Stunning! Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created

[Oldstyle]

My question for those board members who DO think Obama tried to get a new Status of Forces Agreement would be this...if you REALLY were serious about such a thing don't you think you would discuss it repeatedly with your Iraqi counterpart during the summer and fall of that year? Yet the Times reports that the Oct 22nd video meeting between Obama and Maliki was the first since June! That's five months! What was Barry doing during that time?

 

[Oldstyle]

Barack Obama has a history of his actions not coming CLOSE to his rhetoric. This is simply one more example of that...

 

[ogibillm]

My question for those board members who DO think Obama tried to get a new Status of Forces Agreement would be this...if you REALLY were serious about such a thing don't you think you would discuss it repeatedly with your Iraqi counterpart during the summer and fall of that year? Yet the Times reports that the Oct 22nd video meeting between Obama and Maliki was the first since June! That's five months! What was Barry doing during that time?

because all negotiations are conducted by the president himself.

 

[Oldstyle]

My question for those board members who DO think Obama tried to get a new Status of Forces Agreement would be this...if you REALLY were serious about such a thing don't you think you would discuss it repeatedly with your Iraqi counterpart during the summer and fall of that year? Yet the Times reports that the Oct 22nd video meeting between Obama and Maliki was the first since June! That's five months! What was Barry doing during that time?

because all negotiations are conducted by the president himself.

No but isn't it shocking to you that for five MONTHS, Barack Obama never talked with Maliki? Does that show any commitment to getting a deal done? Then people wonder why some Iraqis doubted Obama's commitment?

 

[ogibillm]

My question for those board members who DO think Obama tried to get a new Status of Forces Agreement would be this...if you REALLY were serious about such a thing don't you think you would discuss it repeatedly with your Iraqi counterpart during the summer and fall of that year? Yet the Times reports that the Oct 22nd video meeting between Obama and Maliki was the first since June! That's five months! What was Barry doing during that time?

because all negotiations are conducted by the president himself.

No but isn't it shocking to you that for five MONTHS, Barack Obama never talked with Maliki? Does that show any commitment to getting a deal done? Then people wonder why some Iraqis doubted Obama's commitment?

they can doubt it all they want.
does any of that change that we were offering to keep soldiers in iraq and they refused that offer?

 

[tinydancer]

“If Bush hadn't invaded in the first place..... “


A simple fact the Bush apologists are clearly incapable of comprehending.

yep. Repubs like that tool- Oldstyle are glossing over the fact that The President (then "Sen Obama) vehemently & rightly advised AGAINST vietraq from the start. Now people like Oldstyle are whining that the President isn't containing the blow back of their disastrous UNPAID-FOR foreign policy adventure fast enough that 44 advised against undertaking in the first place.

eXtreme rw circular logic

It's interesting that then Senator Obama called for a 16 month withdrawal from Iraq but also called for a "residual force" to be left in Iraq when he was running for President in 2008. So what happened to that residual force once he became President?

iraq didn't want it. they refused to allow us to keep troops there without having them under the jurisdiction of iraqi courts.

you've been told this time and time again. why can't you accept it?

Because it's a talking point that ignores reality? What some politicians in Iraq "wanted" and what they would have done to receive billions in US aid are two different things. The truth is that a new Status of Forces Agreement was never pursued by President Obama because HE didn't want to keep American troops in Iraq.

again, patently false. the agreement was pursued. iraq rejected it.
Stunning Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So you're saying that Barack Obama made the pursuit of a new Status of Forces Agreement a priority? An article from the New York Times back in September of 2012 paints a different picture. Take note of Vice President Joe Biden's take on the situation:

"Mr. Biden also predicted that the Americans could work out a deal with a government led by Mr. Maliki. “Maliki wants us to stick around because he does not see a future in Iraq otherwise,” Mr. Biden said. “I’ll bet you my vice presidency Maliki will extend the SOFA,” he added, referring to the Status of Forces Agreement the Obama administration hoped to negotiate."

Or the opinion coming from the Kurds:

"To many Iraqis, the United States’ influence is greatly diminished. “American policy is very weak,” observed Fuad Hussein, the chief of staff to Massoud Barzani, the president of the semiautonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq. “It is not clear to us how they have defined their interests in Iraq,” Mr. Hussein said. “They are picking events and reacting on the basis of events. That is the policy.”

The Times sums up the failure to reach an agreement with this observation:

"Some experts say that given the Iraqis’ concerns about sovereignty, and Iranian pressure, the politicians in Baghdad were simply not prepared to make the hard decisions that were needed to secure parliamentary approval. Others say the Iraqis sensed the Americans’ ambivalence and were being asked to make unpopular political decisions for a modest military benefit."

That's the liberal New York Times stating that American "ambivalence" about keeping troops in Iraq was what was making Iraqi politicians shy away from making a correct but politically risky move to keep an American force behind after the main withdrawal. The military certainly wasn't ambivalent! They were adamant about the need to keep a force there. The ambivalence came from the President and members of his Staff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/w...-last-months-in-iraq.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

And the Times ends that article with the following:

"
On Oct. 21, Mr. Obama held another videoconference with Mr. Maliki — his first such discussion since the talks began in June. The negotiations were over, and all of the American troops would be coming home.

The White House insisted that the collapse of the talks was not a setback. “As we reviewed the 10,000 option, we came to the conclusion that achieving the goal of a security partnership was not dependent on the size of our footprint in-country, and that stability in Iraq did not depend on the presence of U.S. forces,” a senior Obama administration official said.

It is too soon to fully assess that prediction. But tensions have increased to the point that Mr. Barzani has insisted Mr. Maliki be replaced and Iraq’s lone Sunni vice president has fled to Turkey to avoid arrest.

Without American forces to train and assist Iraqi commandos, the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Iraq is still active in Iraq and is increasingly involved in Syria. With no American aircraft to patrol Iraqi airspace, Iraq has become a corridor for Iranian flights of military supplies to Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria, American officials say. It is also a potential avenue for an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear installations, something the White House is laboring to avoid."

It's obvious WAY back then that the current problems were already rearing their ugly heads. The fact of the matter is that the Obama Administration failed miserably at getting Maliki to be inclusive with his government and then made a weak attempt at negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement. The fact that Obama didn't have talks with Maliki on that topic from June all the way until the end of October illustrates the lack of commitment that Obama had towards such an agreement.

I have the October article.

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

One more time the progressives on this board are proven liars or proven idiots.

As tired as I am of them I'm not going to give up putting out the truth. I hate liars. It's a thing with me. Lies or ignorance sets me clean off.

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

BAGHDAD — President Obama’s announcement on Friday that all American troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year was an occasion for celebration for many, but some top American military officials were dismayed by the announcement, seeing it as the president’s putting the best face on a breakdown in tortured negotiations with the Iraqis.

And for the negotiators who labored all year to avoid that outcome, it represented the triumph of politics over the reality of Iraq’s fragile security’s requiring some troops to stay, a fact everyone had assumed would prevail. But officials also held out hope that after the withdrawal, the two countries could restart negotiations more productively, as two sovereign nations.

This year, American military officials had said they wanted a “residual” force of as many as tens of thousands of American troops to remain in Iraq past 2011 as an insurance policy against any violence. Those numbers were scaled back, but the expectation was that at least about 3,000 to 5,000 American troops would remain.

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

 

[tinydancer]

If there are any sane left wingers left on the planet would you accept a troop presence of only 3,000? Maliki couldn't, It wasn't worth his blood on the wall in the back rooms of the Iraqi parliament.

Obama did this on purpose just to remove the troops and "rid himself of Iraq".

In the famous chant of ECW......

YOU FUCKED UP! YOU FUCKED UP! YOU FUCKED UP!

OBAMA.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Obama = Fuck up.

 

[Oldstyle]

My question for those board members who DO think Obama tried to get a new Status of Forces Agreement would be this...if you REALLY were serious about such a thing don't you think you would discuss it repeatedly with your Iraqi counterpart during the summer and fall of that year? Yet the Times reports that the Oct 22nd video meeting between Obama and Maliki was the first since June! That's five months! What was Barry doing during that time?

because all negotiations are conducted by the president himself.

No but isn't it shocking to you that for five MONTHS, Barack Obama never talked with Maliki? Does that show any commitment to getting a deal done? Then people wonder why some Iraqis doubted Obama's commitment?

they can doubt it all they want.
does any of that change that we were offering to keep soldiers in iraq and they refused that offer?

When it's quite clear to the Iraqis that Barack Obama is only paying lip service to keeping a force of Americans in Iraq (even though he ran for office promising to keep such a force there!) why would the Iraqis even consider risking their political lives to make that happen? In the New York Times article you can see obvious frustration coming from the Kurds over what they view as "disinterest" from Obama.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Obama is utterly responsible for the mess in Iraq as well as the rise of ISIS. He is a colossal fuck up. End of story.

 

[tinydancer]

My question for those board members who DO think Obama tried to get a new Status of Forces Agreement would be this...if you REALLY were serious about such a thing don't you think you would discuss it repeatedly with your Iraqi counterpart during the summer and fall of that year? Yet the Times reports that the Oct 22nd video meeting between Obama and Maliki was the first since June! That's five months! What was Barry doing during that time?

because all negotiations are conducted by the president himself.

No but isn't it shocking to you that for five MONTHS, Barack Obama never talked with Maliki? Does that show any commitment to getting a deal done? Then people wonder why some Iraqis doubted Obama's commitment?

they can doubt it all they want.
does any of that change that we were offering to keep soldiers in iraq and they refused that offer?

When it's quite clear to the Iraqis that Barack Obama is only paying lip service to keeping a force of Americans in Iraq (even though he ran for office promising to keep such a force there!) why would the Iraqis even consider risking their political lives to make that happen? In the New York Times article you can see obvious frustration coming from the Kurds over what they view as "disinterest" from Obama.

Exactly. And our articles prove that Obama had no interest in renegotiating the deal.

If I was Maliki I'd be going "suck my dick Obama I ain't eating shit in my back rooms because you are only going to give me 3,000."

It's a no brainer.

 

[ogibillm]

My question for those board members who DO think Obama tried to get a new Status of Forces Agreement would be this...if you REALLY were serious about such a thing don't you think you would discuss it repeatedly with your Iraqi counterpart during the summer and fall of that year? Yet the Times reports that the Oct 22nd video meeting between Obama and Maliki was the first since June! That's five months! What was Barry doing during that time?

because all negotiations are conducted by the president himself.

No but isn't it shocking to you that for five MONTHS, Barack Obama never talked with Maliki? Does that show any commitment to getting a deal done? Then people wonder why some Iraqis doubted Obama's commitment?

they can doubt it all they want.
does any of that change that we were offering to keep soldiers in iraq and they refused that offer?

When it's quite clear to the Iraqis that Barack Obama is only paying lip service to keeping a force of Americans in Iraq (even though he ran for office promising to keep such a force there!) why would the Iraqis even consider risking their political lives to make that happen? In the New York Times article you can see obvious frustration coming from the Kurds over what they view as "disinterest" from Obama.

so you admit that the iraqi government was unwilling to accept the residual force of 3000 because of political pressures from inside iraq - is that not what i've been saying?

iraq rejected the deal. there is no reason to believe that by rejecting 3000 troops they really wanted 10000

 

[WelfareQueen]

My question for those board members who DO think Obama tried to get a new Status of Forces Agreement would be this...if you REALLY were serious about such a thing don't you think you would discuss it repeatedly with your Iraqi counterpart during the summer and fall of that year? Yet the Times reports that the Oct 22nd video meeting between Obama and Maliki was the first since June! That's five months! What was Barry doing during that time?

because all negotiations are conducted by the president himself.

No but isn't it shocking to you that for five MONTHS, Barack Obama never talked with Maliki? Does that show any commitment to getting a deal done? Then people wonder why some Iraqis doubted Obama's commitment?

they can doubt it all they want.
does any of that change that we were offering to keep soldiers in iraq and they refused that offer?

When it's quite clear to the Iraqis that Barack Obama is only paying lip service to keeping a force of Americans in Iraq (even though he ran for office promising to keep such a force there!) why would the Iraqis even consider risking their political lives to make that happen? In the New York Times article you can see obvious frustration coming from the Kurds over what they view as "disinterest" from Obama.

so you admit that the iraqi government was unwilling to accept the residual force of 3000 because of political pressures from inside iraq - is that not what i've been saying?

iraq rejected the deal. there is no reason to believe that by rejecting 3000 troops they really wanted 10000

The US military said 3,000 would not work. There was never a real offer by Obama. Of course, you know this, but still continue to play stupid. It won't work. Obama fucked up....big time. Deal with it.

 

[ogibillm]

My question for those board members who DO think Obama tried to get a new Status of Forces Agreement would be this...if you REALLY were serious about such a thing don't you think you would discuss it repeatedly with your Iraqi counterpart during the summer and fall of that year? Yet the Times reports that the Oct 22nd video meeting between Obama and Maliki was the first since June! That's five months! What was Barry doing during that time?

because all negotiations are conducted by the president himself.

No but isn't it shocking to you that for five MONTHS, Barack Obama never talked with Maliki? Does that show any commitment to getting a deal done? Then people wonder why some Iraqis doubted Obama's commitment?

they can doubt it all they want.
does any of that change that we were offering to keep soldiers in iraq and they refused that offer?

When it's quite clear to the Iraqis that Barack Obama is only paying lip service to keeping a force of Americans in Iraq (even though he ran for office promising to keep such a force there!) why would the Iraqis even consider risking their political lives to make that happen? In the New York Times article you can see obvious frustration coming from the Kurds over what they view as "disinterest" from Obama.

so you admit that the iraqi government was unwilling to accept the residual force of 3000 because of political pressures from inside iraq - is that not what i've been saying?

iraq rejected the deal. there is no reason to believe that by rejecting 3000 troops they really wanted 10000

The US military said 3,000 would not work. There was never a real offer by Obama. Of course, you know this, but still continue to play stupid. It won't work. Obama fucked up....big time. Deal with it.

who rejected the deal?

 

[BlindBoo]

But the idea that conservatives are going to succeed in laying the blame for what's now happening in Iraq (ISIS is a Sunni-sponsored attempt at retaking the reigns of power) on Obama is laughable. They'll only succeed in formulating an argument which conservatives will accept because of their penchant to embrace revisionist history in all it's forms if and when it paints themselves as heroes or victims by blaming anyone and everyone else for their own policy failures.

The right wing propaganda and hate machine led by talk radio lies but consistent repeat after repeat has inflicted some damage on Obama's approval rating on foreign policy. Part of that is due to the unholy alliance between the right wing haters and the anti-war left wherein the latter don't like much of what Obama has done that is closer to what conservatives would do if they god forbid held the White House ever again. Such has surging troops in Afghanistan in 2009.

Obama has been as close to right as can be on Iraq. Maliki has stepped aside so perhaps the new Iraqi government and army can get drive out ISIS with US air support and whoever else in the world will step up as Obama has already done.

The sickest thing of all by these conservatives is there loving adoration for David Cameron juxtasposed against their contempt and cries of 'weakness' by Obama, when Obama is the only world leader that has been bombing ISIS targets for several weeks now and KILLING them.

Cameron is dropping food on Iraq and that its.


.

The biggest "surge" in Afghanistan was implemented by none other than Barack Obama! Your ignorance on this topic is something to behold.

Obama has "stepped up"? Really? After creating the situation that ISIS exploited, Barack Obama has finally been shamed into taking some action by the horrible deaths of two American journalists and the murders of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq. Before that took place Barry was perfectly willing to look the other way while he patted himself on the back for "stopping" the war in Iraq.

Let's see, the fact that we started bombing ISIS position before the execution of the journalists eludes you and drives a nail into the coffin of your premise.

 

[Oldstyle]

My question for those board members who DO think Obama tried to get a new Status of Forces Agreement would be this...if you REALLY were serious about such a thing don't you think you would discuss it repeatedly with your Iraqi counterpart during the summer and fall of that year? Yet the Times reports that the Oct 22nd video meeting between Obama and Maliki was the first since June! That's five months! What was Barry doing during that time?

because all negotiations are conducted by the president himself.

No but isn't it shocking to you that for five MONTHS, Barack Obama never talked with Maliki? Does that show any commitment to getting a deal done? Then people wonder why some Iraqis doubted Obama's commitment?

they can doubt it all they want.
does any of that change that we were offering to keep soldiers in iraq and they refused that offer?

When it's quite clear to the Iraqis that Barack Obama is only paying lip service to keeping a force of Americans in Iraq (even though he ran for office promising to keep such a force there!) why would the Iraqis even consider risking their political lives to make that happen? In the New York Times article you can see obvious frustration coming from the Kurds over what they view as "disinterest" from Obama.

so you admit that the iraqi government was unwilling to accept the residual force of 3000 because of political pressures from inside iraq - is that not what i've been saying?

iraq rejected the deal. there is no reason to believe that by rejecting 3000 troops they really wanted 10000

What I'm saying (and what the New York Times article was saying) is that the Iraqis that would have had to take a huge political risk to OK a residual force of any size had no confidence in Obama's desire to HAVE a force remain in Iraq. The gist of that article, Ogi...is that the deal fell apart because the Iraqis refused to go all in on a deal that they didn't feel Obama actually wanted! The fact that Barry didn't even bother to call Maliki for five months about something this crucial, when time was running out, makes a compelling case for their being correct in that assessment!

 

[BlindBoo]

One thing that no-one's addressed - going right back to the OP;
Why would anyone listen to GWB's predictions when he has been so spectacularly wrong on everything else to do with the Middle East?

Are you making the case that he was wrong on what would occur if US troops were prematurely withdrawn from Iraq? I'm critical of many things about George W. Bush's Iraq policy but THAT particular call was pretty much spot on!

No, I'm wondering why anyone would castigate the WH, or Obama, for not taking any notice of Bush.
Why would ANYONE take any notice of his pronouncements...especially on foreign policy matters?

Ah, because he was correct on this one?

That makes no sense.

You're right...it does make no sense to ignore what Bush said when it turns out that he was correct!

You have yet to explain why he didn't take his own advice and signed away US troop presence in Iraq.

 

[WelfareQueen]

My question for those board members who DO think Obama tried to get a new Status of Forces Agreement would be this...if you REALLY were serious about such a thing don't you think you would discuss it repeatedly with your Iraqi counterpart during the summer and fall of that year? Yet the Times reports that the Oct 22nd video meeting between Obama and Maliki was the first since June! That's five months! What was Barry doing during that time?

because all negotiations are conducted by the president himself.

No but isn't it shocking to you that for five MONTHS, Barack Obama never talked with Maliki? Does that show any commitment to getting a deal done? Then people wonder why some Iraqis doubted Obama's commitment?

they can doubt it all they want.
does any of that change that we were offering to keep soldiers in iraq and they refused that offer?

When it's quite clear to the Iraqis that Barack Obama is only paying lip service to keeping a force of Americans in Iraq (even though he ran for office promising to keep such a force there!) why would the Iraqis even consider risking their political lives to make that happen? In the New York Times article you can see obvious frustration coming from the Kurds over what they view as "disinterest" from Obama.

so you admit that the iraqi government was unwilling to accept the residual force of 3000 because of political pressures from inside iraq - is that not what i've been saying?

iraq rejected the deal. there is no reason to believe that by rejecting 3000 troops they really wanted 10000

The US military said 3,000 would not work. There was never a real offer by Obama. Of course, you know this, but still continue to play stupid. It won't work. Obama fucked up....big time. Deal with it.

who rejected the deal?

There was never a genuine offer to begin with. That point has been made at least 10x.

Acting like a moron doesn't make you look good. Just saying.....

 

[BlindBoo]

“If Bush hadn't invaded in the first place..... “


A simple fact the Bush apologists are clearly incapable of comprehending.

yep. Repubs like that tool- Oldstyle are glossing over the fact that The President (then "Sen Obama) vehemently & rightly advised AGAINST vietraq from the start. Now people like Oldstyle are whining that the President isn't containing the blow back of their disastrous UNPAID-FOR foreign policy adventure fast enough that 44 advised against undertaking in the first place.

eXtreme rw circular logic

It's interesting that then Senator Obama called for a 16 month withdrawal from Iraq but also called for a "residual force" to be left in Iraq when he was running for President in 2008. So what happened to that residual force once he became President?

iraq didn't want it. they refused to allow us to keep troops there without having them under the jurisdiction of iraqi courts.

you've been told this time and time again. why can't you accept it?

Because it's a talking point that ignores reality? What some politicians in Iraq "wanted" and what they would have done to receive billions in US aid are two different things. The truth is that a new Status of Forces Agreement was never pursued by President Obama because HE didn't want to keep American troops in Iraq.

Never? Contrary to known reality.

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

 

[BlindBoo]

ISIS is a product of our leaders obsession with regime change in the Middle East. It appears they weren't happy with just messing up Egypt or Libya, no they had to jump in and try to remove Assad as well.

You make absolutely no sense. Egypt is not messed up. Foreign western leaders did not instigate Mubarak or Morsi's demise.

Libya was authorized by the UN to save tens of thousands of lives in Benghazi. We don't know how many Ghadafi would have killed had the world not organized to stop him.

And then there is the dominant point on Syria. The three leaders you mention did not instigate the Syria rebellion.'

Obama was criticized for not doing enough to assist the rebels early on.

And the he forced Putin and Assad to rid the civil war of CW Assad's arsenal .
Netanyahu let it be known that Israel supported the CW destruction.

So there is nothing messed up about that..

So provide documentation that there was intent from the beginning to regime change Libya, Syria or Egypt by the US, UK or Canada.

Oh dear heavens for the love of humanity stop with the lies.

To say western leaders had no hand in supporting the unrest Egypt is to deny all reality. We gave them Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.

To say we had no hand in supporting the unrest in Libya is to deny all reality. We have given the poor Libyans jihadists who now control 1/5th of the world's oil and are partying hardy at the US Embassy in Tripoli.

And Syria. Oh bite me. As far back as 2012 it was being reported in the New York Times, you know, that bastion of neo con war mongers that the CIA was working with Qatar and Saudi Arabia to depose Assad.

Good grief. Stop with the spin and the lies.

Our support is for the Egyptian military.

John McCain was the leading voice in arming opposition to Assad. Guess who was the voice of reason?