Iraq: The Obama Failure

[PoliticalChic]

It's the drip-drip-drip.....one failure after another by the drip in the White House


Case in point:

1. "Al Qaeda-linked militants capture Fallujah during violent outbreak

2. ...Al Qaeda-affiliated militants captured the western city of Fallujah, and raised its flag over government buildings in the city previously secured by U.S. forces before withdrawing from the country two years later.

3. Fallujah, along with nearby provincial capital Ramadi, was a stronghold of Sunni insurgents during the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Al Qaeda militants largely took both cities over last week..."
Al Qaeda-linked militants capture Fallujah during violent outbreak | Fox News





Why did this happen?

4. With three years to negotiate with Iraq on a basis for leaving an American troop presence in Iraq to serve as a counterbalance to Iranian pressure in post war Iraq, and to protect the American diplomats and embassy there, he was unable to!

Rather than this event as one of promise-keeping, it is one more sign of the incompetence of this President.

He has no more achievements in foreign policy than in domestic.

a. "The formation will be distributed as follows: 8,000 servicemen labeled US diplomats would be attached to operations command centers housed in secret, secure quarters at the embassy in Baghdad and in US consulates in Iraqi cities, including missions yet to be opened,” states the report. “Another 7,000 troops were classified as US security officers – 4,000 for protecting “US diplomats” and 3,000 as military instructors.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/15000-us-troops-to-remain-in-iraq-renamed-diplomats.html”
(the source is the Depka File)

By way of comparison, the US has some 60,000 troops in Europe.
BBC NEWS | Americas | US troops to remain in Europe


b. "NYT: Iraq withdrawal outcome of Obama negotiating failure
....neglected to mention that his administration had spent the last several months trying to avoid the outcome he proudly proclaimed. This morning, the New York Times makes clear that neither side wanted a full withdrawal from Iraq, and that the collapse in negotiations came as a result of bungling by the White House..."
NYT: Iraq withdrawal outcome of Obama negotiating failure « Hot Air






The obvious question is was Obama unable to foresee the result of not negotiating an agreement with Iraq....

....or did he wish to see Iraq turned over to the radicals.



In answering that question, bear in mind that he is arming radicals in Syria.....


Hard to see whether his foreign policy failures are greater, or his domestic policy failures are greater.

 

[HenryBHough]

But, as a crude sorta counterbalance, He backed The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and look how well THAT turned out!!

 

[Mr Natural]

This wouldn't be happening if Saddam was left in power.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This wouldn't be happening if Saddam was left in power.

So.....you think it was a bad idea?

Those darn Democrats!!!!



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.



Did you want to say something?

 

[Mr. H.]

Next up... America: The Obama Failure.


Sent from my ass using USMessageBoard.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

Next up... America: The Obama Failure.


Sent from my ass using USMessageBoard.com

"America: The Obama Failure."

Posted that one from every direction!

The Liberals couldn't care less about fact, experience or truth.

 

[jon_berzerk]

It's the drip-drip-drip.....one failure after another by the drip in the White House


Case in point:

1. "Al Qaeda-linked militants capture Fallujah during violent outbreak

2. ...Al Qaeda-affiliated militants captured the western city of Fallujah, and raised its flag over government buildings in the city previously secured by U.S. forces before withdrawing from the country two years later.

3. Fallujah, along with nearby provincial capital Ramadi, was a stronghold of Sunni insurgents during the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Al Qaeda militants largely took both cities over last week..."
Al Qaeda-linked militants capture Fallujah during violent outbreak | Fox News





Why did this happen?

4. With three years to negotiate with Iraq on a basis for leaving an American troop presence in Iraq to serve as a counterbalance to Iranian pressure in post war Iraq, and to protect the American diplomats and embassy there, he was unable to!

Rather than this event as one of promise-keeping, it is one more sign of the incompetence of this President.

He has no more achievements in foreign policy than in domestic.

a. "The formation will be distributed as follows: 8,000 servicemen labeled US diplomats would be attached to operations command centers housed in secret, secure quarters at the embassy in Baghdad and in US consulates in Iraqi cities, including missions yet to be opened,” states the report. “Another 7,000 troops were classified as US security officers – 4,000 for protecting “US diplomats” and 3,000 as military instructors.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/15000-us-troops-to-remain-in-iraq-renamed-diplomats.html”
(the source is the Depka File)

By way of comparison, the US has some 60,000 troops in Europe.
BBC NEWS | Americas | US troops to remain in Europe


b. "NYT: Iraq withdrawal outcome of Obama negotiating failure
....neglected to mention that his administration had spent the last several months trying to avoid the outcome he proudly proclaimed. This morning, the New York Times makes clear that neither side wanted a full withdrawal from Iraq, and that the collapse in negotiations came as a result of bungling by the White House..."
NYT: Iraq withdrawal outcome of Obama negotiating failure « Hot Air






The obvious question is was Obama unable to foresee the result of not negotiating an agreement with Iraq....

....or did he wish to see Iraq turned over to the radicals.



In answering that question, bear in mind that he is arming radicals in Syria.....


Hard to see whether his foreign policy failures are greater, or his domestic policy failures are greater.

all signs point to intentional

why is the question

is he a supporter of terrorists

or

because he was dissed by the Iraqi government

 

[JakeStarkey]

The failure occurred in 2003 when Bush fired Shinseki and did not follow his recommendation to have 400,000 boots on the ground to secure the peace after military victory.

The failure occurred again in 2007 when Bush had to use 400,000 pairs of boots on the ground to re-secure military victory but did not have enough to force culture change.

At that point American will for "victory" was shattered.

When Iraq refused American's terms for the SOFR agreement, BHO correctly ended American presence in Iraq.

Neo-conservatism is the lair of the political far right reactionary she kitten, no longer a tiger because of the loss of fangs and claws.

 

[Papawx3]

It's the drip-drip-drip.....one failure after another by the drip in the White House


Case in point:

1. "Al Qaeda-linked militants capture Fallujah during violent outbreak

2. ...Al Qaeda-affiliated militants captured the western city of Fallujah, and raised its flag over government buildings in the city previously secured by U.S. forces before withdrawing from the country two years later.

3. Fallujah, along with nearby provincial capital Ramadi, was a stronghold of Sunni insurgents during the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Al Qaeda militants largely took both cities over last week..."
Al Qaeda-linked militants capture Fallujah during violent outbreak | Fox News

Well, duh....
We forced Al Quaeda out, secured the area and built it up both structurally and economically. Then, in a flash of brilliance, our "esteemed leader" announced to the world that we are pulling out all of our troops and leaving the Iraqis to once again fend for themselves. Once the pullout was complete, Al Quaeda was free to walk right back in and pick up where they left off.

I guess military strategy never was one of Obama's strong points.....

 

[Sallow]

Your arguments are really pretty juvenile and shallow PC, but then again, so is most conservative thought.

Let's get away from the fact that Iraq, unlike WWII was an illegal invasion based on lies for second and not because that's insignificant, it is..because the combatants on the other side didn't think they were wrong.

Let's look at what happened after victory in each case:

Germany:
-With one small exception, "The Werewolves", there was almost complete surrender.
-The Marshall plan was enacted where the securing of the country became paramount. Guns were confiscated. Curfews were set up. A Huge US presence was set up.
-Once the bad actors were pulled out, German government officials and civil servants were returned to their jobs, and German corporate entities were allowed to operate with basically the same people in place.
-Massive amounts of US Aid flowed into Germany for rebuilding efforts.
-The US wrote the German Constitution.

Iraq:
-There was no real surrender. Once the regular army folded it scattered.
-The US outlawed the Baathists, and did not allow government officials and civil servants to go back to work.
-The US did not collect weapons from the people of Iraq. Security was not paramount. It wasn't even an after thought. This allowed an insurgency to solidify.
-The US seized Iraqi industry and allowed foreign entities to run it.
-The US disbanded the Iraqi military.
-The US let Iraqis have a part in the Constitution and they set up Islam as the national religion.
-The US allowed the Kurdish terrorists to set up a de facto state.

Seriously..before you cut and paste..you should read.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The failure occurred in 2003 when Bush fired Shinseki and did not follow his recommendation to have 400,000 boots on the ground to secure the peace after military victory.

The failure occurred again in 2007 when Bush had to use 400,000 pairs of boots on the ground to re-secure military victory but did not have enough to force culture change.

At that point American will for "victory" was shattered.

When Iraq refused American's terms for the SOFR agreement, BHO correctly ended American presence in Iraq.

Neo-conservatism is the lair of the political far right reactionary she kitten, no longer a tiger because of the loss of fangs and claws.

Once again the Jakal returns to sit at my feet and be educated.



1. "When Iraq refused American's terms for the SOFR agreement, BHO correctly ended American presence in Iraq."

It was the NYTimes that laid the failure to work out an agreement with Iraq at the clay feet of Barack Hussein Obama (peace be on him).



2. "Neo-conservatism is....blah blah blah...."

"A neo-conservative (abbreviated as neo-con or neocon) is part of a U.S. based political movement rooted in liberal Cold War anticommunism and a backlash to the social liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s. These liberals drifted toward conservatism: thus they are new (neo) conservatives.

They favor an aggressive unilateral U.S. foreign policy. They generally believe that elites protect democracy from mob rule. Sometimes the spelling is "neoconservative." …many Jewish and Catholic intellectuals rooted in Cold War liberalism, clustered around publications such as Public Interest and Commentary…"
Neo-conservative - SourceWatch




3. Each and every day I provide the learning that you lack....but your abysmal lack of intellectual depth defeats even my Herculean efforts.

Waiting for a think tank to begin forming around you would be like waiting for a string of Jenny Craig's to open in Ethiopia

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's the drip-drip-drip.....one failure after another by the drip in the White House


Case in point:

1. "Al Qaeda-linked militants capture Fallujah during violent outbreak

2. ...Al Qaeda-affiliated militants captured the western city of Fallujah, and raised its flag over government buildings in the city previously secured by U.S. forces before withdrawing from the country two years later.

3. Fallujah, along with nearby provincial capital Ramadi, was a stronghold of Sunni insurgents during the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Al Qaeda militants largely took both cities over last week..."
Al Qaeda-linked militants capture Fallujah during violent outbreak | Fox News

Well, duh....
We forced Al Quaeda out, secured the area and built it up both structurally and economically. Then, in a flash of brilliance, our "esteemed leader" announced to the world that we are pulling out all of our troops and leaving the Iraqis to once again fend for themselves. Once the pullout was complete, Al Quaeda was free to walk right back in and pick up where they left off.

I guess military strategy never was one of Obama's strong points.....

Summed up nicely....except for the last line which might lead on to suspect that our leader has revealed any strong points.

 

[Truthmatters]

This wouldn't be happening if Saddam was left in power.

So.....you think it was a bad idea?

Those darn Democrats!!!!



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.



Did you want to say something?

You are aware those people were given Doctered intel by the Bush admin right?

Bush and team lied to all of us...even the republicans in congress at the time.


Bush LIED us into that war.


so what do you do?

blame the people he lied to ( oh wait) only the left leaning people he lied to

 

[Truthmatters]

PC your a terrible person who traffics in lies

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your arguments are really pretty juvenile and shallow PC, but then again, so is most conservative thought.

Let's get away from the fact that Iraq, unlike WWII was an illegal invasion based on lies for second and not because that's insignificant, it is..because the combatants on the other side didn't think they were wrong.

Let's look at what happened after victory in each case:

Germany:
-With one small exception, "The Werewolves", there was almost complete surrender.
-The Marshall plan was enacted where the securing of the country became paramount. Guns were confiscated. Curfews were set up. A Huge US presence was set up.
-Once the bad actors were pulled out, German government officials and civil servants were returned to their jobs, and German corporate entities were allowed to operate with basically the same people in place.
-Massive amounts of US Aid flowed into Germany for rebuilding efforts.
-The US wrote the German Constitution.

Iraq:
-There was no real surrender. Once the regular army folded it scattered.
-The US outlawed the Baathists, and did not allow government officials and civil servants to go back to work.
-The US did not collect weapons from the people of Iraq. Security was not paramount. It wasn't even an after thought. This allowed an insurgency to solidify.
-The US seized Iraqi industry and allowed foreign entities to run it.
-The US disbanded the Iraqi military.
-The US let Iraqis have a part in the Constitution and they set up Islam as the national religion.
-The US allowed the Kurdish terrorists to set up a de facto state.

Seriously..before you cut and paste..you should read.

1. Proud of you, salmonella!
This was one of your rare attempts to respond to an OP!



2. "Your arguments are really pretty juvenile and shallow PC, but then again, so is most conservative thought."

Would you like to advance that thought with the people of Falluja?

And....they aren't my arguments....they're from the New York Times....your instructor.




3. "Let's get away from the fact that Iraq, unlike WWII was an illegal invasion based on lies ..."
Are you referring to all the Democrats statements that I provided in post #4?
Are those the 'lies'?

Speak up!





4. "...the combatants on the other side didn't think they were wrong."
So....you have a list of cases where the combatants on the other side thought they were wrong?
Or are you a dunce?




5. The following for your reading pleasure....and edification:

"President Obama’s announcement on Friday that all American troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year was an occasion for celebration for many, but some top American military officials were dismayed by the announcement, seeing it as the president’s putting the best face on a breakdown in tortured negotiations with the Iraqis.

At the end of the Bush administration, when the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, was negotiated, setting 2011 as the end of the United States’ military role, officials had said the deadline was set for political reasons, to put a symbolic end to the occupation and establish Iraq’s sovereignty. But there was an understanding, a senior official here said, that a sizable American force would stay in Iraq beyond that date.

....Mr. Obama was willing to support a continued military presence. In June, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that Mr. Obama had told Mr. Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/w...cted-troops-would-have-to-leave.html?_r=3&hp&


Do you understand?

Obama couldn't do the job....pretty much the caption of his administrtion.


More from the NYTimes article, saying he was inept:

"But the repeated lesson of Iraqi politics is that putatively final agreements are always subject to revision."

A lesson the instructor from Chicago couldn't learn.


6. Now, which is the uppermost lesson.....

a. That Obama couldn't do the job he was elected to do.....

or

b. The morons who voted for him....warmed of his inadequacy....are the ones responsible for the fiasco.



Wanna try again?

 

[PoliticalChic]

This wouldn't be happening if Saddam was left in power.

So.....you think it was a bad idea?

Those darn Democrats!!!!



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.



Did you want to say something?

You are aware those people were given Doctered intel by the Bush admin right?

Bush and team lied to all of us...even the republicans in congress at the time.


Bush LIED us into that war.


so what do you do?

blame the people he lied to ( oh wait) only the left leaning people he lied to

Remember yesterday when I said that you make this too easy?

Well....you did it again.

Did you actually say
"You are aware those people were given Doctered intel by the Bush admin right?"



Don't you realize that you appear to be a mental deficient with a hate for Bush????

January 20, 2001...George Bush term in office began.


Did you check the dates of the items I provided????


"This only is denied to God: the power to undo the past."
Agathon, from Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics


But, according to you, Bush had the ability to apply his administration before his administration began?????



OK...now say 'sorry- never mind.'

 

[rightwinger]

Never should have gone into Iraq in the first place

Would have saved 5000 American lives
Tens of thousand injured
100,000 Iraqi lives


But Bush had to have his war

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC your a terrible person who traffics in lies

You mean in ' traffics in smiles,' right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Never should have gone into Iraq in the first place

Would have saved 5000 American lives
Tens of thousand injured
100,000 Iraqi lives


But Bush had to have his war

Where were you when Clinton, Kerry, Albright, Pelosi, Daschle, Berger, and Levin were demanding it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC your a terrible person who traffics in lies

Hey, girlfriend, did you see this:

"CNN: Former WH Official Acknowledges Obama's 'Maybe' Not Good at Governing
Only good at campaigning"
CNN: Former WH Official Acknowledges Obama's 'Maybe' Not Good at Governing | The Weekly Standard


How long have I been telling you that????