Iraq: The Obama Failure

[PoliticalChic]

Another from the windbag in the White House:

""Excessively high temperatures" are "already" harming public health nationwide, Pres. Obama declared on Nov. 1, 2013, two months before today's assault by record low temperatures."- See more at: Executive Order: 'Excessively High Temperatures' 'Already' Harming Public Health | CNS News

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Bush II fought the Iraq war terribly, I don't think anyone would argue with this.
Obama inherited a mess in Iraq, I don't think anyone would argue with this either.
IRAQ IS NOW WORSE THAN EVER...a complete fubar, along with Egypt, Afghanistan and Syria.
Who is going to argue with this?
It is one thing to inherit a problem. It is another thing if the problem is exponentially made worse by you.

 

[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

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

Show me where they demanded it

 

[rightwinger]

Bush II fought the Iraq war terribly, I don't think anyone would argue with this.
Obama inherited a mess in Iraq, I don't think anyone would argue with this either.
IRAQ IS NOW WORSE THAN EVER...a complete fubar, along with Egypt, Afghanistan and Syria.
Who is going to argue with this?
It is one thing to inherit a problem. It is another thing if the problem is exponentially made worse by you.

How many Americans want to go back in there?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Bush II fought the Iraq war terribly, I don't think anyone would argue with this.
Obama inherited a mess in Iraq, I don't think anyone would argue with this either.
IRAQ IS NOW WORSE THAN EVER...a complete fubar, along with Egypt, Afghanistan and Syria.
Who is going to argue with this?
It is one thing to inherit a problem. It is another thing if the problem is exponentially made worse by you.

How many Americans want to go back in there?

...Egypt, Afghanistan and Syria.
Oh...Pakistan too.
The Middle East is set to become the next ticking time bomb. And the only one in the vicinity with any clout is...wait for it...IRAN. Wonderful.
Al Qaeda's power and influence is growing daily. Oh...but we got Osama....Whahooo!!
This administration is AWOL on foreign policy rw'ger...managing by absence.

 

[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?

Show me where they demanded it

Why?

You don't have the ability to change your mind, oldtimer.....



OK....try:


"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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bush II fought the Iraq war terribly, I don't think anyone would argue with this.
Obama inherited a mess in Iraq, I don't think anyone would argue with this either.
IRAQ IS NOW WORSE THAN EVER...a complete fubar, along with Egypt, Afghanistan and Syria.
Who is going to argue with this?
It is one thing to inherit a problem. It is another thing if the problem is exponentially made worse by you.

How many Americans want to go back in there?

...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/wo....html?_r=3&hp&

 

[rightwinger]

Bush II fought the Iraq war terribly, I don't think anyone would argue with this.
Obama inherited a mess in Iraq, I don't think anyone would argue with this either.
IRAQ IS NOW WORSE THAN EVER...a complete fubar, along with Egypt, Afghanistan and Syria.
Who is going to argue with this?
It is one thing to inherit a problem. It is another thing if the problem is exponentially made worse by you.

How many Americans want to go back in there?

...Egypt, Afghanistan and Syria.
Oh...Pakistan too.
The Middle East is set to become the next ticking time bomb. And the only one in the vicinity with any clout is...wait for it...IRAN. Wonderful.
Al Qaeda's power and influence is growing daily. Oh...but we got Osama....Whahooo!!
This administration is AWOL on foreign policy rw'ger...managing by absence.

The region has always been a timebomb. Trying to nation build only made things worse

 

[rightwinger]

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

Show me where they demanded it

Why?

You don't have the ability to change your mind, oldtimer.....



OK....try:


"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.

All are threats.....none demand an invasion

The only one to demand an invasion was Bush
and it was Bush who pulled the trigger

 

[PoliticalChic]

Show me where they demanded it

Why?

You don't have the ability to change your mind, oldtimer.....



OK....try:


"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.

All are threats.....none demand an invasion

The only one to demand an invasion was Bush
and it was Bush who pulled the trigger

Same technique you guys used in denying "Death Panels" in ObamaCare, because the actual phrase wasn't there.

Disingenuous....but what I've come to expect.


So.....what course of action do you glean from the above?

 

[rightwinger]

Why?

You don't have the ability to change your mind, oldtimer.....



OK....try:


"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.

All are threats.....none demand an invasion

The only one to demand an invasion was Bush
and it was Bush who pulled the trigger

Same technique you guys used in denying "Death Panels" in ObamaCare, because the actual phrase wasn't there.

Disingenuous....but what I've come to expect.


So.....what course of action do you glean from the above?

Do you understand what a demand is?

Since most are from the 1998 timeframe.....they don't appear to be demands since we continued the policy of containment which worked for ten years

 

[Truthmatters]

Why?

You don't have the ability to change your mind, oldtimer.....



OK....try:


"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.

All are threats.....none demand an invasion

The only one to demand an invasion was Bush
and it was Bush who pulled the trigger

Same technique you guys used in denying "Death Panels" in ObamaCare, because the actual phrase wasn't there.

Disingenuous....but what I've come to expect.


So.....what course of action do you glean from the above?

Go get the text of the law that says what you claim?

 

[Amelia]

<snipped>

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.

He wanted to leave forces there. After he failed, he tried to spin the failure as part of his promise to remove all troops. But he wanted to leave them there. No way did he want to turn Iraq over to the radicals. Since he blew it on the diplomatic front he was just crossing his fingers that the currently unfolding disaster wouldn't happen.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All are threats.....none demand an invasion

The only one to demand an invasion was Bush
and it was Bush who pulled the trigger

Same technique you guys used in denying "Death Panels" in ObamaCare, because the actual phrase wasn't there.

Disingenuous....but what I've come to expect.


So.....what course of action do you glean from the above?

Do you understand what a demand is?

Since most are from the 1998 timeframe.....they don't appear to be demands since we continued the policy of containment which worked for ten years

I understand why you are trying to cloud the issue.....

....I believe I've placed you in the box you deserve.

 

[Truthmatters]

did the American people want to keep fighting in IRAQ?????????

 

[iamwhatiseem]

How many Americans want to go back in there?

...Egypt, Afghanistan and Syria.
Oh...Pakistan too.
The Middle East is set to become the next ticking time bomb. And the only one in the vicinity with any clout is...wait for it...IRAN. Wonderful.
Al Qaeda's power and influence is growing daily. Oh...but we got Osama....Whahooo!!
This administration is AWOL on foreign policy rw'ger...managing by absence.

The region has always been a timebomb. Trying to nation build only made things worse

It has, but not like now.
One thing is for sure - without America's leadership and influence - EVERYTHING gets worse anywhere in the globe. This administration's policy for foreign affairs is very simple - Ignore it. Do nothing. Lip service only.
The world needs America's influence. And we are not there.