Obama actually did lose Iraq, Graham explains the negotiations.

[Kosh]

Obama is a failure of epic proportions. See how the far left will watch the world burn than admit to it..

Two American armies failed, Kosh, one under Bush and the other under Obama. The invasion was wrong and it is a failure.

Yes we know what you far left drones think and it took a far left drone to make the propaganda used to come true..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama is a failure of epic proportions. See how the far left will watch the world burn than admit to it..

Two American armies failed, Kosh, one under Bush and the other under Obama. The invasion was wrong and it is a failure.

Yes we know what you far left drones think and it took a far left drone to make the propaganda used to come true..

We know what you far righty loons think and it took a Bush and then Obama to bring about your desired catastrophe.

 

[Kosh]

Obama is a failure of epic proportions. See how the far left will watch the world burn than admit to it..

Two American armies failed, Kosh, one under Bush and the other under Obama. The invasion was wrong and it is a failure.

Yes we know what you far left drones think and it took a far left drone to make the propaganda used to come true..

We know what you far righty loons think and it took a Bush and then Obama to bring about your desired catastrophe.

Yes we know the far left has been wanting this to be a failure since 1991..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama is a failure of epic proportions. See how the far left will watch the world burn than admit to it..

Two American armies failed, Kosh, one under Bush and the other under Obama. The invasion was wrong and it is a failure.

Yes we know what you far left drones think and it took a far left drone to make the propaganda used to come true..

We know what you far righty loons think and it took a Bush and then Obama to bring about your desired catastrophe.

Yes we know the far left has been wanting this to be a failure since 1991..

You wanted 1991 to fail? What a loon.

 

[Kosh]

Obama is a failure of epic proportions. See how the far left will watch the world burn than admit to it..

Two American armies failed, Kosh, one under Bush and the other under Obama. The invasion was wrong and it is a failure.

Yes we know what you far left drones think and it took a far left drone to make the propaganda used to come true..

We know what you far righty loons think and it took a Bush and then Obama to bring about your desired catastrophe.

Yes we know the far left has been wanting this to be a failure since 1991..

You wanted 1991 to fail? What a loon.

Of course you far left drones wanted it to fail in 1991..

As you support Obama's illegal wars..

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are drinking heavily and the last time that happened you were put on the sidelines for awhile. The 1991 invasion was limited and correctly implemented. The 2003 invasion has been a disaster for the Iraqis, the ME, and the US thanks to Bush and Obama.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are drinking heavily and the last time that happened you were put on the sidelines for awhile. The 1991 invasion was limited and correctly implemented. The 2003 invasion has been a disaster for the Iraqis, the ME, and the US thanks to Bush and Obama.

Why do you support these wars?

 

[Kosh]

You are drinking heavily and the last time that happened you were put on the sidelines for awhile. The 1991 invasion was limited and correctly implemented. The 2003 invasion has been a disaster for the Iraqis, the ME, and the US thanks to Bush and Obama.

Why do you support these wars?

Talking to yourself again, can not figure out which ID you are on?

 

[Kosh]

You are drinking heavily and the last time that happened you were put on the sidelines for awhile. The 1991 invasion was limited and correctly implemented. The 2003 invasion has been a disaster for the Iraqis, the ME, and the US thanks to Bush and Obama.

So much far left propaganda in one post.

Yes you far left drones wanted failure from 1991 until now..

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are drinking heavily and the last time that happened you were put on the sidelines for awhile. The 1991 invasion was limited and correctly implemented. The 2003 invasion has been a disaster for the Iraqis, the ME, and the US thanks to Bush and Obama.

Why do you support these wars?

Talking to yourself again, can not figure out which ID you are on?

You should not drink. What I don't understand is why you supported the 2003 invasion. You have said so many times.

 

[Kosh]

You are drinking heavily and the last time that happened you were put on the sidelines for awhile. The 1991 invasion was limited and correctly implemented. The 2003 invasion has been a disaster for the Iraqis, the ME, and the US thanks to Bush and Obama.

Why do you support these wars?

Talking to yourself again, can not figure out which ID you are on?

You should not drink. What I don't understand is why you supported the 2003 invasion. You have said so many times.

Yes we know you far left drones do not see any history past 2003..

And prove that I supported the invasion..

Show the comments with links..

Silly far left drone!

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are drinking heavily and the last time that happened you were put on the sidelines for awhile. The 1991 invasion was limited and correctly implemented. The 2003 invasion has been a disaster for the Iraqis, the ME, and the US thanks to Bush and Obama.

Why do you support these wars?

Talking to yourself again, can not figure out which ID you are on?

You should not drink. What I don't understand is why you supported the 2003 invasion. You have said so many times.

Yes we know you far left drones do not see any history past 2003. And prove that I supported the invasion.. Show the comments with links.. Silly far left drone!

Yes, you supported the invasion, and no you don't get what you don't provide. You say silly things without proof or links. Stop drinking and go to bed.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Andylusion 14297200

Hans Blix did not say this. In fact the opposite. Read what he said. Iraq's prior declarations were all crap, filled with lies, and failed to meet the requirements of the disarming resolution, and that this new declaration did nothing.

Read the language of Resolution 1441 that Bush agreed to and get back to me.

Bush agreed to give Saddam Hussein a Final Opportunty to comply with all the resolutions before 1441.

Read what was supposed to happen if Iraq did not comply with 1441.

Blix never said SH was not in compliance with 1441.

Blix? "The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect."

Or

Andylusion? "The problem is, Saddam refused to allow unconditional weapon

How do you explain the fact that you wrote what is not true as the basis of your argument?

Was Blix lying in his report to the UNSC about the 1441 Inspections on January 27 2003 before the war.

NFBW 14296198

You want to cite Blix Andylusion?

Cite This:

NFBW 11642067

.

Access to sites was not obstructed according to Blix:

Update 27 January 2003

.
I turn now to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq’s response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access. A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course. An initial minor step would be to adopt the long-overdue legislation required by the resolutions.

I shall deal first with cooperation on process.


Cooperation on process

It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.


Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

"Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt." BLIX Update 27 January 2003

So you like what Blix says, do you? Then why did you post such a rediculously ignorant-of- Blix argument?

Andylusion 14292886

I believe Bush hoped to avoid violence. I don't think he lied at all. The problem is, Saddam refused to allow unconditional weapons inspections.

Who's right and actually knows what they are talking about as an expert on UNSC WMD inspections?

Blix? "The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect."

Or

Andylusion? "The problem is, Saddam refused to allow unconditional weapons inspections."


Andylusion 14294830

Now you mentioned Hans Blix. You cited him as your credible argument. Therefore I am going to cite Hans Blix myself, to prove my case.

The moment that you cited Hans Blix, you lost the entire argument. You are so wrong there is no excuse for it.

Who is wrong Andy?

Is that enough Blix for you? Or do you want more?

Basically what you are arguing that Bush lied when he said he wanted to disarm Iraw peacefully going through the UN.

Only the UN could verify that Iraq was indeed disarmed peacefully.

What you are arguing makes no sense unless Bush was lying in October 2003 that war was his last choice.

And you admitted there was no threat from Iraq while Blux was peacefully disarming Iraq.

 

[Kosh]

You are drinking heavily and the last time that happened you were put on the sidelines for awhile. The 1991 invasion was limited and correctly implemented. The 2003 invasion has been a disaster for the Iraqis, the ME, and the US thanks to Bush and Obama.

Why do you support these wars?

Talking to yourself again, can not figure out which ID you are on?

You should not drink. What I don't understand is why you supported the 2003 invasion. You have said so many times.

Yes we know you far left drones do not see any history past 2003. And prove that I supported the invasion.. Show the comments with links.. Silly far left drone!

Yes, you supported the invasion, and no you don't get what you don't provide. You say silly things without proof or links. Stop drinking and go to bed.

As always I ask you to provide proof of your comments far left drone!

So lets see the quotes with links!!

 

[Kosh]

Andylusion 14297200

Hans Blix did not say this. In fact the opposite. Read what he said. Iraq's prior declarations were all crap, filled with lies, and failed to meet the requirements of the disarming resolution, and that this new declaration did nothing.

Read the language of Resolution 1441 that Bush agreed to and get back to me.

Bush agreed to give Saddam Hussein a Final Opportunty to comply with all the resolutions before 1441.

Read what was supposed to happen if Iraq did not comply with 1441.

Blix never said SH was not in compliance with 1441.

Blix? "The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect."

Or

Andylusion? "The problem is, Saddam refused to allow unconditional weapon

How do you explain the fact that you wrote what is not true as the basis of your argument?

Was Blix lying in his report to the UNSC about the 1441 Inspections on January 27 2003 before the war.

NFBW 14296198

You want to cite Blix Andylusion?

Cite This:

NFBW 11642067

.

Access to sites was not obstructed according to Blix:

Update 27 January 2003

.
I turn now to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq’s response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access. A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course. An initial minor step would be to adopt the long-overdue legislation required by the resolutions.

I shall deal first with cooperation on process.


Cooperation on process

It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.


Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

"Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt." BLIX Update 27 January 2003

So you like what Blix says, do you? Then why did you post such a rediculously ignorant-of- Blix argument?

Andylusion 14292886

I believe Bush hoped to avoid violence. I don't think he lied at all. The problem is, Saddam refused to allow unconditional weapons inspections.

Who's right and actually knows what they are talking about as an expert on UNSC WMD inspections?

Blix? "The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect."

Or

Andylusion? "The problem is, Saddam refused to allow unconditional weapons inspections."


Andylusion 14294830

Now you mentioned Hans Blix. You cited him as your credible argument. Therefore I am going to cite Hans Blix myself, to prove my case.

The moment that you cited Hans Blix, you lost the entire argument. You are so wrong there is no excuse for it.

Who is wrong Andy?

Is that enough Blix for you? Or do you want more?

Basically what you are arguing that Bush lied when he said he wanted to disarm Iraw peacefully going through the UN.

Only the UN could verify that Iraq was indeed disarmed peacefully.

What you are arguing makes no sense unless Bush was lying in October 2003 that war was his last choice.

And you admitted there was no threat from Iraq while Blux was peacefully disarming Iraq.

Yes you supported Obama's illegal wars, that is why you should change your name to Fooled by Obama!

And since you will be voting for the war monger Hilary as well, you will continue to show that you will always vote for worse than Bush..

 

[Tehon]

He certainly chose the UN to disarm Iraq peacefully in order to avoid using military force against Iraq.

Bush didn't choose the UN to so that he could avoid using military force against Iraq. The opposite is true, Bush went through the UN precisely so that he could use military force against Iraq.

 

[idb]

He certainly chose the UN to disarm Iraq peacefully in order to avoid using military force against Iraq.

Bush didn't choose the UN to so that he could avoid using military force against Iraq. The opposite is true, Bush went through the UN precisely so that he could use military force against Iraq.

He looked to the UN to give his PNAC strategy legitimacy.
How can anyone think otherwise?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Senator Lindsey Graham explains how Obama lost Iraq by refusing to keep troops in Iraq. The myth that it was Bush's fault is exactly that, a myth. graham and McCain were part of the group sent over to negotiate the status of forces agreement and he explained how it went with Hugh Hewitt, Lawyer, law professor, author and radio host....

Who Lost Iraq Power Line


Lindsey Graham: I think it was our fault. The president got the answer he wanted when it comes to troop levels. He wanted zero. He got zero. He promised to end the War in Iraq. He actually lost the War in Iraq.

But this is something that most people don’t know. I want to make sure you understand. Secretary Clinton called me to go over to Iraq to talk to all the parties to see if we can find a way to achieve a residual force to be left behind. I went with Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman. We met with Mr. Allawi who’s is the Aratia party leader, the former prime minister. He is a Shia, but it was a Sunni coalition. We flew up to meet with President Barzani – not president – but Barzani, the head of the Kurds. … Then we met with Maliki.

So we had Ambassador Jeffrey – U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and Gen. Austin, the commander of Iraq forces at the time in the meeting with me, Maliki, and McCain. I asked Prime Minister Maliki, “Would you accept troops?” He says, “If other will, I will.” Then he turned to me and said, “How many troops are you talking about?” I turned to Gen. Austin and then Ambassador Jeffrey – “What’s the answer to the prime minister’s question?” Gen. Dreyfuss says, “We’re still working on the number.” The number went from 18,000 recommended by Austin down to 3,000 coming out of the White House.

General Dempsey answered Senator McCain’s question and my question as to how the numbers went down – “What is because the Iraqis suggest too many?” He said, “No, the cascading numbers came from the White House.” I was there. They were all ready to accept a residual force. But when you get below 3,000, it was a joke. And we got the answer we wanted. I was on the ground. I asked the question. I heard the answer from Gen. Austin – the White House hasn’t made up their mind, yet.

We lost Iraq on March 20 2003 when President Bush chose to invade on the flimsiest of reasons. Wow, blaming Obama for the result of current events extant from Bushes poor judgment, that astounds me.

Where were you when Obama declared the war over but didn't tell that to the enemy?

.

Um, excuse me. I seem to remember things differently. America invaded Iraq in 03. No WMD's like GW Bush promised. I remember the line about "Not being in the business of nation building" too. Mistakes were made alright. What Obama did after the fact, rather weak and flaccid excuse for what's happening NOW.

Was I talking about 03?


Why do you still want to apologize for Obama Declaring the war over?


That was supposed to be his legacy after all..

.

The war was over.

The Iraqi government wanted us out. The Iraqi people wanted us out. The American people wanted us out.

Get over it. ODS is rotting your brains.

The war was not over get it through your brains,

We are still fightining

We put troops on the ground back in Iraq


Troops have died

 

[idb]

We lost Iraq on March 20 2003 when President Bush chose to invade on the flimsiest of reasons. Wow, blaming Obama for the result of current events extant from Bushes poor judgment, that astounds me.

Where were you when Obama declared the war over but didn't tell that to the enemy?

.

Um, excuse me. I seem to remember things differently. America invaded Iraq in 03. No WMD's like GW Bush promised. I remember the line about "Not being in the business of nation building" too. Mistakes were made alright. What Obama did after the fact, rather weak and flaccid excuse for what's happening NOW.

Was I talking about 03?


Why do you still want to apologize for Obama Declaring the war over?


That was supposed to be his legacy after all..

.

The war was over.

The Iraqi government wanted us out. The Iraqi people wanted us out. The American people wanted us out.

Get over it. ODS is rotting your brains.

The war was not over get it through your brains,

We are still fightining

We put troops on the ground back in Iraq


Troops have died

"Mission Accomplished"

 

[pwjohn]

Remember when they were bragging and taking credit for Iraq

Flashback Obama We re Leaving Behind A Sovereign Stable And Self-Reliant Iraq - YouTube

Lets be honest here. The newly formed government of Iraq, heavy on Shia's, refused to share power with the Sunni's as originally agreed upon, thereby leaving a large section of the country, and all the people living there ( Sunnis) without representation in Bagdad. Heavy influence from Iran at the highest levels of the newly formed Shia run government in Bagdad probably played a considerable role in the disintegration of Iraq. If not the Shia run central Bagdad Government.

Having said all that, had we not fucked around with the place and killed their top leadership back in 2003, all Sunni's by the way, none of this might not have ever happened. Just saying.

We went on to do petty much the same thing to Libya just a few years later with pretty much the same end result