Isis: In Iraq Because Of Obama

[Dot Com]

Time to withdraw from the Middle East and come home. Our constant meddling has made things much worse over there. Most Americans i know could care less about Sunni, Shiite, Alwite , or whatever. We don't belong there. Time to come home. Period, end of story.

Except that Repub politicians primary cash cow is the def dept contractors. They have to whip up a war every 5-10 years.

 

[dilloduck]

Time to withdraw from the Middle East and come home. Our constant meddling has made things much worse over there. Most Americans i know could care less about Sunni, Shiite, Alwite , or whatever. We don't belong there. Time to come home. Period, end of story.

Except that Repub politicians primary cash cow is the def dept contractors. They have to whip up a war every 5-10 years.

Why is Obama helping the neocons ?

 

[Freewill]

Good thing OP placed this thread in the Rubber Room from the start OH!!! WAIT!!! Nevermind

All of these sorts of threads should be consolidated into one entitled 'Everything bad is Obama's fault'.

And the majority of responses should fall under:

Bush's fault

Obama is impotent

Obama didn't know until he read it in the paper

Iraq made us leave no deal could have been made

It's someone else's fault

 

[Wry Catcher]

Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.

You can decide if the reason was to support ISIS or some other reason....

But he could have avoided these barbarians taking over....
Your 'logical' appeal to authority is noted, bets are that other 'authorities' have opinions which disagree and contradict your authority.

No one is prescient, not even you. Though in your head, as in the head of most narcissists, you believe you are.



Who says so?

General Barbero, on CNN yesterday:


"BLITZER: The president's military plan to dismantle and ultimately destroy the terror group, ISIS, involves sending, at least for now, another 475 U.S. military advisors to Iraq, launching air strikes in Iraq and Syria, arming and training moderate Syrian rebels. Let's discuss. Joining me, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Barbaro. General, thanks very much for coming in.

LT. GEN. MICHAEL BARBERO, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: I want to get to that. But you were there. You were on active duty in Iraq, 2010, 2011 when they were trying to negotiate that Status of Forces -

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: -- Agreement that would have left a residual force, 5,000 or 10,000 U.S. troops, but you couldn't get immunity from Nuri al Maliki's government. Take us behind the scenes, clarify, who's right, John McCain or Jay Carney, in this debate.

BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, and took it to all the Iraqi leaders, Maliki, the other Shia leaders, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and said here is going to be the status of your security forces, what they cannot do, what they will be able to do, when we're schedule to leave. And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay. And my response was, you must make it easy for us. So I think Maliki did not make it easy for us and we did not try hard enough. So it's a -- both views. I think it could have been done though.

BLITZER: Because the U.S. -- the Pentagon position was, 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops staying -

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: For an indefinite amount of time.

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: But you wanted immunity from prosecution as part of the status of forces agreement. What happened then because the White House says Nuri al Maliki wouldn't give that immunity to any residual U.S. force.

BARBERO: I think we could have worked it and kept it from going through the parliament. I think we could have - we have immunity today, it didn't go through the parliament. So I think it could have been worked if we had tried harder.

BLITZER: You don't think the administration tried hard enough to get it?

BARBERO: I don't think so.

BLITZER: That's the McCain position, that could have been done but the White House didn't want it to be done. They wanted all U.S. troops.

BARBERO: I don't think we tried hard enough.

BLITZER: You think it was - it was definitely doable.

BARBERO: I think it was. BLITZER: There was another argument that the Pentagon wanted 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops to remain.

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: The White House said maybe 1,000 or 2,000 for a year and the Iraqis said well that's not good enough.

BARBERO: Right. No, and -

BLITZER: Was - is that true?

BARBERO: That is true. And we wanted them pulled back on these training sites where we're fielding military equipment to train the Iraqi, not in any kind of combat role at all."
CNN.com - Transcripts



Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.

You decide why.

The all-powerful Obama created the schism which divides Islam and exacerbated the hate for the West of Muslims when he divided the Middle East after the first World War. Shame on him, shame shame.

Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.

You can decide if the reason was to support ISIS or some other reason....

But he could have avoided these barbarians taking over....




Who says so?

General Barbero, on CNN yesterday:


"BLITZER: The president's military plan to dismantle and ultimately destroy the terror group, ISIS, involves sending, at least for now, another 475 U.S. military advisors to Iraq, launching air strikes in Iraq and Syria, arming and training moderate Syrian rebels. Let's discuss. Joining me, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Barbaro. General, thanks very much for coming in.

LT. GEN. MICHAEL BARBERO, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: I want to get to that. But you were there. You were on active duty in Iraq, 2010, 2011 when they were trying to negotiate that Status of Forces -

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: -- Agreement that would have left a residual force, 5,000 or 10,000 U.S. troops, but you couldn't get immunity from Nuri al Maliki's government. Take us behind the scenes, clarify, who's right, John McCain or Jay Carney, in this debate.

BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, and took it to all the Iraqi leaders, Maliki, the other Shia leaders, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and said here is going to be the status of your security forces, what they cannot do, what they will be able to do, when we're schedule to leave. And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay. And my response was, you must make it easy for us. So I think Maliki did not make it easy for us and we did not try hard enough. So it's a -- both views. I think it could have been done though.

BLITZER: Because the U.S. -- the Pentagon position was, 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops staying -

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: For an indefinite amount of time.

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: But you wanted immunity from prosecution as part of the status of forces agreement. What happened then because the White House says Nuri al Maliki wouldn't give that immunity to any residual U.S. force.

BARBERO: I think we could have worked it and kept it from going through the parliament. I think we could have - we have immunity today, it didn't go through the parliament. So I think it could have been worked if we had tried harder.

BLITZER: You don't think the administration tried hard enough to get it?

BARBERO: I don't think so.

BLITZER: That's the McCain position, that could have been done but the White House didn't want it to be done. They wanted all U.S. troops.

BARBERO: I don't think we tried hard enough.

BLITZER: You think it was - it was definitely doable.

BARBERO: I think it was. BLITZER: There was another argument that the Pentagon wanted 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops to remain.

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: The White House said maybe 1,000 or 2,000 for a year and the Iraqis said well that's not good enough.

BARBERO: Right. No, and -

BLITZER: Was - is that true?

BARBERO: That is true. And we wanted them pulled back on these training sites where we're fielding military equipment to train the Iraqi, not in any kind of combat role at all."
CNN.com - Transcripts



Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.

You decide why.

The all-powerful Obama created the schism which divides Islam and exacerbated the hate for the West of Muslims when he divided the Middle East after the first World War. Shame on him, shame shame.

“Many a true word hath been spoken in jest.”

― William Shakespeare, King Lear

 

[Wry Catcher]

Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.

You can decide if the reason was to support ISIS or some other reason....

But he could have avoided these barbarians taking over....
Your 'logical' appeal to authority is noted, bets are that other 'authorities' have opinions which disagree and contradict your authority.

No one is prescient, not even you. Though in your head, as in the head of most narcissists, you believe you are.



Who says so?

General Barbero, on CNN yesterday:


"BLITZER: The president's military plan to dismantle and ultimately destroy the terror group, ISIS, involves sending, at least for now, another 475 U.S. military advisors to Iraq, launching air strikes in Iraq and Syria, arming and training moderate Syrian rebels. Let's discuss. Joining me, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Barbaro. General, thanks very much for coming in.

LT. GEN. MICHAEL BARBERO, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: I want to get to that. But you were there. You were on active duty in Iraq, 2010, 2011 when they were trying to negotiate that Status of Forces -

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: -- Agreement that would have left a residual force, 5,000 or 10,000 U.S. troops, but you couldn't get immunity from Nuri al Maliki's government. Take us behind the scenes, clarify, who's right, John McCain or Jay Carney, in this debate.

BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, and took it to all the Iraqi leaders, Maliki, the other Shia leaders, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and said here is going to be the status of your security forces, what they cannot do, what they will be able to do, when we're schedule to leave. And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay. And my response was, you must make it easy for us. So I think Maliki did not make it easy for us and we did not try hard enough. So it's a -- both views. I think it could have been done though.

BLITZER: Because the U.S. -- the Pentagon position was, 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops staying -

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: For an indefinite amount of time.

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: But you wanted immunity from prosecution as part of the status of forces agreement. What happened then because the White House says Nuri al Maliki wouldn't give that immunity to any residual U.S. force.

BARBERO: I think we could have worked it and kept it from going through the parliament. I think we could have - we have immunity today, it didn't go through the parliament. So I think it could have been worked if we had tried harder.

BLITZER: You don't think the administration tried hard enough to get it?

BARBERO: I don't think so.

BLITZER: That's the McCain position, that could have been done but the White House didn't want it to be done. They wanted all U.S. troops.

BARBERO: I don't think we tried hard enough.

BLITZER: You think it was - it was definitely doable.

BARBERO: I think it was. BLITZER: There was another argument that the Pentagon wanted 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops to remain.

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: The White House said maybe 1,000 or 2,000 for a year and the Iraqis said well that's not good enough.

BARBERO: Right. No, and -

BLITZER: Was - is that true?

BARBERO: That is true. And we wanted them pulled back on these training sites where we're fielding military equipment to train the Iraqi, not in any kind of combat role at all."
CNN.com - Transcripts



Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.

You decide why.

The all-powerful Obama created the schism which divides Islam and exacerbated the hate for the West of Muslims when he divided the Middle East after the first World War. Shame on him, shame shame.

Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.

You can decide if the reason was to support ISIS or some other reason....

But he could have avoided these barbarians taking over....




Who says so?

General Barbero, on CNN yesterday:


"BLITZER: The president's military plan to dismantle and ultimately destroy the terror group, ISIS, involves sending, at least for now, another 475 U.S. military advisors to Iraq, launching air strikes in Iraq and Syria, arming and training moderate Syrian rebels. Let's discuss. Joining me, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Barbaro. General, thanks very much for coming in.

LT. GEN. MICHAEL BARBERO, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: I want to get to that. But you were there. You were on active duty in Iraq, 2010, 2011 when they were trying to negotiate that Status of Forces -

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: -- Agreement that would have left a residual force, 5,000 or 10,000 U.S. troops, but you couldn't get immunity from Nuri al Maliki's government. Take us behind the scenes, clarify, who's right, John McCain or Jay Carney, in this debate.

BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, and took it to all the Iraqi leaders, Maliki, the other Shia leaders, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and said here is going to be the status of your security forces, what they cannot do, what they will be able to do, when we're schedule to leave. And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay. And my response was, you must make it easy for us. So I think Maliki did not make it easy for us and we did not try hard enough. So it's a -- both views. I think it could have been done though.

BLITZER: Because the U.S. -- the Pentagon position was, 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops staying -

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: For an indefinite amount of time.

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: But you wanted immunity from prosecution as part of the status of forces agreement. What happened then because the White House says Nuri al Maliki wouldn't give that immunity to any residual U.S. force.

BARBERO: I think we could have worked it and kept it from going through the parliament. I think we could have - we have immunity today, it didn't go through the parliament. So I think it could have been worked if we had tried harder.

BLITZER: You don't think the administration tried hard enough to get it?

BARBERO: I don't think so.

BLITZER: That's the McCain position, that could have been done but the White House didn't want it to be done. They wanted all U.S. troops.

BARBERO: I don't think we tried hard enough.

BLITZER: You think it was - it was definitely doable.

BARBERO: I think it was. BLITZER: There was another argument that the Pentagon wanted 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops to remain.

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: The White House said maybe 1,000 or 2,000 for a year and the Iraqis said well that's not good enough.

BARBERO: Right. No, and -

BLITZER: Was - is that true?

BARBERO: That is true. And we wanted them pulled back on these training sites where we're fielding military equipment to train the Iraqi, not in any kind of combat role at all."
CNN.com - Transcripts



Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.

You decide why.

The all-powerful Obama created the schism which divides Islam and exacerbated the hate for the West of Muslims when he divided the Middle East after the first World War. Shame on him, shame shame.

“Many a true word hath been spoken in jest.”

― William Shakespeare, King Lear

You're a pain in the ass. Stop the spam, no one needs to read, let alone have to scroll down your words more than once - which is usually not worth it the first time.

We lost over 4,500 young men and women in the fiasco which was the policy of Bush, Cheney and the Neo-Cons. Anyone who has read even a little history might have been able to comport the demise of Marsahll Tito and what might be the consequence of killing/disposing Saddam.

Of course the same sort of scenario existed with the efforts to chase Assad out of Syria, but at least we didn't commit several hundred thousand troops there, or to Lybia to chase out Kadafi.

So don't pretend one source which supports your generally biased and most times exagerated partisan postitions knows anymore than anyone else. Simply by being in Iraq, which may be less enlightening and less informative then someone sitting in their living room seeing a bigger picture on TV.

And, let us not forget that a career military man is not biased in their opinion. They sure as hell are, especially those who choose to put their face on TV and become a talking head.

 

[georgephillip]

Time to withdraw from the Middle East and come home. Our constant meddling has made things much worse over there. Most Americans i know could care less about Sunni, Shiite, Alwite , or whatever. We don't belong there. Time to come home. Period, end of story.

Except that Repub politicians primary cash cow is the def dept contractors. They have to whip up a war every 5-10 years.

Why is Obama helping the neocons ?

Because he serves the same 1% of Americans as Bush, Clinton, and every other US President has served; stop "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth if you want any Hope or Change.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.

You can decide if the reason was to support ISIS or some other reason....

But he could have avoided these barbarians taking over....
Your 'logical' appeal to authority is noted, bets are that other 'authorities' have opinions which disagree and contradict your authority.

No one is prescient, not even you. Though in your head, as in the head of most narcissists, you believe you are.



Who says so?

General Barbero, on CNN yesterday:


"BLITZER: The president's military plan to dismantle and ultimately destroy the terror group, ISIS, involves sending, at least for now, another 475 U.S. military advisors to Iraq, launching air strikes in Iraq and Syria, arming and training moderate Syrian rebels. Let's discuss. Joining me, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Barbaro. General, thanks very much for coming in.

LT. GEN. MICHAEL BARBERO, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: I want to get to that. But you were there. You were on active duty in Iraq, 2010, 2011 when they were trying to negotiate that Status of Forces -

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: -- Agreement that would have left a residual force, 5,000 or 10,000 U.S. troops, but you couldn't get immunity from Nuri al Maliki's government. Take us behind the scenes, clarify, who's right, John McCain or Jay Carney, in this debate.

BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, and took it to all the Iraqi leaders, Maliki, the other Shia leaders, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and said here is going to be the status of your security forces, what they cannot do, what they will be able to do, when we're schedule to leave. And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay. And my response was, you must make it easy for us. So I think Maliki did not make it easy for us and we did not try hard enough. So it's a -- both views. I think it could have been done though.

BLITZER: Because the U.S. -- the Pentagon position was, 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops staying -

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: For an indefinite amount of time.

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: But you wanted immunity from prosecution as part of the status of forces agreement. What happened then because the White House says Nuri al Maliki wouldn't give that immunity to any residual U.S. force.

BARBERO: I think we could have worked it and kept it from going through the parliament. I think we could have - we have immunity today, it didn't go through the parliament. So I think it could have been worked if we had tried harder.

BLITZER: You don't think the administration tried hard enough to get it?

BARBERO: I don't think so.

BLITZER: That's the McCain position, that could have been done but the White House didn't want it to be done. They wanted all U.S. troops.

BARBERO: I don't think we tried hard enough.

BLITZER: You think it was - it was definitely doable.

BARBERO: I think it was. BLITZER: There was another argument that the Pentagon wanted 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops to remain.

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: The White House said maybe 1,000 or 2,000 for a year and the Iraqis said well that's not good enough.

BARBERO: Right. No, and -

BLITZER: Was - is that true?

BARBERO: That is true. And we wanted them pulled back on these training sites where we're fielding military equipment to train the Iraqi, not in any kind of combat role at all."
CNN.com - Transcripts



Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.

You decide why.

The all-powerful Obama created the schism which divides Islam and exacerbated the hate for the West of Muslims when he divided the Middle East after the first World War. Shame on him, shame shame.

Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.

You can decide if the reason was to support ISIS or some other reason....

But he could have avoided these barbarians taking over....




Who says so?

General Barbero, on CNN yesterday:


"BLITZER: The president's military plan to dismantle and ultimately destroy the terror group, ISIS, involves sending, at least for now, another 475 U.S. military advisors to Iraq, launching air strikes in Iraq and Syria, arming and training moderate Syrian rebels. Let's discuss. Joining me, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Barbaro. General, thanks very much for coming in.

LT. GEN. MICHAEL BARBERO, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: I want to get to that. But you were there. You were on active duty in Iraq, 2010, 2011 when they were trying to negotiate that Status of Forces -

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: -- Agreement that would have left a residual force, 5,000 or 10,000 U.S. troops, but you couldn't get immunity from Nuri al Maliki's government. Take us behind the scenes, clarify, who's right, John McCain or Jay Carney, in this debate.

BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, and took it to all the Iraqi leaders, Maliki, the other Shia leaders, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and said here is going to be the status of your security forces, what they cannot do, what they will be able to do, when we're schedule to leave. And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay. And my response was, you must make it easy for us. So I think Maliki did not make it easy for us and we did not try hard enough. So it's a -- both views. I think it could have been done though.

BLITZER: Because the U.S. -- the Pentagon position was, 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops staying -

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: For an indefinite amount of time.

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: But you wanted immunity from prosecution as part of the status of forces agreement. What happened then because the White House says Nuri al Maliki wouldn't give that immunity to any residual U.S. force.

BARBERO: I think we could have worked it and kept it from going through the parliament. I think we could have - we have immunity today, it didn't go through the parliament. So I think it could have been worked if we had tried harder.

BLITZER: You don't think the administration tried hard enough to get it?

BARBERO: I don't think so.

BLITZER: That's the McCain position, that could have been done but the White House didn't want it to be done. They wanted all U.S. troops.

BARBERO: I don't think we tried hard enough.

BLITZER: You think it was - it was definitely doable.

BARBERO: I think it was. BLITZER: There was another argument that the Pentagon wanted 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops to remain.

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: The White House said maybe 1,000 or 2,000 for a year and the Iraqis said well that's not good enough.

BARBERO: Right. No, and -

BLITZER: Was - is that true?

BARBERO: That is true. And we wanted them pulled back on these training sites where we're fielding military equipment to train the Iraqi, not in any kind of combat role at all."
CNN.com - Transcripts



Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.

You decide why.

The all-powerful Obama created the schism which divides Islam and exacerbated the hate for the West of Muslims when he divided the Middle East after the first World War. Shame on him, shame shame.

“Many a true word hath been spoken in jest.”

― William Shakespeare, King Lear

You're a pain in the ass. Stop the spam, no one needs to read, let alone have to scroll down your words more than once - which is usually not worth it the first time.

We lost over 4,500 young men and women in the fiasco which was the policy of Bush, Cheney and the Neo-Cons. Anyone who has read even a little history might have been able to comport the demise of Marsahll Tito and what might be the consequence of killing/disposing Saddam.

Of course the same sort of scenario existed with the efforts to chase Assad out of Syria, but at least we didn't commit several hundred thousand troops there, or to Lybia to chase out Kadafi.

So don't pretend one source which supports your generally biased and most times exagerated partisan postitions knows anymore than anyone else. Simply by being in Iraq, which may be less enlightening and less informative then someone sitting in their living room seeing a bigger picture on TV is not probative evidence (of anything but your opinion).

And, let us not forget that a career military man are not biased in their opinion. They sure as hell are, especially those who choose to put their face on TV and become a talking head.

 

[Dot Com]

Time to withdraw from the Middle East and come home. Our constant meddling has made things much worse over there. Most Americans i know could care less about Sunni, Shiite, Alwite , or whatever. We don't belong there. Time to come home. Period, end of story.

Except that Repub politicians primary cash cow is the def dept contractors. They have to whip up a war every 5-10 years.

Why is Obama helping the neocons ?

Because he serves the same 1% of Americans as Bush, Clinton, and every other US President has served; stop "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth if you want any Hope or Change.

^ that

but I suspect dillo is too partisan to peer out of his box that his party had made for him

 

[dilloduck]

Time to withdraw from the Middle East and come home. Our constant meddling has made things much worse over there. Most Americans i know could care less about Sunni, Shiite, Alwite , or whatever. We don't belong there. Time to come home. Period, end of story.

Except that Repub politicians primary cash cow is the def dept contractors. They have to whip up a war every 5-10 years.

Why is Obama helping the neocons ?

Because he serves the same 1% of Americans as Bush, Clinton, and every other US President has served; stop "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth if you want any Hope or Change.

^ that

but I suspect dillo is too partisan to peer out of his box that his party had made for him

It doesn't take thinking outside of any box to see Obama turning into a neocon patsy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Good thing OP placed this thread in the Rubber Room from the start OH!!! WAIT!!! Nevermind

All of these sorts of threads should be consolidated into one entitled 'Everything bad is Obama's fault'.

True.

The partisan right's ridiculous and unwarranted campaign of “Obama: always wrong, all the time” has rendered any meaningful, intelligent, factual debate concerning the Administration's policies impossible, and most conservatives devoid of credibility.

 

[Dot Com]

Good thing OP placed this thread in the Rubber Room from the start OH!!! WAIT!!! Nevermind

All of these sorts of threads should be consolidated into one entitled 'Everything bad is Obama's fault'.

True.

The partisan right's ridiculous and unwarranted campaign of “Obama: always wrong, all the time” has rendered any meaningful, intelligent, factual debate concerning the Administration's policies impossible, and most conservatives devoid of credibility.

The President is even aware of their partisan butt hurtedness when he claimed "if Repubs find out that I'm for something, they're automatically against it"

 

[NYcarbineer]

Time to withdraw from the Middle East and come home. Our constant meddling has made things much worse over there. Most Americans i know could care less about Sunni, Shiite, Alwite , or whatever. We don't belong there. Time to come home. Period, end of story.

Except that Repub politicians primary cash cow is the def dept contractors. They have to whip up a war every 5-10 years.

Why is Obama helping the neocons ?

Because he serves the same 1% of Americans as Bush, Clinton, and every other US President has served; stop "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth if you want any Hope or Change.

^ that

but I suspect dillo is too partisan to peer out of his box that his party had made for him

It doesn't take thinking outside of any box to see Obama turning into a neocon patsy.

Which is a good part of the reason his approval rating is falling.

 

[dilloduck]

Good thing OP placed this thread in the Rubber Room from the start OH!!! WAIT!!! Nevermind

All of these sorts of threads should be consolidated into one entitled 'Everything bad is Obama's fault'.

True.

The partisan right's ridiculous and unwarranted campaign of “Obama: always wrong, all the time” has rendered any meaningful, intelligent, factual debate concerning the Administration's policies impossible, and most conservatives devoid of credibility.

The President is even aware of their partisan butt hurtedness when he claimed "if Repubs find out that I'm for something, they're automatically against it"

WOW However did he figure this complicated concept out ?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9799403.

It doesn't take thinking outside of any box to see Obama turning into a neocon patsy.

Is it odd days that Obama sympathizes with Muslim terrorists and is weak on the WOT and does the non-neocon thing "lead from behind"? Is it even days that Obama is a neocon warmonger hellbent on enriching his corporate defense industry sponsors with war and more insatiable thirst for war?

 

[Richard-H]

It's NOT the responsibility of the U.S. to babysit Iraq forever! We did everything within reason (and a whole lot more) to give the Iraqi's the opportunity to have a free, pluralistic and democratic society.

Unfortunately, President Bush's handpicked Iraqi Prime Minister decided to become a Shiite version of Saddam Hussein - he persecuted the Sunnis and effectively destroyed the military effectiveness of the the Iraqi military by firing all the competent top level military officers and replacing them with incompetent political loyalists.

The only reason that the U.S. has any obligation to get involved militarily in Iraq again is that ISIS has proven to be the most barbaric military force since WWII. We know that if we do not destroy them now things will only get worse and they will eventually become a very real threat to the U.S.

If it weren't for the brutality of ISIS the American people shouldn't and couldn't give a damn about Iraq.

It seems that once we invaded Iraq, it's like we adopted some violent retarded child that we're going to have to watch over forever because it's going to hurt itself or somebody else without our constant supervision.

 

[dilloduck]

No one can tell. He has no plan other that "don't do anything stupid" but he can't even follow that one. He is inconsistent and the world community doesn't trust him because of it.

 

[dilloduck]

It's NOT the responsibility of the U.S. to babysit Iraq forever! We did everything within reason (and a whole lot more) to give the Iraqi's the opportunity to have a free, pluralistic and democratic society.

Unfortunately, President Bush's handpicked Iraqi Prime Minister decided to become a Shiite version of Saddam Hussein - he persecuted the Sunnis and effectively destroyed the military effectiveness of the the Iraqi military by firing all the competent top level military officers and replacing them with incompetent political loyalists.

The only reason that the U.S. has any obligation to get involved militarily in Iraq again is that ISIS has proven to be the most barbaric military force since WWII. We know that if we do not destroy them now things will only get worse and they will eventually become a very real threat to the U.S.

If it weren't for the brutality of ISIS the American people shouldn't and couldn't give a damn about Iraq.

It seems that once we invaded Iraq, it's like we adopted some violent retarded child that we're going to have to watch over forever because it's going to hurt itself or somebody else without our constant supervision.

We wanted to remain a force there as a stepping off point to Iran.

 

[1776]

Liberal reasons we left Iraq...

1) There was a moving rate sale so Obama couldn't resist those deals.
2) It is Bush's fault.
3) Haliburton and Cheney are behind it, we're looking into it.
4) An underling in the White House made the decision, Obama just found out about it.
5) Obama lost a golf bet on Iraq.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No one can tell. He has no plan other that "don't do anything stupid" but he can't even follow that one. He is inconsistent and the world community doesn't trust him because of it.

The reason you and others like you are full of shit is posted above. You have no credibility and no idea what the correct policy might be. "Ain't it awful" isn't a solution nor does it define the problem; and, the problem is at least four generations in the making.

One problem facing Obama is ISIS, another is the GOP and self defined independents, most of the latter seem to believe history is what is posted as breaking news - and seem to believe nothing which preceded it is important.

So tell us oh wise one(s), what should the POTUS do today? [I'd bet dollars to gum drops if he did what anyone of you know-it-alls would recommend, you would repudiate it immediately!].

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9799633.

No one can tell. He has no plan other that "don't do anything stupid" but he can't even follow that one. He is inconsistent and the world community doesn't trust him because of it.

The plan was to get Maliki to step aside and form a unity government so US airstrikes can be supported by Iraqi forces on the ground to destroy IS terrorists without the need for US ground troops beyond an advisory role.

Check on all of the above.