Nyt Baghdad Bureau Chief: The White House Lied To Americans For Years About What Bad Shape Iraq Was

[Stephanie]

Holy smokes.

SNIP:
Via Ace, something to keep in mind tonight while The One is doing his johnny-on-the-spot shtick about fighting jihadism in Iraq. “Lie” is my word, not Tim Arango’s, but read his comment and tell me what’s more likely. That the vast American intelligence community was “ignorant” of how bad things were in a country where we’d spent eight years developing assets? Or that the White House had every reason to know how dangerous Iraq was becoming but chose to suppress that information because the truth was problematic?

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/commen...ghdad_bureau_chief_for_the_new/ckcrxcd[/CODE]


Is “ignorant” really the best word to describe willful blindness to a politically inconvenient truth? Obama got elected promising to bring the troops home; the only way he could do that without major domestic headaches was to claim that Iraq didn’t need them anymore. So he did, the truth notwithstanding. Imagine how many low-information voters will watch tonight’s speech and wonder where this bolt-from-the-blue known as ISIS came from. Last they heard, Iraq was doing just fine.
You guys know better, though. I’ve linked it more than once before but it’s worth re-reading Peter Beinart’s post from a few months ago about Obama’s history of malign neglect in Iraq. He had one Iraq goal as president — to get out, come what may, just as he promised voters he would do in 2008. And he did it, even though that meant denying Iraq a small but potent residual American force that could have held Maliki’s sectarian impulses in check (which in turn would have made Iraq’s Sunnis less inclined to turn to ISIS) and would have been well positioned to smash ISIS once it crossed the border from Syria. Dexter Filkins of the New Yorker has written about this at length. Quote:

all of it here:
NYT Baghdad bureau chief The White House lied to Americans for years about what bad shape Iraq was in Hot Air

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama ignores every adverse thing until he has no choice but deal with it. It's the MO of his presidency. He's too busy shooting hoops, sinking balls, and raising money to focus on much else.

 

[BlindBoo]

While far less egregious than George W. Bush’s errors, Obama’s have been egregious enough. By ignoring Iraq, and refusing to defend democratic principles there, he has helped spawn the disaster we see today.

It’s time people who aren’t Republican operatives began saying so.

Agreed?

 

[Flopper]

While far less egregious than George W. Bush’s errors, Obama’s have been egregious enough. By ignoring Iraq, and refusing to defend democratic principles there, he has helped spawn the disaster we see today.

It’s time people who aren’t Republican operatives began saying so.

Agreed?

We got into this mess because we took a brutal but strong dictatorship and turned it into a weak democratic republic. It was a huge mistake from the beginning.

Taking the troops out of Iraq was the right thing to do as is staying out. The best thing we can do is support the Iraqi government with air strikes, weapons, training, and intelligence. In the end, Iraq must defend itself or collapse.

 

[saveliberty]

Never send a community organizer to do a president's work.

 

[BlindBoo]

While far less egregious than George W. Bush’s errors, Obama’s have been egregious enough. By ignoring Iraq, and refusing to defend democratic principles there, he has helped spawn the disaster we see today.

It’s time people who aren’t Republican operatives began saying so.

Agreed?

We got into this mess because we took a brutal but strong dictatorship and turned it into a weak democratic republic. It was a huge mistake from the beginning.

Taking the troops out of Iraq was the right thing to do as is staying out. The best thing we can do is support the Iraqi government with air strikes, weapons, training, and intelligence. In the end, Iraq must defend itself or collapse.

Yes the Bush invasion an occupation was the original strategic blunder that started the whole mess but the Atlantic article cited in the OP offers several other ways President Obama failed to act against Maliki's actions prior to our troops departure.

 

[kiwiman127]

Yes the Bush invasion an occupation was the original strategic blunder that started the whole mess but the Atlantic article cited in the OP offers several other ways President Obama failed to act against Maliki's actions prior to our troops departure.

There is no doubt that Obama certainly screwed up. Where in the hell did he get his advice?
However, the Bushies didn't do their job either. First they relied on BS intelligence, then they invaded with not enough troops to completely control Iraq
Maliki also deserves much of the blame blame by alienating and basically persecuting the Sunni population. Thus causing the big divide and the birth the involvement by the Iraqi Sunnis with ISIS.
And that's how we got where we are today, thanks to these three men's incompetence.

 

[Siete]

Never send a community organizer to do a president's work.

never send our soldiers 9000 miles away from THIS country and try to SHOVE Democracy up the ass of another country who doesn't have the desire to FIGHT for it.

 

[Flopper]

While far less egregious than George W. Bush’s errors, Obama’s have been egregious enough. By ignoring Iraq, and refusing to defend democratic principles there, he has helped spawn the disaster we see today.

It’s time people who aren’t Republican operatives began saying so.

Agreed?

We got into this mess because we took a brutal but strong dictatorship and turned it into a weak democratic republic. It was a huge mistake from the beginning.

Taking the troops out of Iraq was the right thing to do as is staying out. The best thing we can do is support the Iraqi government with air strikes, weapons, training, and intelligence. In the end, Iraq must defend itself or collapse.

Yes the Bush invasion an occupation was the original strategic blunder that started the whole mess but the Atlantic article cited in the OP offers several other ways President Obama failed to act against Maliki's actions prior to our troops departure.

Do you have a link to that article. I seemed to have missed it.

 

[Flopper]

Never send a community organizer to do a president's work.

never send our soldiers 9000 miles away from THIS country and try to SHOVE Democracy up the ass of another country who doesn't have the desire to FIGHT for it.

The Iraqi government is in the hands of a parliament which is now composed of 26 separate parties and coalitions many which are far more interested in destroying their opposition than they are in a unified Iraq. In fact, some are even opposed to a national government and want to see Iraq split into separate nations. I don't think Americans understand this. In America political interests take a back seat when the nation is threatened. In Iraq, political interest trumps the defense of the nation. Given time Iraq may get it's act together or they may not. A lot depends on the US's committeemen to Iraq.

IMHO, Iraq is far too divided to survive as a democratic republic at this time.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9788507

Holy smokes.

He had one Iraq goal as president — to get out, come what may, just as he promised voters he would do in 2008. And he did it, even though that meant denying Iraq a small but potent residual American force that could have held Maliki’s sectarian impulses in check (which in turn would have made Iraq’s Sunnis less inclined to turn to ISIS) and would have been well positioned to smash ISIS once it crossed the border from Syria

It would be good for Stephanie to develop an ability to think for herself using all information available instead of just one side that is pushing an agenda. One can read the underlined statement and quickly deduce that it is a fraud. The writer speaks of keeping Maliki's "sectarian impulses in check' by keeping a US residual force in Iraq that could tell Maliki what to do and what not to do. The problem for this commentary is that simple reason tells us that a Maliki does not want to be over-ruled by foreign troops or foreign leaders from foreign governments.

Maliki proved his thirst for independence in December 2007 when he wrote a letter to the UNSC directing them to disband the MNF (occupation troops) mandate at the end of 2008. That request in writing as PM of Iraq declared once for all that Maliki was no longer going to be Bush's poodle dancing for treats after 2008, And that is exactly what happened. Any small residual force left in Iraq automatically has no say over what Maliki does. The year to stop Maliki from being a quasi dictator with a sectarian agenda was 2007 when Bush was still President and had diminishing but some leverage over Malki and the Shiite dominated Legislature.

I am providing you with a background with facts. Perhaps it will help you see through all the bull crap coming at us from formerly reliable News Orfanizations such as the NYTimes. That outfit has had Iraq wrong for over a decade now. You cannot trust them at all.


GO THINK YERSELF!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9792893

IMHO, Iraq is far too divided to survive as a democratic republic at this time.

9794487. If your honest opinion were true it would moot the argument of the righties here that Obama erred by not keeping a residual force in Iraq since 2012 and against the will of the Shiite majority of Iraqis.

If Iraq is far too divided to survive as a democratic republic, no amount of US residual force could salvage anything from Bush 43's dumb war after all.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama? Lie?

Wow

That's a shocker

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9790229

There is no doubt that Obama certainly screwed up. Where in the hell did he get his advice?

OK Mr. Moderate, could you please define in your moderate view what specifically Obama screwed up on Iraq? Do you accept the John McCain EconChick opinion on Obama's alleged screw up on Iraq?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9788655

Obama ignores every adverse thing until he has no choice but deal with it. It's the MO of his presidency. He's too busy shooting hoops, sinking balls, and raising money to focus on much else.

What was ignored when he tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan and reversed the Taliban's momentum after six years of endless drift under Bush?



9789653

While far less egregious than George W. Bush’s errors, Obama’s have been egregious enough. By ignoring Iraq, and refusing to defend democratic principles there, he has helped spawn the disaster we see today

Actually you are the one missing the point about democratic principles in Iraq. Maliki did not defend democratic principles and Obama called him on it.

Now Maliki is out and democratic principles still have a shot. Obama got it right.




9789953

Yes the Bush invasion an occupation was the original strategic blunder that started the whole mess but the Atlantic article cited in the OP offers several other ways President Obama failed to act against Maliki's actions prior to our troops departure.

Like what? Could you cut n paste what you saw in that article so we can discuss it?

 

[Rotagilla]

Yes the Bush invasion an occupation was the original strategic blunder that started the whole mess but the Atlantic article cited in the OP offers several other ways President Obama failed to act against Maliki's actions prior to our troops departure.

There is no doubt that Obama certainly screwed up. Where in the hell did he get his advice?
However, the Bushies didn't do their job either. First they relied on BS intelligence, then they invaded with not enough troops to completely control Iraq
Maliki also deserves much of the blame blame by alienating and basically persecuting the Sunni population. Thus causing the big divide and the birth the involvement by the Iraqi Sunnis with ISIS.
And that's how we got where we are today, thanks to these three men's incompetence.

If neither bush nor obama had been born, muzzies would still be fighting in the ME.

If the u.s. had never been founded, muzzies would still be fighting in the ME....

They have been for over 2000 years...if the earth lasts 2000 more, they'll still be fighting.

 

[Sallow]

While far less egregious than George W. Bush’s errors, Obama’s have been egregious enough. By ignoring Iraq, and refusing to defend democratic principles there, he has helped spawn the disaster we see today.

It’s time people who aren’t Republican operatives began saying so.

Agreed?

Nope.

This was going to happen.

There was no turning it around.

Once "de-baathification" took place, the army was disbanded and someone from the Dawa party became Prime Minister?

This was inevitable.

 

[Flopper]

9792893

IMHO, Iraq is far too divided to survive as a democratic republic at this time.

9794487. If your honest opinion were true it would moot the argument of the righties here that Obama erred by not keeping a residual force in Iraq since 2012 and against the will of the Shiite majority of Iraqis.

If Iraq is far too divided to survive as a democratic republic, no amount of US residual force could salvage anything from Bush 43's dumb war after all.

I agree somewhat. Iraq can't survive as a democratic state without the full backing of the US. They'er as divided now as they were 10 years ago. The only hope for Iraq to stand on it's feet and protect itself is for the current leadership to form the necessary collations to centralize power and control of the government which is of course what Saddam did.

What makes a democratic government work is for the various political interest to put the welfare of the nation above partisan politics in times of crisis and that isn't happening in Iraq.

 

[Kondor3]

The Failed Messiah and his Gang have lied again and again and again. on so many things, that it's becoming increasingly difficult to show the proper disdain and alarm.

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama wanted to cut and run in Iraq first chance he got, its no secret in 2007 he was adamant that we leave Iraq "immediately" and said so. Biden called Obama's foreign policy positions "naïve and dangerous".