Romney Predicted The Failures of Today

[sealybobo]

This is the second most astounding thing in the universe!
Romney...2007....predicts exactly what is happening in the Middle East and Africa today.
This man could have been your President.
The first most astounding thing?
Supposedly sentient Americans actually re-elected the failure...and they are responsible for the chaos in the word today.

Republicans still think Romney is a viable choice. I suspect if the Democratic challenger is someone other than Hillary it is not that unlikely that he could possibly win. Even though all he is is a billionaire professional politician/daddy's boy who grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth, he's got the look and the talk and he did win in Blue Massachussets but they don't like him anymore. He's also young enough. I guess we shouldn't ignore Romney or as we call him Mr. Bain Capital.

Guys like Romney are who ruined America. Him and Bush. In fact I have a thread that asks republicans to tell us the difference between his and BUsh's policies and there aren't any. NONE

 

[Plasmaball]

listen up Ms. Notary Public.....

Obama accepted the responsibility of the Iraq conflict when he took the oath.

He opted to end the war as he promised, but as opposed to looking at possible negative ramifications of a full pull out, he simply acted and washed his hands of it.

But only a mental midget would not realize that it would create a vacuum and to create a vacuum in that region is a very dangerous thing.

He didn't care. He wanted to popular.

Good for him.

Bad for us.

Wrong. Obama ended nothing. Bush ended it when he was forced to sign sofa via the Iraqi government.

Iraqi wanted us gone. Period.

Jeez. Gimme a break.

If Obama wanted to keep 10,000 troops ion there to keep it stable, as he should have, all he had to do was say....'sign this now giving our troops immunity or we will take everyone home today along with all of our arms and equipment.'

Dam...pathetic how you guys simply take liars for their word.

So..complain that we don't have troops there...complain we took them home, but think it's a good idea for Obama to ignore a signed treaty where the Iraqis wanted us to leave. ..

They wouldn't have signed it jarhead.

 

[Jarhead]

listen up Ms. Notary Public.....

Obama accepted the responsibility of the Iraq conflict when he took the oath.

He opted to end the war as he promised, but as opposed to looking at possible negative ramifications of a full pull out, he simply acted and washed his hands of it.

But only a mental midget would not realize that it would create a vacuum and to create a vacuum in that region is a very dangerous thing.

He didn't care. He wanted to popular.

Good for him.

Bad for us.

Wrong. Obama ended nothing. Bush ended it when he was forced to sign sofa via the Iraqi government.

Iraqi wanted us gone. Period.

Wrong.


The problem was totally due to the ineptitude of Obama, and folks like you who put him in office.


"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,...."
Iraq?s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com



Do you understand that?

Bush left Obama with three years.....three years....to work out an agreement.

The dunce could not.

He didn't even try.

He just wanted to do what was popular...not what was necessary for the long term safety of America.

Good for him.

Bad for us.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But Romney also wanted to arm the people who are overrunning Iraq:

2012

Obama will not arm Syrian rebels; Romney sees a 'lack of leadership'


"...Romney called for the United States and partner nations to “arm the opposition so they can defend themselves” against the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad, but White House press secretary Jay Carney warned that would lead to more “chaos and carnage” and was “not the right course.” "


Read more: Obama will not arm Syrian rebels; Romney sees a 'lack of leadership' | TheHill
Follow us: [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

So I guess Romney wanted American troops to stay in Iraq so he, as president, could arm the people who would eventually head south and try to kill them.

After we dispense with the Liberal hypotheticals, the reality remains: this President is the cause of the slaughter, and misery that he was warned about by Romney.

The worse villains in the scenario are the dopes who put this failure in office.

I'm still pretty sure it was started when the Iraqi army was disbanded in the very early stage of the occupation, and the civil war began. President Bush wasn't able to get the Iraqi Government to agree to give US troops immunity from Iraqi laws past 2011. So he signed the agreement to have all our troops out by the end of 2011. Ultimately the onus fall on the Iraqis themselves for not agreeing to the Presidents terms. They had ample opportunity to do so too.

Don't you ever get anything right???


"President Bush wasn't able to get the Iraqi Government to agree to give US troops immunity from Iraqi laws past 2011. So he signed the agreement to have all our troops out by the end of 2011."

Post #60 puts that myth to rest.....but even if you were right, 2011 gave the community organizer two years to show his ability at diplomacy....had he any.

 

[jillian]

This is the second most astounding thing in the universe!
Romney...2007....predicts exactly what is happening in the Middle East and Africa today.
This man could have been your President.
The first most astounding thing?
Supposedly sentient Americans actually re-elected the failure...and they are responsible for the chaos in the word today.

Republicans still think Romney is a viable choice. I suspect if the Democratic challenger is someone other than Hillary it is not that unlikely that he could possibly win. Even though all he is is a billionaire professional politician/daddy's boy who grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth, he's got the look and the talk and he did win in Blue Massachussets but they don't like him anymore. He's also young enough. I guess we shouldn't ignore Romney or as we call him Mr. Bain Capital.

Guys like Romney are who ruined America. Him and Bush. In fact I have a thread that asks republicans to tell us the difference between his and BUsh's policies and there aren't any. NONE

they were mirror images.... except baby bush was more likeable a guy

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is the second most astounding thing in the universe!
Romney...2007....predicts exactly what is happening in the Middle East and Africa today.
This man could have been your President.
The first most astounding thing?
Supposedly sentient Americans actually re-elected the failure...and they are responsible for the chaos in the word today.

Republicans still think Romney is a viable choice. I suspect if the Democratic challenger is someone other than Hillary it is not that unlikely that he could possibly win. Even though all he is is a billionaire professional politician/daddy's boy who grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth, he's got the look and the talk and he did win in Blue Massachussets but they don't like him anymore. He's also young enough. I guess we shouldn't ignore Romney or as we call him Mr. Bain Capital.

Guys like Romney are who ruined America. Him and Bush. In fact I have a thread that asks republicans to tell us the difference between his and BUsh's policies and there aren't any. NONE

So....after living through the multitude of both domestic and foreign policy failures of the community organizer....

given the choice once again....you'd pick Obama?


Let's hear it, sealybonobo!

 

[PoliticalChic]

And for the record, we told you loons that saddam was a creep but he was our keep and kept the fundies at bay.

he also stood between us and iran.

but why would neocon idiots understand that?

"And for the record, we told you loons that saddam was a creep but he was our keep and kept the fundies at bay."

Who is "we"?

You have a tapeworm?



I sure hope you don't mean the Democrats as "we"....




"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003




Sure looks like you put your foot in your mouth, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

At the time of this speech bush had not signed sofa, thus cool he wanted us to stay forever. Typical neocon.

After bush signed sofa there would be nothing Romney could have done. He would of done the same thing is Obama in the end.

"He would of done the same thing is Obama in the end."


Liberal crystal ball?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wrong. Obama ended nothing. Bush ended it when he was forced to sign sofa via the Iraqi government.

Iraqi wanted us gone. Period.

Jeez. Gimme a break.

If Obama wanted to keep 10,000 troops ion there to keep it stable, as he should have, all he had to do was say....'sign this now giving our troops immunity or we will take everyone home today along with all of our arms and equipment.'

Dam...pathetic how you guys simply take liars for their word.

does the fact that they wouldn't enter into an agreement with us to keep troops there get into your thick skull at all?

Time magazine disagrees with you.....see post #60.

 

[bripat9643]

When you say "predicted" that means it actually has to happen -- you can't just make believe it happened and then say "see, I was right."

Hilary Clinton was one of the most successful Sec of State in our history. She is the most popular woman in the U.S. if not the world.

Can you name any of these "successes" of hers?

 

[NYcarbineer]

And for the record, we told you loons that saddam was a creep but he was our keep and kept the fundies at bay.

he also stood between us and iran.

but why would neocon idiots understand that?

"And for the record, we told you loons that saddam was a creep but he was our keep and kept the fundies at bay."

Who is "we"?

You have a tapeworm?



I sure hope you don't mean the Democrats as "we"....




"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003




Sure looks like you put your foot in your mouth, huh?

I don't see Barack Obama on that list, which is why he's now president, not any of them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are there troops in Germany? South Korea?

The reason is that we were once led by leaders who understood what would happen if we left with the possibility that all the gains could be lost.


Along came a community organizer, given power by the slow-witted, like you, who didn't have the requisite ability to get a status of forces agreement with Iraq.

And Romney told all exactly would happen.

And Palin did the same vis-a-vis Putin.

Only Obama, the Oblivious, didn't.



Now, if you require a theory that endows Obama with more ability.....then the chaos in the Middle East must be his plan.
And he has misled you on his plan for the world.....


...note: neither theory endows Obama voters with insight or intelligence.

So how long did the insurgency's last in Germany after WWII? How many Americans were blown up by IED's. Where was the Soviet Unions troops at this time? You get an A+ in false comparisons.

When the occupation failed to keep order in Iraq it was predicted that a three way civil war would be the end result.

Neither Bush nor Obama could get the Iraqis to agree to give our troop immunity to Iraq laws. Neither one would have left our troops there under those terms. Nor would Romney had we been unfortunate enough to have elected him.

Palin? Hahahahaha

"So how long did the insurgency's last in Germany after WWII? How many Americans were blown up by IED's. Where was the Soviet Unions troops at this time? You get an A+ in false comparisons."

Once again....my function is to be teacher to the Leftists....




"The Werewolves were originally organised by the SS and the Hitler Youth as a diversionary operation on the fringes of the Third Reich, which were occupied by the Western Allies and the Soviets in the autumn of 1944. Some 5,000 -- 6,000 recruits were raised by the winter of 1944-45, but numbers rose considerably in the following spring when the Nazi Party and the Propaganda Ministry launched a popular call to arms, beseeching everybody in the occupied areas -- even women and children -- to launch themselves upon the enemy. In typical Nazi fashion, this expansion was not co-ordinated by the relevant bodies, which were instead involved in a bureaucratic war among themselves over control of the project. The result was that the movement functioned on two largely unrelated levels: the first as a real force of specially trained SS, Hitler Youth and Nazi Party guerrillas; the second as an outlet for casual violence by fanatics.

The Werewolves specialised in ambushes and sniping, and took the lives of many Allied and Soviet soldiers and officers --.... "
Minutemen of the Third Reich ("Werewolf" guerilla movement - postwar sabotage & terror not new)



Imagine....if you actually had an education, you wouldn't be a Leftist.




"You get an A+ in false comparisons."

I'm never wrong. I once thought I was wrong, turns out, I was mistaken.

This is 2014, not 1946.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In 2008 the American people had the chance to elect a president who was ready to keep troops in Iraq for a hundred years.

They declined.

 

[Jarhead]

In 2008 the American people had the chance to elect a president who was ready to keep troops in Iraq for a hundred years.

They declined.

Yeah. Instead, they went for the guy that promised to change the way we do things in Washington....

How did that pan out?

 

[NYcarbineer]

When you say "predicted" that means it actually has to happen -- you can't just make believe it happened and then say "see, I was right."

Hilary Clinton was one of the most successful Sec of State in our history. She is the most popular woman in the U.S. if not the world.

Tell us of her accomplishments as Sec of State. She had trouble listing them herself.

Hillary “Benghazi” Clinton, the 2016 Democrat presidential hopeful is asked by ABC’s Diane Sawyer to identify her major accomplishment, or “marquee achievement,” as Secretary of State.

“People say, ‘Where is the marquee achievement?’ No sweeping agreements, no signature doctrine,’” Sawyer asked.

Hillary, obviously deflecting in pure Clinton form, attempts to swing the conversation towards the accomplishments of presidents, which was not anywhere near the question.

How many secretaries of state can you name with marquee achievements?

 

[Jarhead]

When you say "predicted" that means it actually has to happen -- you can't just make believe it happened and then say "see, I was right."

Hilary Clinton was one of the most successful Sec of State in our history. She is the most popular woman in the U.S. if not the world.

Tell us of her accomplishments as Sec of State. She had trouble listing them herself.

Hillary “Benghazi” Clinton, the 2016 Democrat presidential hopeful is asked by ABC’s Diane Sawyer to identify her major accomplishment, or “marquee achievement,” as Secretary of State.

“People say, ‘Where is the marquee achievement?’ No sweeping agreements, no signature doctrine,’” Sawyer asked.

Hillary, obviously deflecting in pure Clinton form, attempts to swing the conversation towards the accomplishments of presidents, which was not anywhere near the question.

How many secretaries of state can you name with marquee achievements?

Ask Hazelnut. He is the one who has made the determination that she was one of the most successful SoS...

What did he base that on?

 

[rdean]

This was predicted as soon as Bush announced the invasion. Sunni and Shiite have been at war for over a thousand years. If all the Muslim could get together, they could have taken out Israel, but they can't because they are always at war with each other.

Republicans didn't even know there was a difference between Sunni and Shiite. Because they are low information arrogant bullies with no real foreign policy. Guns and bombs is all they know.

 

[Plasmaball]

listen up Ms. Notary Public.....

Obama accepted the responsibility of the Iraq conflict when he took the oath.

He opted to end the war as he promised, but as opposed to looking at possible negative ramifications of a full pull out, he simply acted and washed his hands of it.

But only a mental midget would not realize that it would create a vacuum and to create a vacuum in that region is a very dangerous thing.

He didn't care. He wanted to popular.

Good for him.

Bad for us.

Wrong. Obama ended nothing. Bush ended it when he was forced to sign sofa via the Iraqi government.

Iraqi wanted us gone. Period.

Wrong.


The problem was totally due to the ineptitude of Obama, and folks like you who put him in office.


"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,...."
Iraq?s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com



Do you understand that?

Bush left Obama with three years.....three years....to work out an agreement.

The dunce could not.

Read the rest of it. Malawki [sp] forced bush to sign it. 3 years 10 years, it didn't matter who was in office after bush. Iraq wanted us out period.

Romney would have pulled us out. McCain. Would have pulled us out...hell bush in a third term would have pulled us out.

It is what it is....

 

[NYcarbineer]

...overlooking the fact that some other idiot did the exact same thread with the exact same video earlier today.

lol, if Obama had left troops in Iraq the GOP and the RWnuts would be crowing about how he failed to keep his promise to end the war in Iraq and how he was now putting more US soldiers needlessly in harm's way.

Are there troops in Germany? South Korea?

.

Wrong question. ONe better question is, will South Korea be sending their massive horde of 3,600 troops back to Iraq?

Remind us when S. Korea bailed out of Iraq.

Let me help our Korean immigrant poster PoliticalChic. South Korea pulled out its sadly comical handful of troops in 2008,

and no, they won't be coming back. I suppose they figure that feeble gesture was a fair trade for the 60+ years of blood and treasure we've spent defending them.

It's time to wake up.

 

[Plasmaball]

Jeez. Gimme a break.

If Obama wanted to keep 10,000 troops ion there to keep it stable, as he should have, all he had to do was say....'sign this now giving our troops immunity or we will take everyone home today along with all of our arms and equipment.'

Dam...pathetic how you guys simply take liars for their word.

does the fact that they wouldn't enter into an agreement with us to keep troops there get into your thick skull at all?

Time magazine disagrees with you.....see post #60.

You need to red the rest of time