Iraq told us to LEAVE "their" country - PERIOD!

You mean the Iraqi army Bush spent 5+ years training at the expense of our blood and treasure!!!

Yea, that one.

Just another in the very, very long line of GOP failures. The only thing they are really good at is "fail".

Oh geeze, here we go again. I feel like the physics teacher trying to get those with intellectual disabilities to stop fidgeting.

The training was great. What you would know if you kept up with the smallest sliver of news is that we the U.S. provided the glue. We weren't just there militarily, we were mentoring them in the diplomatic realm, the political realm, the econ development realm, police, military, etc.


We were the glue, shit for brains.

When Obama pulled out, he removed the glue. Bush had been helping to guide Maliki along by mentoring him. O basically made Maliki take the training wheels off before he was ready.

Maliki regressed and made decisions that really hurt Sunnis. When the Sunnis were attacked by ISIS, Sunni soldiers and police had already given up on Maliki's leadership.

They fell apart for political reasons, not training reasons.

They fell apart because the dumb fuck you dumb fucks put into office fucked it up. IDIOTs.
Pathological liar Maliki hated the US all his life and supported Hezbollah, and Bush only made him hate America more! Maliki took the training wheels off, HIMSELF, while Bush was still "mentoring" him.

What We Left Behind - The New Yorker

A former senior C.I.A. officer, who served in Iraq during the war, told me that U.S. officials were given specific reports about the darkest aspects of Maliki’s past. But American diplomats who served in Iraq after the invasion said that they were unaware of any hard evidence that he had engaged in terrorism. “Getting a detailed sketch of Maliki was very difficult,” one told me. “All we knew was that he was not a super-duper bad guy, like some of the others.” When Maliki met with American officials, he denied being involved in terrorist attacks, and distanced himself from his patrons in Iran. “You can’t know what arrogance is until you are an Iraqi Arab forced to take refuge with the Iranians,” he told Ryan Crocker, at that time the American Ambassador to Iraq. He said that he had never learned Farsi, and used a translator whenever he met with Iranian officials. But his associate, who said that he was present at meetings with Iranians, told me, “Maliki can speak Farsi very easily.” And though Maliki insisted that Hezbollah, the Iranian-sponsored militia and political party, was an object of loathing in the Dawa Party, the associate told me that Maliki was very close to Hezbollah.

U.S. officials took many of the reports about Maliki and his associates to be rumor. At one point, Maliki and Crocker discussed a series of attacks in 1983, in which Dawa operatives in Kuwait bombed the embassies of the U.S. and France, evidently to retaliate for their support of Saddam. Maliki acknowledged that the bombers had belonged to Dawa, Crocker told me, but said that they were working exclusively for Iran. “Is that true?” Crocker said. “We decided that it was plausible enough.”

Jeffrey Beals, a former American diplomat, said that the U.S. knew Dawa had carried out attacks but didn’t think that Maliki’s potential involvement precluded his candidacy; most of the new Iraqi leaders had engaged in such activities. In the eighties, according to Crocker, the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, ran a “revolutionary consulate” in Damascus, where, under the auspices of Syrian intelligence, he issued false passports to militants active in the region. As Beals explained it, the Americans decided that waiting for an untainted partner was impractical: “A history of armed covert struggle against Saddam wasn’t a disqualifying factor.”

By the time Maliki returned to Baghdad, in April, 2003, he had come to regard the United States with profound animosity, friends and associates say. Over the years, the U.S. government had supported nearly all of his enemies—most notably Saddam—and opposed his friends, especially the revolutionary regime in Iran. “Maliki was known as an anti-American,” Dia al-Shakarchi, a Dawa activist in the eighties, said. “Even after 2003, his stance was very aggressive toward Americans.”

snip/

By the time Maliki took office, the police and the Army were overwhelmingly Shiite, packed with former militiamen bent on cleansing Baghdad of Sunni Arabs. In the summer of 2006, each morning brought new reports of sectarian atrocities. Maliki did very little to stop them, according to Matthew Sherman, the civilian adviser to the U.S. Army. “We’d go into his office, we’d tell him about a massacre that had been carried out by his men,” Sherman told me. “And Maliki would just sit there and say, ‘I’m sure they were terrorists.’ We could never get him to act against the death squads.” (Maliki says that he never received any evidence that his soldiers or police had acted improperly.)

Maliki’s rivals in Baghdad began plotting to unseat him, and he occasionally made a display of strength. In 2006, after months of pushing the Americans to turn over Saddam, he took custody of the former President and hastily ordered an execution—carried out in an ill-lit basement, by men in masks, on the first day of Eid al Adha, the Muslim holiday.

As grainy cell-phone videos of the event sparked worldwide consternation, Maliki said that he’d rushed the execution because he was worried that Baathists would try to free Saddam—though he never produced any evidence. Criticism by human-rights groups left him unapologetic: “Where were they during the mass graves and the executions and the massacres that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?” American officials were appalled, believing that the hurried execution undercut the legitimacy of the Iraqi legal process. In videos, Saddam’s executioners chanted, “Moqtada, Moqtada, Moqtada!,” a reference to Moqtada al-Sadr, the Iranian-backed guerrilla commander. Even the U.S. officials who had handed Saddam over said that the execution was a disaster for the country, both internally and abroad. “It was a lynching,” the former diplomat told me. “They basically martyred him.”

Whatever doubts remained about Maliki’s assertiveness evaporated on the night of March 22, 2008, when Maliki told General David Petraeus, the American military commander, that he had ordered the Iraqi Army into the southern city of Basra, where Sadr’s militia, the Mahdi Army, was entrenched. Sadr was an old rival; his party competed with Dawa for the loyalty of Iraq’s vast Shiite underclass, drawing power from the Mahdi Army’s reputation for protecting against attacks by Sunni extremists. Maliki loathed Sadr, whom he regarded as coarse and uneducated, and was furious when the militia took over large parts of Baghdad and southern Iraq. Still, when Maliki announced the offensive in Basra, the Americans were stunned; they had warned that preparations for such an operation would take six months. Crocker told me that they had no choice: “We had to support him.”

The operation, called the Charge of the Knights, nearly ended in disaster. The Iraqi Army was underequipped and underprepared, and its ranks started to fall apart soon after the fighting began. Maliki flew into downtown Basra, landing at an old palace, which was surrounded by Sadr’s militiamen. The mortar fire was relentless; Maliki’s chief of security, whom he had known since childhood, was killed. In Washington, Brett McGurk, a national-security aide, walked into the Oval Office and put a map of Basra in front of President Bush. The map showed Sadr’s forces everywhere. “Maliki was this little red dot in the middle,” McGurk recalled. Bush, unfazed, said, “Make sure he wins.”

As the fighting raged, Crocker and Petraeus telephoned Maliki. “We could hear the mortar fire landing all around him,” Crocker said. “We suggested to the Prime Minister that he’d made his point, that perhaps it was time to declare victory and come home.” Maliki rebuffed them. “The Americans didn’t like the whole situation,” he told me. “I told them, ‘This is not your job. This is my job.’ I told them I would stay until we saw the battle to the end.”
 
Last edited:
I just can't believe how you left wingers can just keep on blatantly lying. Here's the NYT.

Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq’s foreign minister, last year floated the idea that armed American-operated Predator or Reaper drones might be used to respond to the expanding militant network in Iraq. American officials dismissed that suggestion at the time, saying that the request had not come from Mr. Maliki.

By March, however, American experts who visited Baghdad were being told that Iraq’s top leaders were hoping that American air power could be used to strike the militants’ staging and training areas inside Iraq, and help Iraq’s beleaguered forces stop them from crossing into Iraq from Syria.

“Iraqi officials at the highest level said they had requested manned and unmanned U.S. airstrikes this year against ISIS camps in the Jazira desert,” said Kenneth M. Pollack, a former C.I.A. analyst and National Security Council official, who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and who visited Baghdad in early March. ISIS is the acronym for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, as the militant group is known.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/w...rstrikes-on-militants-officials-say.html?_r=0


You certainly have trouble seeing things in context:

Iraq’s foreign minister has floated the idea of having American-operated, armed Predator or Reaper drones respond to the expanding militant network. But Mr. Maliki, who is positioning himself to run for a third term as prime minister and who is sensitive to nationalist sentiment at home, has not formally requested such intervention.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/26/w...-iraq-fight-with-extremists.html?pagewanted=2




You like the JohnBombBombBombMcCain solution to everything but you are blind to the reality that McCain has been wrong on Iraq before and is just as wrong on Iraq now.


This goes back to the battle for the White House between McCain and Obama. There's a point here that you Obama bashers refuse to see.


Update: The Obama campaign responded. Spokesman Bill Burton said: “On the day after the former White House press secretary conceded that the Bush administration used deception and propaganda to take us to war, it seems odd that Senator McCain, who bought the flawed rationale for war so readily, would be lecturing others on their depth of understanding about Iraq.

“Senator Obama challenged the president’s rationale for the war from the start, warning that it would divert resources from Afghanistan and the pursuit of Al Qaeda and mire us in an endless civil war. Senator McCain stubbornly insists on pursuing the failed Bush policy that continues to cost so much, while Senator Obama believes it’s time to begin a deliberate, careful strategy to remove our troops and compel the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/mccain-raps-obama-again-on-iraq-preconditions/


I'll repeat it three times. Perhaps it will sink in:


Senator Obama believes it’s time to begin a deliberate, careful strategy to remove our troops and compel the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future


Senator Obama believes it’s time to begin a deliberate, careful strategy to remove our troops and compel the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future


Senator Obama believes it’s time to begin a deliberate, careful strategy to remove our troops and compel the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future



McCain wants US troops to do the fighting for the Iraqis. That is wrong.


Pay attention to what Obama says not filtered through a journalist like Michael Gordon of the NYTimes.


U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and JUDITH MILLER Published: September 8, 2002


Why Gordon still works there is beyond me?
 
Just a flat out MessiahRushie lie.

If that isn't a lie you will have no trouble posting a link to Maliki's formal request for air strikes dated 2013. Bush puppet Maliki owns the bloody mess in HIS country.

So according to you, Obama is lying here.
Obama, Romney Clash Over Status of Forces Agreeme…: [ame=http://youtu.be/wSTnaSqP-KE]Obama, Romney Clash Over Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq - YouTube[/ame]

I forgot just how rude the liar Bishop Willard was in the debates, constantly cutting off Obama every time he tried to speak, just like the video rudely cuts off Obama's answer to Willard's last interruption.

I notice you chose to deflect rather than post the formal request from Maliki, the only person who could make such a request, for air strikes in 2013.
Why am I not surprised?

Always an excuse for your liar in chief. You pitiful corrupt pathetic loser. The stammering and the embarrassment on Obama's face says it all.
 
Last edited:
Reason number 17 for going into Iraq was to give them their sovereignty. Guess what? The sovereign nation of Iraq said "thanks, now go".
What a frigging mess we got ourselves into. The Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds all hate each other. ICIS stands ready to turn the whole country into an Islamic Republic. The fight over who's going to run the country is creating a leadership vacuum. The poorly trained, inexperienced Iraqi army is getting the shit kicked out of them by ICIS, and the variously leaders can't agree on whether they want us in the country or not.
 
What a frigging mess we got ourselves into.


What Mess are we into? I'd wager that America's finest in the F18's are not in a mess when they drop a 500 pounder on an ISIS scum's head.

The mess is on the ground. Obama is right. The US can assist ground forces, but Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites have to take care of what is needed on the ground.

The Iraqi military and Peshmerga are coordinating efforts. to retake a third town from the terrorists.

Peshmerga to Attack Strategic Town of Jalawla

11.08.2014

Kurdish Peshmerga withdrew from the strategic town of Jalawla in Diyala Province in Northeast of Baghdad on Sunday night after heavy clashes with Islamic State (IS), Iraqi Military planes bombed IS positions.

A source from Peshmerga forces in the town told BasNews that Peshmerga reinforcement has been sent to close to the town and they are waiting for the Iraqi military planes to shell the town and IS militant positions in the town.

“After the Peshmerga withdrawal in Jalawla, they began re-organizing themselves on the outskirts of the town in order to attack IS militants,” said the Peshmerga source.

According to Reuters, on Sunday night a suicide bomber killed 10 Kurdish Peshmerga and wounded 80 people in Jalawla and the attack came during violent clashes between Kurdish forces and Islamic State insurgents.

These attacks from IS militants in Jalawla come after Kurdish forces were able to retake Makhmur and Gwer towns about 80 km from Kurdistan capital Erbil.

Peshmerga to Attack Strategic Town of Jalawla | BAS NEWS
 
Poor rdean.

When his hero is caught fucking up, he has to think up a lie to defend him. That has kept him running around in circles for the last 6 years.

No, U.S. Troops Didn't Have to Leave Iraq | National Review Online

You're quoting National Review, the place that did more saber-rattling than anyone else.

Fact is, the Iraqis wanted us out and we wanted to get out.

But I think we should make up a special brigade of patriots to go over and save the Devil-Worshiping Yazidis. Bill Kyrstol can be their colonel and they can roll Charles Krauthammer down the street to set off any IED's.
 
Yea, that one.

Just another in the very, very long line of GOP failures. The only thing they are really good at is "fail".

Oh geeze, here we go again. I feel like the physics teacher trying to get those with intellectual disabilities to stop fidgeting.

The training was great. What you would know if you kept up with the smallest sliver of news is that we the U.S. provided the glue. We weren't just there militarily, we were mentoring them in the diplomatic realm, the political realm, the econ development realm, police, military, etc.


We were the glue, shit for brains.

When Obama pulled out, he removed the glue. Bush had been helping to guide Maliki along by mentoring him. O basically made Maliki take the training wheels off before he was ready.

Maliki regressed and made decisions that really hurt Sunnis. When the Sunnis were attacked by ISIS, Sunni soldiers and police had already given up on Maliki's leadership.

They fell apart for political reasons, not training reasons.

They fell apart because the dumb fuck you dumb fucks put into office fucked it up. IDIOTs.

So, using the same incredible logical template that you've already shown us earlier, there are three people that could be to blame for the situation in Iraq;

-Bush, for picking an inept protege,
-Maliki, for his ineptitude,
-Obama, for leaving Iraq.

Do you think it might be a combination of these?
Maybe it's not as black and white as you're painting it.
Why can't you understand that sometimes there is more than one factor at play?
Why have you leapt to one conclusion when there could be multiple reasons?

God, you libs are too fucking easy. No wonder YOU, YOUR PARTY, and YOUR IDIOT LEADER are crashing and burning.

ANY objective person with a pulse would tell you that you can't both say that:

X was there.
X was never there in the first place.

What dumb fucks. Next you'll tell me idb can be physically present at his house and at my house at the same time. Which he can't. But I'm sure you'll try. You'll try by spin. You'll start to divert like you always do. You'll say he can be on TV and do both. And I'll say, no dumbasses I just made it clear I said physically present........and you'll still argue....then 40 pages later libtards will finally concede....or 100s of pages later.
 
obama pissed away gains bought over many years with the blood and sweat of our best people, and now some of the results are beginning to show. All for the expectation of a mere moment's political boost for him personally. Par for the course with this irresponsible, unqualified, narcissistic fool.
 
Then, feel free to answer it.
Since you're unable to respond to me, try bringing your self-acclaimed laser-like logic to bear on LM's question.


AGAIN. I answered it in 184 idiot.

How many times do I have to tell you I answered it clod?

What...this?
LOL. No evidence? You need to go back and read what I said.

If you can't read between the lines, I'm not going to spoon feed you. All I've done is pointed out you can't know things conclusively about that phase.

So enough of the diversion, time to get back on topic.

What we DO know is how much Obama has screwed up Iraq.

Can you highlight the specific answer to his question please?

Yeah, I figured that would be too sophisticated for you to grasp.

You and maddow's question shows yet again the stupidity of you libs.

It presupposes you would be told everything a president knows.

Which we all know YOU dumbshits don't.

So, does Obama give you a data dump every morning, dumbass?

Do you know everything the president is told??

Does he give you all his evidence for his actions???

I'm waiting for the answer idiots.

Waiting.....


Crickets..........

Yo! I'm waiting............

We all know the answer is NO but how much you wanna bet you tards won't admit it's no.

I'm waiting..........

Sorry, had enough of your diversions form the real topic.

Your boy fucked up. Crashing and burning. Look at the polls. Dem base is pissed.
 
obama pissed away gains bought over many years with the blood and sweat of our best people, and now some of the results are beginning to show. All for the expectation of a mere moment's political boost for him personally. Par for the course with this irresponsible, unqualified, narcissistic fool.

Yes, thank you for quoting what's obvious to the whole world.

And thanks for mentioning the blood and sweat of our best people and many from other nations as well.
 
Yea, that one.

Just another in the very, very long line of GOP failures. The only thing they are really good at is "fail".

Oh geeze, here we go again. I feel like the physics teacher trying to get those with intellectual disabilities to stop fidgeting.

The training was great. What you would know if you kept up with the smallest sliver of news is that we the U.S. provided the glue. We weren't just there militarily, we were mentoring them in the diplomatic realm, the political realm, the econ development realm, police, military, etc.


We were the glue, shit for brains.

When Obama pulled out, he removed the glue. Bush had been helping to guide Maliki along by mentoring him. O basically made Maliki take the training wheels off before he was ready.

Maliki regressed and made decisions that really hurt Sunnis. When the Sunnis were attacked by ISIS, Sunni soldiers and police had already given up on Maliki's leadership.

They fell apart for political reasons, not training reasons.

They fell apart because the dumb fuck you dumb fucks put into office fucked it up. IDIOTs.
Pathological liar Maliki hated the US all his life and supported Hezbollah, and Bush only made him hate America more! Maliki took the training wheels off, HIMSELF, while Bush was still "mentoring" him.

What We Left Behind - The New Yorker

A former senior C.I.A. officer, who served in Iraq during the war, told me that U.S. officials were given specific reports about the darkest aspects of Maliki’s past. But American diplomats who served in Iraq after the invasion said that they were unaware of any hard evidence that he had engaged in terrorism. “Getting a detailed sketch of Maliki was very difficult,” one told me. “All we knew was that he was not a super-duper bad guy, like some of the others.” When Maliki met with American officials, he denied being involved in terrorist attacks, and distanced himself from his patrons in Iran. “You can’t know what arrogance is until you are an Iraqi Arab forced to take refuge with the Iranians,” he told Ryan Crocker, at that time the American Ambassador to Iraq. He said that he had never learned Farsi, and used a translator whenever he met with Iranian officials. But his associate, who said that he was present at meetings with Iranians, told me, “Maliki can speak Farsi very easily.” And though Maliki insisted that Hezbollah, the Iranian-sponsored militia and political party, was an object of loathing in the Dawa Party, the associate told me that Maliki was very close to Hezbollah.

U.S. officials took many of the reports about Maliki and his associates to be rumor. At one point, Maliki and Crocker discussed a series of attacks in 1983, in which Dawa operatives in Kuwait bombed the embassies of the U.S. and France, evidently to retaliate for their support of Saddam. Maliki acknowledged that the bombers had belonged to Dawa, Crocker told me, but said that they were working exclusively for Iran. “Is that true?” Crocker said. “We decided that it was plausible enough.”

Jeffrey Beals, a former American diplomat, said that the U.S. knew Dawa had carried out attacks but didn’t think that Maliki’s potential involvement precluded his candidacy; most of the new Iraqi leaders had engaged in such activities. In the eighties, according to Crocker, the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, ran a “revolutionary consulate” in Damascus, where, under the auspices of Syrian intelligence, he issued false passports to militants active in the region. As Beals explained it, the Americans decided that waiting for an untainted partner was impractical: “A history of armed covert struggle against Saddam wasn’t a disqualifying factor.”

By the time Maliki returned to Baghdad, in April, 2003, he had come to regard the United States with profound animosity, friends and associates say. Over the years, the U.S. government had supported nearly all of his enemies—most notably Saddam—and opposed his friends, especially the revolutionary regime in Iran. “Maliki was known as an anti-American,” Dia al-Shakarchi, a Dawa activist in the eighties, said. “Even after 2003, his stance was very aggressive toward Americans.”

snip/

By the time Maliki took office, the police and the Army were overwhelmingly Shiite, packed with former militiamen bent on cleansing Baghdad of Sunni Arabs. In the summer of 2006, each morning brought new reports of sectarian atrocities. Maliki did very little to stop them, according to Matthew Sherman, the civilian adviser to the U.S. Army. “We’d go into his office, we’d tell him about a massacre that had been carried out by his men,” Sherman told me. “And Maliki would just sit there and say, ‘I’m sure they were terrorists.’ We could never get him to act against the death squads.” (Maliki says that he never received any evidence that his soldiers or police had acted improperly.)

Maliki’s rivals in Baghdad began plotting to unseat him, and he occasionally made a display of strength. In 2006, after months of pushing the Americans to turn over Saddam, he took custody of the former President and hastily ordered an execution—carried out in an ill-lit basement, by men in masks, on the first day of Eid al Adha, the Muslim holiday.

As grainy cell-phone videos of the event sparked worldwide consternation, Maliki said that he’d rushed the execution because he was worried that Baathists would try to free Saddam—though he never produced any evidence. Criticism by human-rights groups left him unapologetic: “Where were they during the mass graves and the executions and the massacres that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?” American officials were appalled, believing that the hurried execution undercut the legitimacy of the Iraqi legal process. In videos, Saddam’s executioners chanted, “Moqtada, Moqtada, Moqtada!,” a reference to Moqtada al-Sadr, the Iranian-backed guerrilla commander. Even the U.S. officials who had handed Saddam over said that the execution was a disaster for the country, both internally and abroad. “It was a lynching,” the former diplomat told me. “They basically martyred him.”

Whatever doubts remained about Maliki’s assertiveness evaporated on the night of March 22, 2008, when Maliki told General David Petraeus, the American military commander, that he had ordered the Iraqi Army into the southern city of Basra, where Sadr’s militia, the Mahdi Army, was entrenched. Sadr was an old rival; his party competed with Dawa for the loyalty of Iraq’s vast Shiite underclass, drawing power from the Mahdi Army’s reputation for protecting against attacks by Sunni extremists. Maliki loathed Sadr, whom he regarded as coarse and uneducated, and was furious when the militia took over large parts of Baghdad and southern Iraq. Still, when Maliki announced the offensive in Basra, the Americans were stunned; they had warned that preparations for such an operation would take six months. Crocker told me that they had no choice: “We had to support him.”

The operation, called the Charge of the Knights, nearly ended in disaster. The Iraqi Army was underequipped and underprepared, and its ranks started to fall apart soon after the fighting began. Maliki flew into downtown Basra, landing at an old palace, which was surrounded by Sadr’s militiamen. The mortar fire was relentless; Maliki’s chief of security, whom he had known since childhood, was killed. In Washington, Brett McGurk, a national-security aide, walked into the Oval Office and put a map of Basra in front of President Bush. The map showed Sadr’s forces everywhere. “Maliki was this little red dot in the middle,” McGurk recalled. Bush, unfazed, said, “Make sure he wins.”

As the fighting raged, Crocker and Petraeus telephoned Maliki. “We could hear the mortar fire landing all around him,” Crocker said. “We suggested to the Prime Minister that he’d made his point, that perhaps it was time to declare victory and come home.” Maliki rebuffed them. “The Americans didn’t like the whole situation,” he told me. “I told them, ‘This is not your job. This is my job.’ I told them I would stay until we saw the battle to the end.”

LMFAO. Nice try idiots.

No wonder there will always be 10-20% of you that will remain in the dark.

You call that analysis? Jesus, I'm not even going to waste my time explaining that one.

Just let the POLLS explain it to you. People with IQs of 40 are getting it now....
 
Not the smartest choice then?

LMAO. You're not very smart, are you?

The complexity of the situation and you think that post magically explains it to your small brain? You think that's the only "take" on that event? Hint. It's not dumb ass. Did you graduate from HS?
 
How many times on these threads have USMB right wingers said "Obama's decision to leave blah blah blah......"?

How many times have we posted links with Maliki telling us keeping troops in Iraq was NOT an option????

What is it that Right wingers don't get?

We couldn't stay.

That was the agreement.

And why couldn't we agree to stay? Because Maliki wanted US troops under Iraqi law. US troops could be prosecuted on a whim. That would never happen. Think about the disaster that would cause our soldiers.

They wouldn't back down because they wanted us gone.

Iraq wanted us gone.

Iraq didn't want us there.

We couldn't stay past the agreement they made with Bush.

Is this so hard to understand? Seriously?

I bet Maliki feels like a fool now.
 
Poor rdean.

When his hero is caught fucking up, he has to think up a lie to defend him. That has kept him running around in circles for the last 6 years.

No, U.S. Troops Didn't Have to Leave Iraq | National Review Online

You're quoting National Review, the place that did more saber-rattling than anyone else.

Fact is, the Iraqis wanted us out and we wanted to get out.

But I think we should make up a special brigade of patriots to go over and save the Devil-Worshiping Yazidis. Bill Kyrstol can be their colonel and they can roll Charles Krauthammer down the street to set off any IED's.

Is that what they called and said to Obama last week? Another simpleton BUSTED.
 
Told you liberals stand for nothing. There is actual genocide happening. Actual genocide.

Liberals do not care.

The only thing we know for sure, is they hate America.

Has any liberal started a thread showing their disgust over the Christians being systematically killed?

No, not one liberal has posted a thing.

Why?

Cause they are hypocrites who pretend to care for tortured, down trodden, poor people. They could not possibly care less.

Never think for one moment folks that they are anti-war. I also think they think terrorism started during the GW administration. I wouldn't have thought they could possibly be that dumb. However, hypocritical left wing hacks like Rdean makes me reconsider. Perhaps there is no word in the English language that describe how pathetic liberals are.

Bottom line folks. Do not think for one second that these left wing morons are anti-war, or anti-torture, etc. No, they simply hate America. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Until one of them actually start a thread that voices concerns over how America's enemies carry out torture and it is those countries that violate every "law" of the Geneva convention, then everything I say is 100% true.

Do not get sucked into these hypocrites' hypocritical disposition on every issue. They are sacks of shit.
 
Last edited:
Oh geeze, here we go again. I feel like the physics teacher trying to get those with intellectual disabilities to stop fidgeting.

The training was great. What you would know if you kept up with the smallest sliver of news is that we the U.S. provided the glue. We weren't just there militarily, we were mentoring them in the diplomatic realm, the political realm, the econ development realm, police, military, etc.


We were the glue, shit for brains.

When Obama pulled out, he removed the glue. Bush had been helping to guide Maliki along by mentoring him. O basically made Maliki take the training wheels off before he was ready.

Maliki regressed and made decisions that really hurt Sunnis. When the Sunnis were attacked by ISIS, Sunni soldiers and police had already given up on Maliki's leadership.

They fell apart for political reasons, not training reasons.

They fell apart because the dumb fuck you dumb fucks put into office fucked it up. IDIOTs.

So, using the same incredible logical template that you've already shown us earlier, there are three people that could be to blame for the situation in Iraq;

-Bush, for picking an inept protege,
-Maliki, for his ineptitude,
-Obama, for leaving Iraq.

Do you think it might be a combination of these?
Maybe it's not as black and white as you're painting it.
Why can't you understand that sometimes there is more than one factor at play?
Why have you leapt to one conclusion when there could be multiple reasons?

God, you libs are too fucking easy. No wonder YOU, YOUR PARTY, and YOUR IDIOT LEADER are crashing and burning.

ANY objective person with a pulse would tell you that you can't both say that:

X was there.
X was never there in the first place.

What dumb fucks. Next you'll tell me idb can be physically present at his house and at my house at the same time. Which he can't. But I'm sure you'll try. You'll try by spin. You'll start to divert like you always do. You'll say he can be on TV and do both. And I'll say, no dumbasses I just made it clear I said physically present........and you'll still argue....then 40 pages later libtards will finally concede....or 100s of pages later.

Now you're having an argument with yourself!
How does your post relate to mine at all?
I'm guessing you'll still lose the argument.

Good grief, what a fool.
 
So, using the same incredible logical template that you've already shown us earlier, there are three people that could be to blame for the situation in Iraq;

-Bush, for picking an inept protege,
-Maliki, for his ineptitude,
-Obama, for leaving Iraq.

Do you think it might be a combination of these?
Maybe it's not as black and white as you're painting it.
Why can't you understand that sometimes there is more than one factor at play?
Why have you leapt to one conclusion when there could be multiple reasons?

God, you libs are too fucking easy. No wonder YOU, YOUR PARTY, and YOUR IDIOT LEADER are crashing and burning.

ANY objective person with a pulse would tell you that you can't both say that:

X was there.
X was never there in the first place.

What dumb fucks. Next you'll tell me idb can be physically present at his house and at my house at the same time. Which he can't. But I'm sure you'll try. You'll try by spin. You'll start to divert like you always do. You'll say he can be on TV and do both. And I'll say, no dumbasses I just made it clear I said physically present........and you'll still argue....then 40 pages later libtards will finally concede....or 100s of pages later.

Now you're having an argument with yourself!
How does your post relate to mine at all?
I'm guessing you'll still lose the argument.

Good grief, what a fool.

What an idiot.

That's what they do in Logic 101.

That's how I know you've never had a logic class. That and you get TROUNCED on the ability to argue logically.

Really dude, if you haven't graduated from high school yet, you really should go post in the general section and stay out of complicated sections like politics.
 
AGAIN. I answered it in 184 idiot.

How many times do I have to tell you I answered it clod?

What...this?
LOL. No evidence? You need to go back and read what I said.

If you can't read between the lines, I'm not going to spoon feed you. All I've done is pointed out you can't know things conclusively about that phase.

So enough of the diversion, time to get back on topic.

What we DO know is how much Obama has screwed up Iraq.

Can you highlight the specific answer to his question please?

Yeah, I figured that would be too sophisticated for you to grasp.

You and maddow's question shows yet again the stupidity of you libs.

It presupposes you would be told everything a president knows.

Which we all know YOU dumbshits don't.

So, does Obama give you a data dump every morning, dumbass?

Do you know everything the president is told??

Does he give you all his evidence for his actions???

I'm waiting for the answer idiots.

Waiting.....


Crickets..........

Yo! I'm waiting............

We all know the answer is NO but how much you wanna bet you tards won't admit it's no.

I'm waiting..........

Sorry, had enough of your diversions form the real topic.

Your boy fucked up. Crashing and burning. Look at the polls. Dem base is pissed.

So, can I assume from this post that you are actually getting the 'information dump' from the president that the libruls aren't.

That must be what makes your opinions so much more informed than everyone else's.
 
Oh geeze, here we go again. I feel like the physics teacher trying to get those with intellectual disabilities to stop fidgeting.

The training was great. What you would know if you kept up with the smallest sliver of news is that we the U.S. provided the glue. We weren't just there militarily, we were mentoring them in the diplomatic realm, the political realm, the econ development realm, police, military, etc.


We were the glue, shit for brains.

When Obama pulled out, he removed the glue. Bush had been helping to guide Maliki along by mentoring him. O basically made Maliki take the training wheels off before he was ready.

Maliki regressed and made decisions that really hurt Sunnis. When the Sunnis were attacked by ISIS, Sunni soldiers and police had already given up on Maliki's leadership.

They fell apart for political reasons, not training reasons.

They fell apart because the dumb fuck you dumb fucks put into office fucked it up. IDIOTs.
Pathological liar Maliki hated the US all his life and supported Hezbollah, and Bush only made him hate America more! Maliki took the training wheels off, HIMSELF, while Bush was still "mentoring" him.

What We Left Behind - The New Yorker

A former senior C.I.A. officer, who served in Iraq during the war, told me that U.S. officials were given specific reports about the darkest aspects of Maliki’s past. But American diplomats who served in Iraq after the invasion said that they were unaware of any hard evidence that he had engaged in terrorism. “Getting a detailed sketch of Maliki was very difficult,” one told me. “All we knew was that he was not a super-duper bad guy, like some of the others.” When Maliki met with American officials, he denied being involved in terrorist attacks, and distanced himself from his patrons in Iran. “You can’t know what arrogance is until you are an Iraqi Arab forced to take refuge with the Iranians,” he told Ryan Crocker, at that time the American Ambassador to Iraq. He said that he had never learned Farsi, and used a translator whenever he met with Iranian officials. But his associate, who said that he was present at meetings with Iranians, told me, “Maliki can speak Farsi very easily.” And though Maliki insisted that Hezbollah, the Iranian-sponsored militia and political party, was an object of loathing in the Dawa Party, the associate told me that Maliki was very close to Hezbollah.

U.S. officials took many of the reports about Maliki and his associates to be rumor. At one point, Maliki and Crocker discussed a series of attacks in 1983, in which Dawa operatives in Kuwait bombed the embassies of the U.S. and France, evidently to retaliate for their support of Saddam. Maliki acknowledged that the bombers had belonged to Dawa, Crocker told me, but said that they were working exclusively for Iran. “Is that true?” Crocker said. “We decided that it was plausible enough.”

Jeffrey Beals, a former American diplomat, said that the U.S. knew Dawa had carried out attacks but didn’t think that Maliki’s potential involvement precluded his candidacy; most of the new Iraqi leaders had engaged in such activities. In the eighties, according to Crocker, the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, ran a “revolutionary consulate” in Damascus, where, under the auspices of Syrian intelligence, he issued false passports to militants active in the region. As Beals explained it, the Americans decided that waiting for an untainted partner was impractical: “A history of armed covert struggle against Saddam wasn’t a disqualifying factor.”

By the time Maliki returned to Baghdad, in April, 2003, he had come to regard the United States with profound animosity, friends and associates say. Over the years, the U.S. government had supported nearly all of his enemies—most notably Saddam—and opposed his friends, especially the revolutionary regime in Iran. “Maliki was known as an anti-American,” Dia al-Shakarchi, a Dawa activist in the eighties, said. “Even after 2003, his stance was very aggressive toward Americans.”

snip/

By the time Maliki took office, the police and the Army were overwhelmingly Shiite, packed with former militiamen bent on cleansing Baghdad of Sunni Arabs. In the summer of 2006, each morning brought new reports of sectarian atrocities. Maliki did very little to stop them, according to Matthew Sherman, the civilian adviser to the U.S. Army. “We’d go into his office, we’d tell him about a massacre that had been carried out by his men,” Sherman told me. “And Maliki would just sit there and say, ‘I’m sure they were terrorists.’ We could never get him to act against the death squads.” (Maliki says that he never received any evidence that his soldiers or police had acted improperly.)

Maliki’s rivals in Baghdad began plotting to unseat him, and he occasionally made a display of strength. In 2006, after months of pushing the Americans to turn over Saddam, he took custody of the former President and hastily ordered an execution—carried out in an ill-lit basement, by men in masks, on the first day of Eid al Adha, the Muslim holiday.

As grainy cell-phone videos of the event sparked worldwide consternation, Maliki said that he’d rushed the execution because he was worried that Baathists would try to free Saddam—though he never produced any evidence. Criticism by human-rights groups left him unapologetic: “Where were they during the mass graves and the executions and the massacres that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?” American officials were appalled, believing that the hurried execution undercut the legitimacy of the Iraqi legal process. In videos, Saddam’s executioners chanted, “Moqtada, Moqtada, Moqtada!,” a reference to Moqtada al-Sadr, the Iranian-backed guerrilla commander. Even the U.S. officials who had handed Saddam over said that the execution was a disaster for the country, both internally and abroad. “It was a lynching,” the former diplomat told me. “They basically martyred him.”

Whatever doubts remained about Maliki’s assertiveness evaporated on the night of March 22, 2008, when Maliki told General David Petraeus, the American military commander, that he had ordered the Iraqi Army into the southern city of Basra, where Sadr’s militia, the Mahdi Army, was entrenched. Sadr was an old rival; his party competed with Dawa for the loyalty of Iraq’s vast Shiite underclass, drawing power from the Mahdi Army’s reputation for protecting against attacks by Sunni extremists. Maliki loathed Sadr, whom he regarded as coarse and uneducated, and was furious when the militia took over large parts of Baghdad and southern Iraq. Still, when Maliki announced the offensive in Basra, the Americans were stunned; they had warned that preparations for such an operation would take six months. Crocker told me that they had no choice: “We had to support him.”

The operation, called the Charge of the Knights, nearly ended in disaster. The Iraqi Army was underequipped and underprepared, and its ranks started to fall apart soon after the fighting began. Maliki flew into downtown Basra, landing at an old palace, which was surrounded by Sadr’s militiamen. The mortar fire was relentless; Maliki’s chief of security, whom he had known since childhood, was killed. In Washington, Brett McGurk, a national-security aide, walked into the Oval Office and put a map of Basra in front of President Bush. The map showed Sadr’s forces everywhere. “Maliki was this little red dot in the middle,” McGurk recalled. Bush, unfazed, said, “Make sure he wins.”

As the fighting raged, Crocker and Petraeus telephoned Maliki. “We could hear the mortar fire landing all around him,” Crocker said. “We suggested to the Prime Minister that he’d made his point, that perhaps it was time to declare victory and come home.” Maliki rebuffed them. “The Americans didn’t like the whole situation,” he told me. “I told them, ‘This is not your job. This is my job.’ I told them I would stay until we saw the battle to the end.”

LMFAO. Nice try idiots.

No wonder there will always be 10-20% of you that will remain in the dark.

You call that analysis? Jesus, I'm not even going to waste my time explaining that one.

Just let the POLLS explain it to you. People with IQs of 40 are getting it now....

So now your view is formed by polls?
 

Forum List

Back
Top