Poll reveals what a huge blunder Iraq was

JimH52

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2007
47,195
25,375
2,645
US
Iraq

CNN/ORC Poll. Sept. 6-8, 2013. N=1,022 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

The poll found that the majority of Americans have felt Iraq was a mistake from the beginning.

"In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?"

And to see DICK defend such a misguided and contrived decision is just sickening. He is a rich, old, delusional old man that needs to just go away.
 
But but but I thought the current situation in Iraq is a huge blunder or something for Obama. How could that be when a majority of Americans don't think we should have gone there in the first place?
 
Well whether the original invasion was a mistake or not, doesn't mean Obama has led a successful exit.
The proof seems to be staring us in the face that Iraq was not ready to stand alone. Nice going Obama. We're now going to be feeling some severe pain at the pump for his allowing the instability to occur.
 
Iraq

CNN/ORC Poll. Sept. 6-8, 2013. N=1,022 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

The poll found that the majority of Americans have felt Iraq was a mistake from the beginning.

"In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?"

And to see DICK defend such a misguided and contrived decision is just sickening. He is a rich, old, delusional old man that needs to just go away.

Amazing that hindsight is always 20/20. You realize today that marrying your ex-wife 20 years ago was a blunder, correct?
 
Iraq

CNN/ORC Poll. Sept. 6-8, 2013. N=1,022 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

The poll found that the majority of Americans have felt Iraq was a mistake from the beginning.

"In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?"

And to see DICK defend such a misguided and contrived decision is just sickening. He is a rich, old, delusional old man that needs to just go away.


This is like saying that you shouldn't have smoked AFTER getting lung cancer! :cool:
 
But but but I thought the current situation in Iraq is a huge blunder or something for Obama. How could that be when a majority of Americans don't think we should have gone there in the first place?

Democrat lawmakers were on board. I do wish you libs would stop lying.
 
"Sure Shot," Dick Cheney still believes that once upon a time, there WMD's in Iraq. The Dick Cheney contribution to U. S. foreign policy tends to use, "once upon a time," as the more genuine brands.

1. Republicans now think that Obama should have left a tiny contingent of troops in Iraq, to be seen supportive of one or another factions.
2. General George Armstrong Custer once led a tiny contingent of troops, against an indigenous faction.
3. The Democrat Party brand is generall more inclusive, than tiny-minded.
4. A governing coalition in Iraq is needed first, so that a national agenda is seen to getting support, instead of a sectarian agenda.

And so the former Commander in Iraq is on board with the more viable, Democratic Party initiated, current strategy in Iraq. Maliki had to be led into a more cooperative arrangement, if the United States was to be further involved.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred"
(White Eyes now led by gray-haired, lesser haired, darker-colored brand(?)! Hmmm!)
 
But but but I thought the current situation in Iraq is a huge blunder or something for Obama. How could that be when a majority of Americans don't think we should have gone there in the first place?

Democrat lawmakers were on board. I do wish you libs would stop lying.

21 times as many Democrats as Republicans voted against the Iraq war.

A majority of Democrats voted against the war.

That is only 'on board' to a burnt out like you.
 
"Sure Shot," Dick Cheney still believes that once upon a time, there WMD's in Iraq. The Dick Cheney contribution to U. S. foreign policy tends to use, "once upon a time," as the more genuine brands.

1. Republicans now think that Obama should have left a tiny contingent of troops in Iraq, to be seen supportive of one or another factions.
2. General George Armstrong Custer once led a tiny contingent of troops, against an indigenous faction.
3. The Democrat Party brand is generall more inclusive, than tiny-minded.
4. A governing coalition in Iraq is needed first, so that a national agenda is seen to getting support, instead of a sectarian agenda.

And so the former Commander in Iraq is on board with the more viable, Democratic Party initiated, current strategy in Iraq. Maliki had to be led into a more cooperative arrangement, if the United States was to be further involved.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred"
(White Eyes now led by gray-haired, lesser haired, darker-colored brand(?)! Hmmm!)

We would never have left enough troops in Iraq to deter this current action by the Sunnis, therefore,

all that would have happened is that we would now be in a Vietnam-like position where escalation seemed like the only viable option.

The fact, btw, that the President is now saying he'll send in 'advisors' has a chilling Vietnamesque ring to it.
 
Never mind the ones who were "on board" were lied to ...

with the likes of shite like this ::

Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush and his top aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001, according to a study released Tuesday by two nonprofit journalism groups.

"In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."
Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war - CNN.com

And sold-his-soul-to-the-devil-kaPowell bringing it:

 
Well whether the original invasion was a mistake or not, doesn't mean Obama has led a successful exit.
The proof seems to be staring us in the face that Iraq was not ready to stand alone. Nice going Obama. We're now going to be feeling some severe pain at the pump for his allowing the instability to occur.

Yeah nice going Obama. You pulled our troops out like the Iraqi govt and the Bush admin agreed to. You even stayed longer than agreed. But that wasn't enough. Armchair warriors like Digitaldrifter don't think enough American and innocent Iraqi blood has been spilled. So why not continue the war indefinitely?
 
obama inherited an Iraq so successful that he and Biden intended to take credit for one of the greatest achievements of his regime.

Now that his foolishness has made Iraq a basket case he wants to go back and blame Bush.
 
Well whether the original invasion was a mistake or not, doesn't mean Obama has led a successful exit.
The proof seems to be staring us in the face that Iraq was not ready to stand alone. Nice going Obama. We're now going to be feeling some severe pain at the pump for his allowing the instability to occur.


stand alone ? ... that rat hole has been the same for centuries ... before AND after the US involvement... that's staring you in the face not Obama's leadership
 

Forum List

Back
Top