How Obama Lost Iraq.

[WelfareQueen]

Panetta? Panetta said this on 60 minutes a couple weeks ago:

"Nouri al-Maliki was the elected prime minister. He didn't want the U.S. troops."

The powerful nation on Earth bows down to that little shit? Really? Only in Obama World. The U.S. tells that fucker what to do or no money...no support. Got it?

So we bring democracy to Iraq and then if they don't act in a manner that we wish we just disregard their elected officials. What is the point bringing democracy to Iraq if we are just going ignore what all those purple finger voters wanted? Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

I don't give a shit about Democracy in Iraq....do you? I want to kill the fuckers who want to kill us and destroy Western Civilization.

The Iraqis can go take a giant fucking leap for all I care.

Wasn't that one of the goals of the Iraq War? To bring Democracy to these people.

View attachment 32510

Sorry my dear. You didn't elect people that will bend to our will so we'll just ignore your vote and the officials you elected.

The Neocons thought that they were going to spread democracy all across the entire Middle East, remember...

...war by war...

I never believed that shit.....did you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many more threads on this lie?

It was BUSH who lost Iraq - long before Obama was elected.

Yes, it was dat BOOSH! BOOSH achieved every objective set for the US at the outset of the war, despite downright traitorous behavior in Congress. When BOOOSH left Iraq was a relatively stable democracy. That somehow translates in libspeak as failure.
Obama fucked up the SOFA, refused to exert leverage to insure troops staying, ignored advice of trusted advisors and is now reaping the results and somehow he's blameless.
The Kool Aid is thick with this one.

With 150,000 troops still deployed in the field when he left, yeah, it was relatively stable. But President Bush Signs the SOFA where he obligated the country to remove all our troops by 2012 and somehow that is President Obama's fault? Republican logic at it's finest. Ignoring the fact that it was Iraq's call, not the Presidents trusted advisers, who made the decision to block all offers for a residual force. He is guilty of supporting the PM after the Bush Bug Out, well after Maliki's intentions of excluding the Sunnis was known.

So where is Panetta wrong....specifically?

Panetta never objected to the SOFA until he needed to cover his ass with 2 years worth of hindsight.

 

[EconChick]

Obama's former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta states in a new book what everyone with a grain of intelligence knows.....Obama was so eager to get out of Iraq they did not negotiate in good faith to leave U.S. forces in the Country. Hence, the rise of ISIS and the terrible mess we are currently experiencing in the Middle East.

Here is a key quote.


Washington (AFP) - Former Pentagon chief Leon Panetta has denounced the White House in a new memoir, accusing President Barack Obama's top aides of undercutting efforts to secure a deal in 2011 that could have kept US troops in Iraq.

"Flournoy at the Defense Department argued our case, and those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests," he wrote.

"To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them.

"Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away," he wrote.


The deal slipped away.


A link to the full story.

Obama team wanted US out of Iraq Panetta - Yahoo News

Sorry, Welfare Queen, didn't see your thread. Great thread!

 

[NYcarbineer]

The powerful nation on Earth bows down to that little shit? Really? Only in Obama World. The U.S. tells that fucker what to do or no money...no support. Got it?

So we bring democracy to Iraq and then if they don't act in a manner that we wish we just disregard their elected officials. What is the point bringing democracy to Iraq if we are just going ignore what all those purple finger voters wanted? Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

I don't give a shit about Democracy in Iraq....do you? I want to kill the fuckers who want to kill us and destroy Western Civilization.

The Iraqis can go take a giant fucking leap for all I care.

Wasn't that one of the goals of the Iraq War? To bring Democracy to these people.

View attachment 32510

Sorry my dear. You didn't elect people that will bend to our will so we'll just ignore your vote and the officials you elected.

The Neocons thought that they were going to spread democracy all across the entire Middle East, remember...

...war by war...

I never believed that shit.....did you?

Of course I didn't.

 

[WelfareQueen]

How many more threads on this lie?

It was BUSH who lost Iraq - long before Obama was elected.

Yes, it was dat BOOSH! BOOSH achieved every objective set for the US at the outset of the war, despite downright traitorous behavior in Congress. When BOOOSH left Iraq was a relatively stable democracy. That somehow translates in libspeak as failure.
Obama fucked up the SOFA, refused to exert leverage to insure troops staying, ignored advice of trusted advisors and is now reaping the results and somehow he's blameless.
The Kool Aid is thick with this one.

With 150,000 troops still deployed in the field when he left, yeah, it was relatively stable. But President Bush Signs the SOFA where he obligated the country to remove all our troops by 2012 and somehow that is President Obama's fault? Republican logic at it's finest. Ignoring the fact that it was Iraq's call, not the Presidents trusted advisers, who made the decision to block all offers for a residual force. He is guilty of supporting the PM after the Bush Bug Out, well after Maliki's intentions of excluding the Sunnis was known.

So where is Panetta wrong....specifically?

Panetta never objected to the SOFA until he needed to cover his ass with 2 years worth of hindsight.

Why would he need to cover his ass?

 

[EconChick]

The US never "won" in Iraq, therefore, you can't "lose" something you never had.

Were you there? I was. Before, during, and after the surge. We handed over a relatively stable Iraq to Obama. You can play word games but intelligent people are getting the picture. Which is that Obama cut and ran and we're dealing with consequences of that now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama's former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta states in a new book what everyone with a grain of intelligence knows.....Obama was so eager to get out of Iraq they did not negotiate in good faith to leave U.S. forces in the Country. Hence, the rise of ISIS and the terrible mess we are currently experiencing in the Middle East.

Here is a key quote.


Washington (AFP) - Former Pentagon chief Leon Panetta has denounced the White House in a new memoir, accusing President Barack Obama's top aides of undercutting efforts to secure a deal in 2011 that could have kept US troops in Iraq.

"Flournoy at the Defense Department argued our case, and those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests," he wrote.

"To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them.

"Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away," he wrote.


The deal slipped away.


A link to the full story.

Obama team wanted US out of Iraq Panetta - Yahoo News

Sorry, Welfare Queen, didn't see your thread. Great thread!

You're endorsing his position that we should impose a forced occupation on Iraq? lolol

 

[EconChick]

Obama's former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta states in a new book what everyone with a grain of intelligence knows.....Obama was so eager to get out of Iraq they did not negotiate in good faith to leave U.S. forces in the Country. Hence, the rise of ISIS and the terrible mess we are currently experiencing in the Middle East.

Here is a key quote.


Washington (AFP) - Former Pentagon chief Leon Panetta has denounced the White House in a new memoir, accusing President Barack Obama's top aides of undercutting efforts to secure a deal in 2011 that could have kept US troops in Iraq.

"Flournoy at the Defense Department argued our case, and those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests," he wrote.

"To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them.

"Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away," he wrote.


The deal slipped away.


A link to the full story.

Obama team wanted US out of Iraq Panetta - Yahoo News

We should have never been there in the first place. The whole Iraq debacle is Bush's fault. It should be laid at his feet, his and his administration's, and nowhere else.

Wrong. That's been explained a million times in similar threads for months now. Try reading them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many more threads on this lie?

It was BUSH who lost Iraq - long before Obama was elected.

Yes, it was dat BOOSH! BOOSH achieved every objective set for the US at the outset of the war, despite downright traitorous behavior in Congress. When BOOOSH left Iraq was a relatively stable democracy. That somehow translates in libspeak as failure.
Obama fucked up the SOFA, refused to exert leverage to insure troops staying, ignored advice of trusted advisors and is now reaping the results and somehow he's blameless.
The Kool Aid is thick with this one.

With 150,000 troops still deployed in the field when he left, yeah, it was relatively stable. But President Bush Signs the SOFA where he obligated the country to remove all our troops by 2012 and somehow that is President Obama's fault? Republican logic at it's finest. Ignoring the fact that it was Iraq's call, not the Presidents trusted advisers, who made the decision to block all offers for a residual force. He is guilty of supporting the PM after the Bush Bug Out, well after Maliki's intentions of excluding the Sunnis was known.

So where is Panetta wrong....specifically?

Panetta never objected to the SOFA until he needed to cover his ass with 2 years worth of hindsight.

Why would he need to cover his ass?

Because that's what politicians like him do.

 

[EconChick]

Obama's former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta states in a new book what everyone with a grain of intelligence knows.....Obama was so eager to get out of Iraq they did not negotiate in good faith to leave U.S. forces in the Country. Hence, the rise of ISIS and the terrible mess we are currently experiencing in the Middle East.

Here is a key quote.


Washington (AFP) - Former Pentagon chief Leon Panetta has denounced the White House in a new memoir, accusing President Barack Obama's top aides of undercutting efforts to secure a deal in 2011 that could have kept US troops in Iraq.

"Flournoy at the Defense Department argued our case, and those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests," he wrote.

"To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them.

"Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away," he wrote.


The deal slipped away.


A link to the full story.

Obama team wanted US out of Iraq Panetta - Yahoo News

Sorry, Welfare Queen, didn't see your thread. Great thread!

You're endorsing his position that we should impose a forced occupation on Iraq? lolol

I'm endorsing that Obama cut and ran. Got it?

 

[WelfareQueen]

Yes, it was dat BOOSH! BOOSH achieved every objective set for the US at the outset of the war, despite downright traitorous behavior in Congress. When BOOOSH left Iraq was a relatively stable democracy. That somehow translates in libspeak as failure.
Obama fucked up the SOFA, refused to exert leverage to insure troops staying, ignored advice of trusted advisors and is now reaping the results and somehow he's blameless.
The Kool Aid is thick with this one.

With 150,000 troops still deployed in the field when he left, yeah, it was relatively stable. But President Bush Signs the SOFA where he obligated the country to remove all our troops by 2012 and somehow that is President Obama's fault? Republican logic at it's finest. Ignoring the fact that it was Iraq's call, not the Presidents trusted advisers, who made the decision to block all offers for a residual force. He is guilty of supporting the PM after the Bush Bug Out, well after Maliki's intentions of excluding the Sunnis was known.

So where is Panetta wrong....specifically?

Panetta never objected to the SOFA until he needed to cover his ass with 2 years worth of hindsight.

Why would he need to cover his ass?

Because that's what politicians like him do.

Panetta is no longer a politician and no longer in public office. Obama fucked up. Panetta is obviously pissed off about how it was handled.

Nothing too difficult to understand. Obama fucked up. Rinse & Repeat.

 

[EconChick]

WQ, my thread is similar about Panetta, but I also add an article from Ambassador Chris Hill who is also saying the same thing.

So we can't have enough of these threads getting the facts out there me thinks

Esp since it's driving libs nuts, LMAO.

 

[Taz]

The US never "won" in Iraq, therefore, you can't "lose" something you never had.

Were you there? I was. Before, during, and after the surge. We handed over a relatively stable Iraq to Obama. You can play word games but intelligent people are getting the picture. Which is that Obama cut and ran and we're dealing with consequences of that now.

Hate to break the news to you, but you fought a completely useless war. Like, who cares if Iraq turns into a shithole? It already was when we invaded, and will still be after we leave. So what?

 

[WelfareQueen]

The US never "won" in Iraq, therefore, you can't "lose" something you never had.

Were you there? I was. Before, during, and after the surge. We handed over a relatively stable Iraq to Obama. You can play word games but intelligent people are getting the picture. Which is that Obama cut and ran and we're dealing with consequences of that now.

Hate to break the news to you, but you fought a completely useless war. Like, who cares if Iraq turns into a shithole? It already was when we invaded, and will still be after we leave. So what?

Yes....Iraq is a shithole. Many of the objectives Bush put forth were either simpleminded or just plain wrong.

The one thing that was correct is that the heart of global jihad is the Middle East. The U.S. will need a military presence in the Middle East until global jihad is defeated. That is the simple and direct truth.

No one likes it....me included....but that is the reality.

 

[Camp]

How many more threads on this lie?

It was BUSH who lost Iraq - long before Obama was elected.

Yes, it was dat BOOSH! BOOSH achieved every objective set for the US at the outset of the war, despite downright traitorous behavior in Congress. When BOOOSH left Iraq was a relatively stable democracy. That somehow translates in libspeak as failure.
Obama fucked up the SOFA, refused to exert leverage to insure troops staying, ignored advice of trusted advisors and is now reaping the results and somehow he's blameless.
The Kool Aid is thick with this one.

With 150,000 troops still deployed in the field when he left, yeah, it was relatively stable. But President Bush Signs the SOFA where he obligated the country to remove all our troops by 2012 and somehow that is President Obama's fault? Republican logic at it's finest. Ignoring the fact that it was Iraq's call, not the Presidents trusted advisers, who made the decision to block all offers for a residual force. He is guilty of supporting the PM after the Bush Bug Out, well after Maliki's intentions of excluding the Sunnis was known.

So where is Panetta wrong....specifically?

He is putting a spin on the story that makes him look innocent and on at the present seems like the favorable side of the issue. The alternate spin is that other advisers to the President may have pointed out that after all the blood and treasure we already spent in Iraq the Iraqi government was demanding concessions be made for us to remain and prop up their military with the potential of spending more blood and treasure in the future.

 

[WelfareQueen]

How many more threads on this lie?

It was BUSH who lost Iraq - long before Obama was elected.

Yes, it was dat BOOSH! BOOSH achieved every objective set for the US at the outset of the war, despite downright traitorous behavior in Congress. When BOOOSH left Iraq was a relatively stable democracy. That somehow translates in libspeak as failure.
Obama fucked up the SOFA, refused to exert leverage to insure troops staying, ignored advice of trusted advisors and is now reaping the results and somehow he's blameless.
The Kool Aid is thick with this one.

With 150,000 troops still deployed in the field when he left, yeah, it was relatively stable. But President Bush Signs the SOFA where he obligated the country to remove all our troops by 2012 and somehow that is President Obama's fault? Republican logic at it's finest. Ignoring the fact that it was Iraq's call, not the Presidents trusted advisers, who made the decision to block all offers for a residual force. He is guilty of supporting the PM after the Bush Bug Out, well after Maliki's intentions of excluding the Sunnis was known.

So where is Panetta wrong....specifically?

He is putting a spin on the story that makes him look innocent and on at the present seems like the favorable side of the issue. The alternate spin is that other advisers to the President may have pointed out that after all the blood and treasure we already spent in Iraq the Iraqi government was demanding concessions be made for us to remain and prop up their military with the potential of spending more blood and treasure in the future.

You may be right....but if so....than Obama is lying...because he has never made that argument. He has always positioned it as America was powerless against the decision of a little tin-horn fucker in Iraq.

I don't think any reasonable person believes that. Certainly people like Panetta and others in the know are telling a very different story than Obama. Go figure...right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama's former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta states in a new book what everyone with a grain of intelligence knows.....Obama was so eager to get out of Iraq they did not negotiate in good faith to leave U.S. forces in the Country. Hence, the rise of ISIS and the terrible mess we are currently experiencing in the Middle East.

Here is a key quote.


Washington (AFP) - Former Pentagon chief Leon Panetta has denounced the White House in a new memoir, accusing President Barack Obama's top aides of undercutting efforts to secure a deal in 2011 that could have kept US troops in Iraq.

"Flournoy at the Defense Department argued our case, and those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests," he wrote.

"To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them.

"Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away," he wrote.


The deal slipped away.


A link to the full story.

Obama team wanted US out of Iraq Panetta - Yahoo News

We should have never been there in the first place. The whole Iraq debacle is Bush's fault. It should be laid at his feet, his and his administration's, and nowhere else.

Wrong. That's been explained a million times in similar threads for months now. Try reading them.

No, what you mean is, you people defending Bush have lost that argument a million times. Try reading them.

 

[bendog]

How many more threads on this lie?

It was BUSH who lost Iraq - long before Obama was elected.

Yes, it was dat BOOSH! BOOSH achieved every objective set for the US at the outset of the war, despite downright traitorous behavior in Congress. When BOOOSH left Iraq was a relatively stable democracy. That somehow translates in libspeak as failure.
Obama fucked up the SOFA, refused to exert leverage to insure troops staying, ignored advice of trusted advisors and is now reaping the results and somehow he's blameless.
The Kool Aid is thick with this one.

With 150,000 troops still deployed in the field when he left, yeah, it was relatively stable. But President Bush Signs the SOFA where he obligated the country to remove all our troops by 2012 and somehow that is President Obama's fault? Republican logic at it's finest. Ignoring the fact that it was Iraq's call, not the Presidents trusted advisers, who made the decision to block all offers for a residual force. He is guilty of supporting the PM after the Bush Bug Out, well after Maliki's intentions of excluding the Sunnis was known.

Well, I think Panetta (and Gates) would have wanted us to retain more a presence to influence al-ah-mucky. But, imo, that's more of woulda coulda shudda. We had no influence over the man. He wasn't even the neocons' choice. He was the shiaa politician who maneuvered the various militia (including his own) to form a confederation of sorts, and won the most votes. Obama saw it, and wanted no part of it. I don't see the criticism of Obama who was the one who saw this entire debacle clearly from the very first day our troops crossed into Iraq.

Al-ah-mucky wanted the US Army gone, because so long as we were the biggest baddest boots on the ground, we could keep him from terrorizing the minorities. And, once we were gone, he then acted to marginalize the minorities of sunni and kurds in the very fragile inclusive govt, and in the end got total shiaa control of the govt. sunni and kurd maj areas eventually re-armed. And the shiaa army was totally incompetent. Of course, if we stayed, even if al-ah-mucky somehow agreed, we change nothing but propping up the shiaa army.

It's sort of 1975 all over again. Oh damn, this is not the outcome we wanted. Well, no shite. Back in 67 people were telling LBJ this was a very bad idea. Panetta and Gates were late to the game, after we'd crossed the Rubicon.

Welfare Queen wants a solution. I could say 'why the fck weren't you calling out bushii in the spring of 03?' but I won't. But, I'm not gonna wring my hands about Obama not bombing Syria back in the day. I'm not even sure why we oppose Assad. Putin is not totally nuts in thinking the US is running amuck with nuclear weapons and a huge military financed by debt. On one hand, Obama is trying to put the neocon genie back in the bottle, and on the other hand dealing with very dangerous fanatics who have spung up amidst third world, non-democratic, authoritarian and religiously intolerant places.

My first suggestion is go back to what Gore was advocating in 2002. Collaborate with countries like the UAE to build a internet education available for free, and give people laptops. Non-bs/political education in basic science/math. The Saudis manage to convey basic biology to women without offending most people.

 

[WelfareQueen]

How many more threads on this lie?

It was BUSH who lost Iraq - long before Obama was elected.

Yes, it was dat BOOSH! BOOSH achieved every objective set for the US at the outset of the war, despite downright traitorous behavior in Congress. When BOOOSH left Iraq was a relatively stable democracy. That somehow translates in libspeak as failure.
Obama fucked up the SOFA, refused to exert leverage to insure troops staying, ignored advice of trusted advisors and is now reaping the results and somehow he's blameless.
The Kool Aid is thick with this one.

With 150,000 troops still deployed in the field when he left, yeah, it was relatively stable. But President Bush Signs the SOFA where he obligated the country to remove all our troops by 2012 and somehow that is President Obama's fault? Republican logic at it's finest. Ignoring the fact that it was Iraq's call, not the Presidents trusted advisers, who made the decision to block all offers for a residual force. He is guilty of supporting the PM after the Bush Bug Out, well after Maliki's intentions of excluding the Sunnis was known.

Well, I think Panetta (and Gates) would have wanted us to retain more a presence to influence al-ah-mucky. But, imo, that's more of woulda coulda shudda. We had no influence over the man. He wasn't even the neocons' choice. He was the shiaa politician who maneuvered the various militia (including his own) to form a confederation of sorts, and won the most votes. Obama saw it, and wanted no part of it. I don't see the criticism of Obama who was the one who saw this entire debacle clearly from the very first day our troops crossed into Iraq.

Al-ah-mucky wanted the US Army gone, because so long as we were the biggest baddest boots on the ground, we could keep him from terrorizing the minorities. And, once we were gone, he then acted to marginalize the minorities of sunni and kurds in the very fragile inclusive govt, and in the end got total shiaa control of the govt. sunni and kurd maj areas eventually re-armed. And the shiaa army was totally incompetent. Of course, if we stayed, even if al-ah-mucky somehow agreed, we change nothing but propping up the shiaa army.

It's sort of 1975 all over again. Oh damn, this is not the outcome we wanted. Well, no shite. Back in 67 people were telling LBJ this was a very bad idea. Panetta and Gates were late to the game, after we'd crossed the Rubicon.

Welfare Queen wants a solution. I could say 'why the fck weren't you calling out bushii in the spring of 03?' but I won't. But, I'm not gonna wring my hands about Obama not bombing Syria back in the day. I'm not even sure why we oppose Assad. Putin is not totally nuts in thinking the US is running amuck with nuclear weapons and a huge military financed by debt. On one hand, Obama is trying to put the neocon genie back in the bottle, and on the other hand dealing with very dangerous fanatics who have spung up amidst third world, non-democratic, authoritarian and religiously intolerant places.

My first suggestion is go back to what Gore was advocating in 2002. Collaborate with countries like the UAE to build a internet education available for free, and give people laptops. Non-bs/political education in basic science/math. The Saudis manage to convey basic biology to women without offending most people.

Some of this sounds okay...but you keep avoiding the central question.

How does the U.S. stop ISIS and global jihad?

The fight will be very messy and ugly....people will die. Nobody wants it...and yet...there it is. So do you allow ISIS to overrun the Middle East? They...like Al Qaeda....how vowed to destroy the Western Democracies and kill as many infidels as possible. Do you allow that to happen?

Are you willing to defend your nation...your family....your children. To me....the choice is very clear.

 

[The Rabbi]

How many more threads on this lie?

It was BUSH who lost Iraq - long before Obama was elected.

Yes, it was dat BOOSH! BOOSH achieved every objective set for the US at the outset of the war, despite downright traitorous behavior in Congress. When BOOOSH left Iraq was a relatively stable democracy. That somehow translates in libspeak as failure.
Obama fucked up the SOFA, refused to exert leverage to insure troops staying, ignored advice of trusted advisors and is now reaping the results and somehow he's blameless.
The Kool Aid is thick with this one.

The ISIS military is being run by former high ranking officers from Saddam's regime,

part the Iraqi military that Bush disbanded early in the war.

Thats of course a gross oversimplification without support and implications that arent remotely reasonable.
But what else could anyone expect from you?