civilians being killed, territory our soldiers already liberated being taken and having to be fought for AGAIN, and turning Iraq into a war zone AGAIN!

Barry was handed a liberated Iraq and HE allowed it to be overrun with terrorists and get more soldiers killed AFTER PROMISING 'No More boots On the Ground'!

 

[MarcATL]

And here everybody thought Obama didn't care...
So he's been careful, strategic and focused wit

Because obie fucked it up. He made a political decision to get out quick and the SOFA timeline came about because of him in the first place. He got out too quickly and created a vacuum for ISIS to thrive in now eight years later right before the elections he's going to do something about it? Are you blind?

LIAR. The choice was made by the Iraqi government, not Obama, and agreed to by GWB before Obama was in the Oval. You must know that, so why do you always need to lie?

LIAR. They put pressure on Bush because obama was poised to win.

No, U.S. Troops Didn't Have to Leave Iraq
THE CORNER THE ONE AND ONLY. No, U.S. Troops Didn’t Have to Leave Iraq PRINT ARTICLE ADJUST FONT SIZEAA by PATRICK BRENNAN June 16, 2014 3:53 PM @PTBRENNAN11 One of the key points of debate in the U.S. over the recent events in Iraq is over what the U.S. could have done to avert them. If the U.S. still had troops there, would Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have become the sectarian strongman he has, would ISIS have established the stronghold it has, etc.?

This is a complicated question, and one should never be too confident in counterfactuals. But there’s a compelling case articulated by a range of people that a U.S. presence there could have made today’s situation less likely, and certainly allowed us to have more options to respond today. But here’s an easy way for Democrats to avoid the debate entirely: Claim that President Obama had no choice about whether to keep troops in Iraq or not, and blame Bush.

The inconvenient aspect of this argument is that it’s not true. Chris Hayes laid out four points in the opening monologue of his show on Friday night, three of which consituted the above argument: The three problematic claims: [1] Any residual U.S. force we might have left in Iraq would have been minimal and in a non-combat role, somewhere on the order of 2–3,000 [troops]. . . . [2] We could not have stayed unless the Iraqi government let us stay — Iraq is a sovereign nation and the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave. . . . [3] The status-of-forces agreement, the basic framework upon which American withdrawal was based, came from the administration of George W. Bush. These claims don’t jibe with what we know about how the negotiations with Iraq went. It’s the White House itself that decided just 2–3,000 troops made sense, when the Defense Department and others were proposing more.

Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him — the problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war. Having a very small American force wasn’t worth the domestic political price Maliki would have to pay for supporting their presence. In other words, it’s not correct that “the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave.” That contradicts the reporting that’s been done on the issue by well-known neocon propaganda factories The New Yorker and the New York Times.

Prime Minister Maliki did say in public, at times, that he personally couldn’t offer the guarantees necessary to keep U.S. troops in the country, but it’s well-established that behind closed doors, he was interested in a substantial U.S. presence. The Obama administration, in fact, doesn’t even really deny it: For Dexter Filkins’s New Yorker story, deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes didn’t dispute this issue, he just argued that a U.S. troop presence wouldn’t have been a panacea.

Read more at: No, U.S. Troops Didn't Have to Leave Iraq

Shouldn't you be blaming Bush for being so weak as to cave so easily then?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Iceweasel]

And here everybody thought Obama didn't care...
So he's been careful, strategic and focused wit

Because obie fucked it up. He made a political decision to get out quick and the SOFA timeline came about because of him in the first place. He got out too quickly and created a vacuum for ISIS to thrive in now eight years later right before the elections he's going to do something about it? Are you blind?

LIAR. The choice was made by the Iraqi government, not Obama, and agreed to by GWB before Obama was in the Oval. You must know that, so why do you always need to lie?

Because if Republicans didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

In other words, you have nothing to say.

 

[rightwinger]

When asked about his offensive statements about women in the last debate, Trump diverted to talking about ISIS

Is he going to congratulate the President in tonight's debate?

 

[Iceweasel]

And here everybody thought Obama didn't care...
So he's been careful, strategic and focused wit

Because obie fucked it up. He made a political decision to get out quick and the SOFA timeline came about because of him in the first place. He got out too quickly and created a vacuum for ISIS to thrive in now eight years later right before the elections he's going to do something about it? Are you blind?

LIAR. The choice was made by the Iraqi government, not Obama, and agreed to by GWB before Obama was in the Oval. You must know that, so why do you always need to lie?

LIAR. They put pressure on Bush because obama was poised to win.

No, U.S. Troops Didn't Have to Leave Iraq
THE CORNER THE ONE AND ONLY. No, U.S. Troops Didn’t Have to Leave Iraq PRINT ARTICLE ADJUST FONT SIZEAA by PATRICK BRENNAN June 16, 2014 3:53 PM @PTBRENNAN11 One of the key points of debate in the U.S. over the recent events in Iraq is over what the U.S. could have done to avert them. If the U.S. still had troops there, would Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have become the sectarian strongman he has, would ISIS have established the stronghold it has, etc.?

This is a complicated question, and one should never be too confident in counterfactuals. But there’s a compelling case articulated by a range of people that a U.S. presence there could have made today’s situation less likely, and certainly allowed us to have more options to respond today. But here’s an easy way for Democrats to avoid the debate entirely: Claim that President Obama had no choice about whether to keep troops in Iraq or not, and blame Bush.

The inconvenient aspect of this argument is that it’s not true. Chris Hayes laid out four points in the opening monologue of his show on Friday night, three of which consituted the above argument: The three problematic claims: [1] Any residual U.S. force we might have left in Iraq would have been minimal and in a non-combat role, somewhere on the order of 2–3,000 [troops]. . . . [2] We could not have stayed unless the Iraqi government let us stay — Iraq is a sovereign nation and the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave. . . . [3] The status-of-forces agreement, the basic framework upon which American withdrawal was based, came from the administration of George W. Bush. These claims don’t jibe with what we know about how the negotiations with Iraq went. It’s the White House itself that decided just 2–3,000 troops made sense, when the Defense Department and others were proposing more.

Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him — the problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war. Having a very small American force wasn’t worth the domestic political price Maliki would have to pay for supporting their presence. In other words, it’s not correct that “the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave.” That contradicts the reporting that’s been done on the issue by well-known neocon propaganda factories The New Yorker and the New York Times.

Prime Minister Maliki did say in public, at times, that he personally couldn’t offer the guarantees necessary to keep U.S. troops in the country, but it’s well-established that behind closed doors, he was interested in a substantial U.S. presence. The Obama administration, in fact, doesn’t even really deny it: For Dexter Filkins’s New Yorker story, deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes didn’t dispute this issue, he just argued that a U.S. troop presence wouldn’t have been a panacea.

Read more at: No, U.S. Troops Didn't Have to Leave Iraq

Shouldn't you be blaming Bush for being so weak as to cave so easily then?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

You didn't understand the words.

 

[easyt65]

[QUOTE="rightwinger, post: 15583227, member: 20321
Looks like our Presidents strategy is working with 500 Americans participating in the battle[/QUOTE]
Yeah, letting mile-long ISIS convoys to freely flow into Iraq was a helluva strategy!

Allowing them to take over much of Iraq our troops already liberated - wonderful strategy!

'500 Americans participating' after Barry promised no more boots on the ground there...not to mention more US soldiers who have died there since that promise - AWESOME!

BTW, CNN reported this morning that the Iraqi forces are going into Mosul doing the fighting while US forces stay to the outskirts, doing hardly NO fighting. If CNN is right, and liberals claim they are the 'gospel', then US troops aren't 'participating' in combat.