Laura Ingraham discovers Bush is to blame for ISIS: ‘Iraq is worse than before we went in’

[Synthaholic]

Laura Ingraham discovers Bush is to blame for ISIS: ‘Iraq is worse than before we went in’


Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham lamented over the weekend that Iraq was worse now because President George W. Bush had invaded the country in 2003.

During a panel segment on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Ingraham if President Barack Obama had made the correct decision by ordering airstrikes against ISIS, a group of Islamic radicals who are taking advantage of a power vacuum in Iraq to slowly seize control of the country.

“It’s really hard, I don’t think you can judge how he did right now,” she admitted. “We’re almost in an impossible situation. The America people really have no appetite for America to reengage. They don’t want us to go into Syria.”

“He’s now reluctantly seeing the perils of inaction,” the radio host continued. “If we do nothing here, then what? I mean, let’s say Iraq does fall, which I think is a possibility. Iraq may fall. If, indeed, there are no boots are the ground, not going to happen, can’t happen.”

Ingraham added that she was “not saying” she wanted to see U.S. forces return to Iraq: “I don’t know if there’s a good solution right now, which is a horrible thing to say for the United States of America.”

Later in the segment, Ingraham pointed out that al Qaeda — through its ISIS offshoot group — was “becoming the Islamic state.”

“We tried to do all these things in Iraq, now Iraq is worse off!” she exclaimed. “I mean, I hate to say that, but Iraq is worse than before we went in to Iraq. Christians are gone, there’s no sense of order at all.”

“Saddam Hussein is gone. That’s a good thing, but what’s left? A more embolden Islamic state.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/1...re-we-went-in/

Seriously you're going to make this claim ?

It's worse now because we left before the country was ready for us to leave it to stand on it's own.
This isn't brain surgery.

I'm not making the claim - Laura Ingraham is.

I'm not saying it was a good thing we invaded, but remember what Powell said "you break it, it's yours".

Well we broke it, and Obama should have had the sense to realize that the country wasn't ready to leave, but since he couldn't swallow his damn ego, and realize that despite all his campaign talk about "watch me" leave Iraq, the only strategy at that point was to nation build.

It just goes to show that this man was just too inexperienced to be the leader of the free world. Next time amateurs need not apply, and voters need not be so fucking gullible.

Google US-Iraq SOFA and get back to us when you're all caught up.

 

[JimBowie1958]

whoa, six years later and still everything is Bush's fault

what a shocker eh? ain't been nothing that's been the man/child Obama's fault yet

Miraculous just like he is. but he hasn't stopped the seas rising yet or healed the planet...he be working on that while on the golf course

Saddam Hussein was strong enough to prevent groups like ISIS from running amok. When we took down Hussein and killed nearly a million Iraqis, we created a power vacuum that ISIS is filling. The same is true of Libya, Egypt, and Syria.

We will be paying for the Iraq war for generations--it was a monumental policy disaster. Thanks, Cheney.

No, the power vacuum was created when we left before the Iraqi army was ready to take over.

As to it being 'Bushes fault' once again, here is an interesting little video from the 'Way Back' machine.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Laura Ingraham discovers Bush is to blame for ISIS: ‘Iraq is worse than before we went in’


Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham lamented over the weekend that Iraq was worse now because President George W. Bush had invaded the country in 2003.

During a panel segment on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Ingraham if President Barack Obama had made the correct decision by ordering airstrikes against ISIS, a group of Islamic radicals who are taking advantage of a power vacuum in Iraq to slowly seize control of the country.

“It’s really hard, I don’t think you can judge how he did right now,” she admitted. “We’re almost in an impossible situation. The America people really have no appetite for America to reengage. They don’t want us to go into Syria.”

“He’s now reluctantly seeing the perils of inaction,” the radio host continued. “If we do nothing here, then what? I mean, let’s say Iraq does fall, which I think is a possibility. Iraq may fall. If, indeed, there are no boots are the ground, not going to happen, can’t happen.”

Ingraham added that she was “not saying” she wanted to see U.S. forces return to Iraq: “I don’t know if there’s a good solution right now, which is a horrible thing to say for the United States of America.”

Later in the segment, Ingraham pointed out that al Qaeda — through its ISIS offshoot group — was “becoming the Islamic state.”

“We tried to do all these things in Iraq, now Iraq is worse off!” she exclaimed. “I mean, I hate to say that, but Iraq is worse than before we went in to Iraq. Christians are gone, there’s no sense of order at all.”

“Saddam Hussein is gone. That’s a good thing, but what’s left? A more embolden Islamic state.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/1...re-we-went-in/

Seriously you're going to make this claim ?

It's worse now because we left before the country was ready for us to leave it to stand on it's own.
This isn't brain surgery.

I'm not making the claim - Laura Ingraham is.

I'm not saying it was a good thing we invaded, but remember what Powell said "you break it, it's yours".

Well we broke it, and Obama should have had the sense to realize that the country wasn't ready to leave, but since he couldn't swallow his damn ego, and realize that despite all his campaign talk about "watch me" leave Iraq, the only strategy at that point was to nation build.

It just goes to show that this man was just too inexperienced to be the leader of the free world. Next time amateurs need not apply, and voters need not be so fucking gullible.

Google US-Iraq SOFA and get back to us when you're all caught up.

Try following your own advice, prick.

 

[Synthaholic]

Google US-Iraq SOFA and get back to us when you're all caught up.

Try following your own advice, prick.

OK!

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence

President Barack Obama’s announcement on Friday that all 40,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq will leave the country by New Year’s Eve will, inevitably, draw howls of derision from GOP presidential hopefuls — this is, after all, early election season. But the decision to leave Iraq by that date was not actually taken by President Obama — it was taken by President George W. Bush, and by the Iraqi government.

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”


But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.​

When will you wingnuts learn?

 

[Synthaholic]

Try following your own advice, prick.

Bitch + Slap

 

[tinydancer]

Laura Ingraham discovers Bush is to blame for ISIS: ‘Iraq is worse than before we went in’


Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham lamented over the weekend that Iraq was worse now because President George W. Bush had invaded the country in 2003.

During a panel segment on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Ingraham if President Barack Obama had made the correct decision by ordering airstrikes against ISIS, a group of Islamic radicals who are taking advantage of a power vacuum in Iraq to slowly seize control of the country.

“It’s really hard, I don’t think you can judge how he did right now,” she admitted. “We’re almost in an impossible situation. The America people really have no appetite for America to reengage. They don’t want us to go into Syria.”

“He’s now reluctantly seeing the perils of inaction,” the radio host continued. “If we do nothing here, then what? I mean, let’s say Iraq does fall, which I think is a possibility. Iraq may fall. If, indeed, there are no boots are the ground, not going to happen, can’t happen.”

Ingraham added that she was “not saying” she wanted to see U.S. forces return to Iraq: “I don’t know if there’s a good solution right now, which is a horrible thing to say for the United States of America.”

Later in the segment, Ingraham pointed out that al Qaeda — through its ISIS offshoot group — was “becoming the Islamic state.”

“We tried to do all these things in Iraq, now Iraq is worse off!” she exclaimed. “I mean, I hate to say that, but Iraq is worse than before we went in to Iraq. Christians are gone, there’s no sense of order at all.”

“Saddam Hussein is gone. That’s a good thing, but what’s left? A more embolden Islamic state.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/1...re-we-went-in/

Seriously you're going to make this claim ?

It's worse now because we left before the country was ready for us to leave it to stand on it's own.
This isn't brain surgery.

I'm not making the claim - Laura Ingraham is.

I'm not saying it was a good thing we invaded, but remember what Powell said "you break it, it's yours".

Well we broke it, and Obama should have had the sense to realize that the country wasn't ready to leave, but since he couldn't swallow his damn ego, and realize that despite all his campaign talk about "watch me" leave Iraq, the only strategy at that point was to nation build.

It just goes to show that this man was just too inexperienced to be the leader of the free world. Next time amateurs need not apply, and voters need not be so fucking gullible.

Google US-Iraq SOFA and get back to us when you're all caught up.

Laura Ingraham discovers Bush is to blame for ISIS: ‘Iraq is worse than before we went in’


Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham lamented over the weekend that Iraq was worse now because President George W. Bush had invaded the country in 2003.

During a panel segment on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Ingraham if President Barack Obama had made the correct decision by ordering airstrikes against ISIS, a group of Islamic radicals who are taking advantage of a power vacuum in Iraq to slowly seize control of the country.

“It’s really hard, I don’t think you can judge how he did right now,” she admitted. “We’re almost in an impossible situation. The America people really have no appetite for America to reengage. They don’t want us to go into Syria.”

“He’s now reluctantly seeing the perils of inaction,” the radio host continued. “If we do nothing here, then what? I mean, let’s say Iraq does fall, which I think is a possibility. Iraq may fall. If, indeed, there are no boots are the ground, not going to happen, can’t happen.”

Ingraham added that she was “not saying” she wanted to see U.S. forces return to Iraq: “I don’t know if there’s a good solution right now, which is a horrible thing to say for the United States of America.”

Later in the segment, Ingraham pointed out that al Qaeda — through its ISIS offshoot group — was “becoming the Islamic state.”

“We tried to do all these things in Iraq, now Iraq is worse off!” she exclaimed. “I mean, I hate to say that, but Iraq is worse than before we went in to Iraq. Christians are gone, there’s no sense of order at all.”

“Saddam Hussein is gone. That’s a good thing, but what’s left? A more embolden Islamic state.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/1...re-we-went-in/

Seriously you're going to make this claim ?

It's worse now because we left before the country was ready for us to leave it to stand on it's own.
This isn't brain surgery.

I'm not making the claim - Laura Ingraham is.

I'm not saying it was a good thing we invaded, but remember what Powell said "you break it, it's yours".

Well we broke it, and Obama should have had the sense to realize that the country wasn't ready to leave, but since he couldn't swallow his damn ego, and realize that despite all his campaign talk about "watch me" leave Iraq, the only strategy at that point was to nation build.

It just goes to show that this man was just too inexperienced to be the leader of the free world. Next time amateurs need not apply, and voters need not be so fucking gullible.

Google US-Iraq SOFA and get back to us when you're all caught up.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said opponents are lying when they say the Iraqi government did not want a continued troop presence in the country when U.S. combat missions ended in 2011.

The Arizona senator has blamed the current militant Sunni uprising in Iraq on the failure of the United States to secure a status of forces agreement in 2011. He said some Democrats are trying to explain that away by inaccurately claiming the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not want troops to remain.

"Opponents and those who want to justify this colossal failure that has caused the greatest threat to United States's national security since the end of the Cold War, they're trying to justify it by saying that Maliki didn't want American troops there," he told PBS on Wednesday night.

And here is the key to how the negotiations fell apart. And the problem wasn't the Iraqis.

McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) were in direct talks with the Iraqi government at the time, McCain said, and Iraq was ready for a deal before the number of troops the United States proposed leaving fell sharply.

"What Senator Kaine is saying is just totally false," McCain said. "In fact, it's a lie, because Lindsey Graham and I were there."

"The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff himself said that the number of troops that we were proposing cascaded down to 3,000, when it had been recommended to be 20,000," McCain added.

He said Iraq, at that point, determined an agreement “wasn't worth the problem.”

McCain Opponents lying about Iraq history TheHill

 

[Synthaholic]

Google US-Iraq SOFA and get back to us when you're all caught up.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said opponents are lying when they say the Iraqi government did not want a continued troop presence in the country when U.S. combat missions ended in 2011.

The Arizona senator has blamed the current militant Sunni uprising in Iraq on the failure of the United States to secure a status of forces agreement in 2011. He said some Democrats are trying to explain that away by inaccurately claiming the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not want troops to remain.

"Opponents and those who want to justify this colossal failure that has caused the greatest threat to United States's national security since the end of the Cold War, they're trying to justify it by saying that Maliki didn't want American troops there," he told PBS on Wednesday night.

And here is the key to how the negotiations fell apart. And the problem wasn't the Iraqis.

McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) were in direct talks with the Iraqi government at the time, McCain said, and Iraq was ready for a deal before the number of troops the United States proposed leaving fell sharply.

"What Senator Kaine is saying is just totally false," McCain said. "In fact, it's a lie, because Lindsey Graham and I were there."

"The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff himself said that the number of troops that we were proposing cascaded down to 3,000, when it had been recommended to be 20,000," McCain added.

He said Iraq, at that point, determined an agreement “wasn't worth the problem.”

McCain Opponents lying about Iraq history TheHill

So you believe the sterling word of John McCain, RINO.

Right after you were dismissing Kathleen Parker and David Frum as illegitimate because they are RINOs.

Facts are facts. Spin is spin. I'll believe the journalists over the proven liars like John McCain.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Try following your own advice, prick.

Bitch + Slap

Lol, so now your slapping yourself?

Cute.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Google US-Iraq SOFA and get back to us when you're all caught up.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said opponents are lying when they say the Iraqi government did not want a continued troop presence in the country when U.S. combat missions ended in 2011.

The Arizona senator has blamed the current militant Sunni uprising in Iraq on the failure of the United States to secure a status of forces agreement in 2011. He said some Democrats are trying to explain that away by inaccurately claiming the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not want troops to remain.

"Opponents and those who want to justify this colossal failure that has caused the greatest threat to United States's national security since the end of the Cold War, they're trying to justify it by saying that Maliki didn't want American troops there," he told PBS on Wednesday night.

And here is the key to how the negotiations fell apart. And the problem wasn't the Iraqis.

McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) were in direct talks with the Iraqi government at the time, McCain said, and Iraq was ready for a deal before the number of troops the United States proposed leaving fell sharply.

"What Senator Kaine is saying is just totally false," McCain said. "In fact, it's a lie, because Lindsey Graham and I were there."

"The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff himself said that the number of troops that we were proposing cascaded down to 3,000, when it had been recommended to be 20,000," McCain added.

He said Iraq, at that point, determined an agreement “wasn't worth the problem.”

McCain Opponents lying about Iraq history TheHill

So you believe the sterling word of John McCain, RINO.

Right after you were dismissing Kathleen Parker and David Frum as illegitimate because they are RINOs.

Facts are facts. Spin is spin. I'll believe the journalists over the proven liars like John McCain.

Lol, so you dismiss primary sources in favor of secondary sources when it suits you.

Lol, fucking idiot.

 

[ninja007]

I worked with a lot of Muslims since 911 and many said the worst thing to happen to that whole region was to get rid of Saddam. I kinda agree now. Was he evil? Yes, but he kept SOME semblance of order there.

 

[tinydancer]

Google US-Iraq SOFA and get back to us when you're all caught up.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said opponents are lying when they say the Iraqi government did not want a continued troop presence in the country when U.S. combat missions ended in 2011.

The Arizona senator has blamed the current militant Sunni uprising in Iraq on the failure of the United States to secure a status of forces agreement in 2011. He said some Democrats are trying to explain that away by inaccurately claiming the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not want troops to remain.

"Opponents and those who want to justify this colossal failure that has caused the greatest threat to United States's national security since the end of the Cold War, they're trying to justify it by saying that Maliki didn't want American troops there," he told PBS on Wednesday night.

And here is the key to how the negotiations fell apart. And the problem wasn't the Iraqis.

McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) were in direct talks with the Iraqi government at the time, McCain said, and Iraq was ready for a deal before the number of troops the United States proposed leaving fell sharply.

"What Senator Kaine is saying is just totally false," McCain said. "In fact, it's a lie, because Lindsey Graham and I were there."

"The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff himself said that the number of troops that we were proposing cascaded down to 3,000, when it had been recommended to be 20,000," McCain added.

He said Iraq, at that point, determined an agreement “wasn't worth the problem.”

McCain Opponents lying about Iraq history TheHill

So you believe the sterling word of John McCain, RINO.

Right after you were dismissing Kathleen Parker and David Frum as illegitimate because they are RINOs.

Facts are facts. Spin is spin. I'll believe the journalists over the proven liars like John McCain.

Frum and Parker are not journalists. They are political chameleons and spin meisters..Just like Laura.. And all they ever do is just give an opinion.

On this issue McCain was there during the negotiations. Graham has verified that Obama did not want to renegotiate the agreement.

Fast forward.

Maliki was begging for help from Obama last year. Obama refused.

But most importantly in all of this mess is that Obama along with other western leaders trying to depose Assad any which way they could, turned a blind eye to ISIS now IS and they became the mega terror government that we just witnessed invade Iraq.

Google US-Iraq SOFA and get back to us when you're all caught up.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said opponents are lying when they say the Iraqi government did not want a continued troop presence in the country when U.S. combat missions ended in 2011.

The Arizona senator has blamed the current militant Sunni uprising in Iraq on the failure of the United States to secure a status of forces agreement in 2011. He said some Democrats are trying to explain that away by inaccurately claiming the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not want troops to remain.

"Opponents and those who want to justify this colossal failure that has caused the greatest threat to United States's national security since the end of the Cold War, they're trying to justify it by saying that Maliki didn't want American troops there," he told PBS on Wednesday night.

And here is the key to how the negotiations fell apart. And the problem wasn't the Iraqis.

McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) were in direct talks with the Iraqi government at the time, McCain said, and Iraq was ready for a deal before the number of troops the United States proposed leaving fell sharply.

"What Senator Kaine is saying is just totally false," McCain said. "In fact, it's a lie, because Lindsey Graham and I were there."

"The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff himself said that the number of troops that we were proposing cascaded down to 3,000, when it had been recommended to be 20,000," McCain added.

He said Iraq, at that point, determined an agreement “wasn't worth the problem.”

McCain Opponents lying about Iraq history TheHill

So you believe the sterling word of John McCain, RINO.

Right after you were dismissing Kathleen Parker and David Frum as illegitimate because they are RINOs.

Facts are facts. Spin is spin. I'll believe the journalists over the proven liars like John McCain.

I never believe a single source. So along with McCain making this claim, backed up by Graham who were there during the negotiations I found and book marked an article from a source that liberals could find impeccable.

The New York Times.

Here ya go Syn. Oh and by the way, Frum, Parker and Laura are just spin meisters and political chameleons on a grand scale. Opinions don't matter to me.

Facts do. Check the date.

Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay
By TIM ARANGO and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT
Published: October 21, 2011

From the article:

Over the last year, in late-night meetings at the fortified compound of the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, and in videoconferences between Baghdad and Washington, American and Iraqi negotiators had struggled to reach an agreement. All the while, both Mr. Obama and the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, gave the world a wink and nod, always saying that Iraq was ready to stand on its own but never fully closing the door on the possibility of American troops’ staying on.

Through the summer, American officials continued to assume that the agreement would be amended, and 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 to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces.

*****Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies.*****

More of course at the link. This backs up McCain's claims that the Administration and spin meisters are now lying that they had no option but to leave.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/w...expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html?_r=0

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Laura Ingraham discovers Bush is to blame for ISIS: ‘Iraq is worse than before we went in’


Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham lamented over the weekend that Iraq was worse now because President George W. Bush had invaded the country in 2003.

During a panel segment on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Ingraham if President Barack Obama had made the correct decision by ordering airstrikes against ISIS, a group of Islamic radicals who are taking advantage of a power vacuum in Iraq to slowly seize control of the country.

“It’s really hard, I don’t think you can judge how he did right now,” she admitted. “We’re almost in an impossible situation. The America people really have no appetite for America to reengage. They don’t want us to go into Syria.”

“He’s now reluctantly seeing the perils of inaction,” the radio host continued. “If we do nothing here, then what? I mean, let’s say Iraq does fall, which I think is a possibility. Iraq may fall. If, indeed, there are no boots are the ground, not going to happen, can’t happen.”

Ingraham added that she was “not saying” she wanted to see U.S. forces return to Iraq: “I don’t know if there’s a good solution right now, which is a horrible thing to say for the United States of America.”

Later in the segment, Ingraham pointed out that al Qaeda — through its ISIS offshoot group — was “becoming the Islamic state.”

“We tried to do all these things in Iraq, now Iraq is worse off!” she exclaimed. “I mean, I hate to say that, but Iraq is worse than before we went in to Iraq. Christians are gone, there’s no sense of order at all.”

“Saddam Hussein is gone. That’s a good thing, but what’s left? A more embolden Islamic state.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/1...re-we-went-in/

Seriously you're going to make this claim ?

It's worse now because we left before the country was ready for us to leave it to stand on it's own.
This isn't brain surgery.

I'm not making the claim - Laura Ingraham is.

I'm not saying it was a good thing we invaded, but remember what Powell said "you break it, it's yours".

Well we broke it, and Obama should have had the sense to realize that the country wasn't ready to leave, but since he couldn't swallow his damn ego, and realize that despite all his campaign talk about "watch me" leave Iraq, the only strategy at that point was to nation build.

It just goes to show that this man was just too inexperienced to be the leader of the free world. Next time amateurs need not apply, and voters need not be so fucking gullible.

Google US-Iraq SOFA and get back to us when you're all caught up.

Yes I'm totally aware of that agreement, (insert rolling eyes) but the new leader (Obama) could have renegotiated the agreement once he saw, or should have saw, that the country wasn't stable enough to pick up and leave. It's not surprising though, you guys gave us a great talker that had little or no real world experience.
But yeah, I know, it's a liberals and their emotional thinking kind of thing.

 

[Iceweasel]

I worked with a lot of Muslims since 911 and many said the worst thing to happen to that whole region was to get rid of Saddam. I kinda agree now. Was he evil? Yes, but he kept SOME semblance of order there.

Seriously? I believe he invaded 5 countries altogether and most leaders on planet Earth was so worried about him there were regular inspections and sanctions going on, among other things. You have an odd way of defining a semblance of order.

 

[Brain357]

This is just pointing out the obvious.

Laura Ingraham discovers Bush is to blame for ISIS: ‘Iraq is worse than before we went in’


Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham lamented over the weekend that Iraq was worse now because President George W. Bush had invaded the country in 2003.

During a panel segment on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Ingraham if President Barack Obama had made the correct decision by ordering airstrikes against ISIS, a group of Islamic radicals who are taking advantage of a power vacuum in Iraq to slowly seize control of the country.

“It’s really hard, I don’t think you can judge how he did right now,” she admitted. “We’re almost in an impossible situation. The America people really have no appetite for America to reengage. They don’t want us to go into Syria.”

“He’s now reluctantly seeing the perils of inaction,” the radio host continued. “If we do nothing here, then what? I mean, let’s say Iraq does fall, which I think is a possibility. Iraq may fall. If, indeed, there are no boots are the ground, not going to happen, can’t happen.”

Ingraham added that she was “not saying” she wanted to see U.S. forces return to Iraq: “I don’t know if there’s a good solution right now, which is a horrible thing to say for the United States of America.”

Later in the segment, Ingraham pointed out that al Qaeda — through its ISIS offshoot group — was “becoming the Islamic state.”

“We tried to do all these things in Iraq, now Iraq is worse off!” she exclaimed. “I mean, I hate to say that, but Iraq is worse than before we went in to Iraq. Christians are gone, there’s no sense of order at all.”

“Saddam Hussein is gone. That’s a good thing, but what’s left? A more embolden Islamic state.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/1...re-we-went-in/

 

[Brain357]

It's interesting now to hear some of the groups that were living in saddam Iraq. From how evil we were told he was I would have thought they had no Christians. Now he looks not so bad compared to others.

 

[Fang]

whoa, six years later and still everything is Bush's fault

what a shocker eh? ain't been nothing that's been the man/child Obama's fault yet

Miraculous just like he is. but he hasn't stopped the seas rising yet or healed the planet...he be working on that while on the golf course

Saddam Hussein was strong enough to prevent groups like ISIS from running amok. When we took down Hussein and killed nearly a million Iraqis, we created a power vacuum that ISIS is filling. The same is true of Libya, Egypt, and Syria.

We will be paying for the Iraq war for generations--it was a monumental policy disaster. Thanks, Cheney.

No, the power vacuum was created when we left before the Iraqi army was ready to take over.

As to it being 'Bushes fault' once again, here is an interesting little video from the 'Way Back' machine.

Thanks for that. President Bush was correct.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Google US-Iraq SOFA and get back to us when you're all caught up.

Try following your own advice, prick.

OK!

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence

President Barack Obama’s announcement on Friday that all 40,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq will leave the country by New Year’s Eve will, inevitably, draw howls of derision from GOP presidential hopefuls — this is, after all, early election season. But the decision to leave Iraq by that date was not actually taken by President Obama — it was taken by President George W. Bush, and by the Iraqi government.

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”


But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.​

When will you wingnuts learn?

I already knew you cant follow your own advice.

You are nothing more than a partisan troll.

Honest discussion is something you are not capable of.

If OBozo had pressed the matter he could have persuaded to the Iraqis to accept just about any troop level, but he didn't need to. The Iraqi government wanted us to leave MORE troops, not Obama's symbolic 3000. So they didn't bother and that was the reaction the Obama Regime WANTED so they could, once again, deny responsibility for pulling everyone out before the Iraqis could handle it.

I am no Bush fan, but I will defend the man when he was right about something, and he lead the war well, given his strategic decision to remain in Iraq, which I would not have done. I would have leveled the damned place and maybe loaned them money to rebuild at a credit card interest rate.

Fuck Iraq. IT is a shame to see that so many lost friends life and limb over something that Obama has thrown into the toilet because he would rather shroom in the Lincoln bedroom than show up for the job.

 

[mudwhistle]

Laura Ingraham discovers Bush is to blame for ISIS: ‘Iraq is worse than before we went in’


Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham lamented over the weekend that Iraq was worse now because President George W. Bush had invaded the country in 2003.

During a panel segment on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Ingraham if President Barack Obama had made the correct decision by ordering airstrikes against ISIS, a group of Islamic radicals who are taking advantage of a power vacuum in Iraq to slowly seize control of the country.

“It’s really hard, I don’t think you can judge how he did right now,” she admitted. “We’re almost in an impossible situation. The America people really have no appetite for America to reengage. They don’t want us to go into Syria.”

“He’s now reluctantly seeing the perils of inaction,” the radio host continued. “If we do nothing here, then what? I mean, let’s say Iraq does fall, which I think is a possibility. Iraq may fall. If, indeed, there are no boots are the ground, not going to happen, can’t happen.”

Ingraham added that she was “not saying” she wanted to see U.S. forces return to Iraq: “I don’t know if there’s a good solution right now, which is a horrible thing to say for the United States of America.”

Later in the segment, Ingraham pointed out that al Qaeda — through its ISIS offshoot group — was “becoming the Islamic state.”

“We tried to do all these things in Iraq, now Iraq is worse off!” she exclaimed. “I mean, I hate to say that, but Iraq is worse than before we went in to Iraq. Christians are gone, there’s no sense of order at all.”

“Saddam Hussein is gone. That’s a good thing, but what’s left? A more embolden Islamic state.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/1...re-we-went-in/

Your story doesn't say what your title claims.

 

[mudwhistle]

whoa, six years later and still everything is Bush's fault

what a shocker eh? ain't been nothing that's been the man/child Obama's fault yet

Miraculous just like he is. but he hasn't stopped the seas rising yet or healed the planet...he be working on that while on the golf course

Saddam Hussein was strong enough to prevent groups like ISIS from running amok. When we took down Hussein and killed nearly a million Iraqis, we created a power vacuum that ISIS is filling. The same is true of Libya, Egypt, and Syria.

We will be paying for the Iraq war for generations--it was a monumental policy disaster. Thanks, Cheney.

No, the power vacuum was created when we left before the Iraqi army was ready to take over.

As to it being 'Bushes fault' once again, here is an interesting little video from the 'Way Back' machine.

Thanks for that. President Bush was correct.

President George W. Bush predicted the result of withdrawing troops from Iraq too early with eerie precision, says his former chief speechwriter, Marc Thiessen.

On July 12, 2007, Bush took to the podium to answer critics of his order for a troop surge.

Acknowledging that some Americans wanted an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, Bush said that to do so before military commanders said it was time would be dangerous for Iraq, the region, and the United States.

"It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaida," Bush said at the time. "It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous."

Thiessen, who is now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, crafted that statement and appeared on Fox News Channel's "The Kelly File" on Thursday to discuss it.

"Every single thing that President Bush said there in that statement is happening today," Theissen said.

President Barack Obama did withdraw troops before the commanders on the ground said they were ready to do so, he said, leaving none behind when military officials suggested 20,000.

"President Bush said that if we did that there would be mass killings on a horrific scale," Theissen said. "What are we seeing? Mass killings on a horrific scale: executions, women and children being buried alive, crucifixions, beheadings of American journalists."

Speechwriter Marc Thiessen Bush Predicted Iraq Withdrawal Result

 

[JimBowie1958]

It's interesting now to hear some of the groups that were living in saddam Iraq. From how evil we were told he was I would have thought they had no Christians. Now he looks not so bad compared to others.

Sadam Hussein had to knock a lot of heads to keep the peace between ancient warring factions and ethnic groups that have been killing each other for centuries or even millennia.

But what he did was still excessive and done in part because Iraq had no rule of law.

That is what the USA is heading toward with our Identity Politics system. So you might as well read the ugly parts of world history and familiarize cause its going to be here eventually at these demographic rates.