Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
President Bush warned that if we pulled out of Iraq too soon, it would be dangerous for Iraq, the region and the United States; it would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean we are risking mass killings on a grand scale. It would allow the terrorists to replace the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d have to return at a later date to confront an enemy who is even more dangerous.
President Obama is trying to blame Bush but he won the war and Obama then handed over to ISIS.
Listen to this clip. He thinks people will fall for his blaming Bush for what is obviously his failure.
Stunning Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created www.independentsentinel.com
Stunning performance by bush. After destroying Iraq and murdering a good percentage of it's population, he warns that pulling out could be dangerous for Iraq.
Shitstain....Bush handed over a stable Iraq to Obama, but Obama then proceeded to get the hell out and claim we didn't need to stick around to support the Iraq military and new GOV become stronger and more stable to prevent an invasion from say Syria.
Today ISIS is in Iraq thanks to Obama leaving the door open for them.....
Wow....a few idiots with Nazi stuff on their helmets.
One can also find Nazi shit, black gang shit, Hispanic gang shit in the US Army.
Of course the shit-eater is aligned with the closet socialist Putin.
I still think that the premise of the OP - that Obama should have accepted the sage foreign policy advice of GWB - is fall on the floor hilarious.
ISIS is not retreating idiot.
That you progressives simply can't bring yourselves to admit that Bush was completely correct when he warned about a premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Over a million people have been dislocated from their homes. Tens of thousands more have been raped or slaughtered by an invading terrorist army. Yet you people can't admit that Bush was right when he said an early withdrawal was the wrong thing to do!
What is the matter? Didn't Bush 43 predict that the Iraqi military would be tested, hold and their new enemy in a new war would retreat?
So did Bush predict an IA, Peshmerga, and Shiite Counter-Offensive? IF not why not?
ISIS is not retreating idiot.
What is the matter? Didn't Bush 43 predict that the Iraqi military would be tested, hold and their new enemy in a new war would retreat?
So did Bush predict an IA, Peshmerga, and Shiite Counter-Offensive? IF not why not?
That you progressives simply can't bring yourselves to admit that Bush was completely correct when he warned about a premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Over a million people have been dislocated from their homes. Tens of thousands more have been raped or slaughtered by an invading terrorist army. Yet you people can't admit that Bush was right when he said an early withdrawal was the wrong thing to do!
More than that were slaughtered when Bush decided to kick the UN inspectors out and start a bloody deadly conflict where there was none.
As tragic as the onslaught of the IS terrorists into Iraq has been, have you prepared your argument that relies on Bush in 2007 but ignores Bush in 2008, for when the Iraqis defeat the IS terrorists and drive them out of their midst in Iraq?
As the IS terrorists are destroyed by Iraqi forces it will be Bush 2008 who turns out to be correct no Bush 2007.
That means all who fell for the 2007 Bush right wing propaganda will be wrong and made out to be fools.
What is the matter? Didn't Bush 43 predict that the Iraqi military would be tested, hold and their new enemy in a new war would retreat?
So did Bush predict an IA, Peshmerga, and Shiite Counter-Offensive? IF not why not?
The word, "placeholder" isn't IN the fucking SOFA. It describes WHAT the 2008 SOFA is.
You know what's REALLY stunning? That you progressives simply can't bring yourselves to admit that Bush was completely correct when he warned about a premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Over a million people have been dislocated from their homes. Tens of thousands more have been raped or slaughtered by an invading terrorist army. Yet you people can't admit that Bush was right when he said an early withdrawal was the wrong thing to do!
What is the matter? Didn't Bush 43 predict that the Iraqi military would be tested, hold and their new enemy in a new war would retreat?
So did Bush predict an IA, Peshmerga, and Shiite Counter-Offensive? IF not why not?
God, but you're clueless! How would Bush predict a counter offensive to take back parts of Iraq that hadn't been lost when he was President! What Bush DID predict is that if the US withdrew troops too soon bad things would happen in Iraq. ISIS is the very definition of "bad thing".
So is it "fantasy" on my part to point out that using the threat of a loss of that aid coupled with the looming threat of the former Baathists filling the power vacuum created by a withdrawal of US troops would have brought even an "anti-American cleric like Moqtada al-Sadr to the bargaining table?
If the US withholds aid from Iraq under Maliki, the country crumbles in short order. That's REALITY! What you two naive fools believe is that Maliki held the whip hand in this discussion. That's laughable. He's now gone because we wanted him gone...not because he chose to go.
You're right...it does make no sense to ignore what Bush said when it turns out that he was correct!
It wouldn't matter which party a sitting President was from...if they botched something as badly as Barry has botched ISIS then I'd call them on it.
You really ARE a naive person...aren't you? What would Maliki allow US military to do to keep ISIS from taking the second largest city in Iraq? Quite frankly...I can't think of much that he wouldn't allow at that point!
He sure allowed those "advisers" back in a New York minute!
Did you really just say that they were not out of combat, out of cities and out of advising because they were being withdrawn and then in the very next sentence state that they were all of those things because they were complying with a timeline for withdrawal? Are you mentally challenged in some way? Did you REALLY just write that and think it made sense in any way?
That decision was made back in 2008. It was based on what was projected to happen over the intervening years. In 2008 did anyone see the rise of ISIS occurring in Syria? Did anyone see it taking over the second largest city in Iraq in a matter of weeks? I can make a good case that Bush would have pushed HARD for a new Status of Forces Agreement given the situation that unfolded. Barack Obama didn't even make an effort. He wanted out of Iraq.
So Bush cautions that an early withdrawal of troops could lead to instability in Iraq that might be exploited by insurgents...that's pretty much exactly what happened...yet you don't think he should be given credit for that because you think he got other things wrong? That makes sense to you?
I didn't think Petreaus was naive about Maliki or Iraq. I think his statement speaks for itself. He's understandably annoyed that we seem to be giving up on something that so many Americans gave their lives to make happen.
As for what "I" would have done? I would have used the force that had remained in Iraq to provide stability, to immediately reinforce Mosul. I would have also made it clear to ISIS that if the number of troops I was sending was insufficient that I would be sending more to reinforce THEM! I'm quite confident those actions would have sent ISIS scuttling back across the Syrian border. Or do you honestly think that 500 ISIS troops would stand a chance in hell against an equal number of US troops backed with air power? Just how naive ARE you?
Do I want to defend his credibility on THAT particular Middle East issue? Yes...yes I do! He got it right...give credit where credit is due.
What is Obama doing now? We've got 1,500 boots on the ground and our Air Force is conducting attacks. So much for your "good case". The truth is if Barry had left 10,000 in country as Petraeus obviously wanted, chances are we wouldn't be doing what we're doing now...nor would Barry be begging others for help. ISIS would still be in Syria, they wouldn't have all those spiffy new weapons and they wouldn't have a million bucks a day pouring into their coffers from black market oil sales.
Yeah, that Obama is a fucking genius all right!!!
God but you're dense...
Petraeus was against premature troop withdrawals from the moment that Obama demanded them way back in the first year of his Presidency. It's a topic that the military fought Obama on every step of the way because they forecast problems with stability in Iraq with too soon of a withdraw.
Generals Seek To Reverse Obama s Iraq Withdrawal Decision
That's from back in 2009 and paints an accurate picture of the tension between Petraeus and Obama on this issue.
Take note that your red highlighted line contains the descriptive term "increasing ability to secure itself"...that does not mean that they were ready to secure themselves as is evident from the Huffington Post article I just cited showing the vast majority of our military brass being worried about Iraq collapsing if we withdrew too soon.
Oh, god...now we're going with the "American Empire" rant? Seriously, Clayton? Is this the part where you tell us all that we only invaded Iraq because we wanted to steal their oil? Wasn't that the liberal narrative way back when?
So what ever happened with that? How much Iraqi oil did we manage to take for all of our "empire building"?
Please, Idb...we're discussing Obama's Iraq strategy...or lack there of...don't be bringing up the IRS scandal!
and once again at 9:50
So what happened to the promised "residual force" that he pledged would be left behind in Iraq for counter terrorism activities?
The TRUTH of the matter is that "Senator Obama" ran for the office of President promising that he would withdraw American forces over 16 months but he ALSO ran on the promise that a force would be left in place to protect the gains that we had made. He failed to keep that promise because he wanted to be remembered as the President who ended the war in Iraq. THAT decision is what led ISIS to cross the border from Syria and conquer vast territory in Iraq.
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.
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?
Barack Obama has a history of his actions not coming CLOSE to his rhetoric. This is simply one more example of that...
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?
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.
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!
You know what's REALLY stunning? That you progressives simply can't bring yourselves to admit that Bush was completely correct when he warned about a premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Over a million people have been dislocated from their homes. Tens of thousands more have been raped or slaughtered by an invading terrorist army. Yet you people can't admit that Bush was right when he said an early withdrawal was the wrong thing to do!
God, but you're clueless! How would Bush predict a counter offensive to take back parts of Iraq that hadn't been lost when he was President! What Bush DID predict is that if the US withdrew troops too soon bad things would happen in Iraq. ISIS is the very definition of "bad thing".
Dude....I don't even know what you're blathering about with this post! It makes no sense at all...
The Iraq/US/Civilized World counter-offensive is underway... with the IS terrorists in retreat or being killed.
This crisis will now fade away since the IS terrorists assault into Iraq will steadily be less and less valuable to the right wing media and its following of Obama hating minions. Those minions who think Bush was right when he said this:
"President Bush warned that if we pulled out of Iraq too soon, it would be dangerous for Iraq, the region and the United States; it would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda."
Iraq will NOT surrender its future to al Qaeda. That was a preposterous idea the first time it squirted out of an Obama haters empty head.
Watch this thread fade away as IS terrorists become increasingly on the run.
Its a great example of how America's right engages in political propaganda.
You know what's REALLY stunning? That you progressives simply can't bring yourselves to admit that Bush was completely correct when he warned about a premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Over a million people have been dislocated from their homes. Tens of thousands more have been raped or slaughtered by an invading terrorist army. Yet you people can't admit that Bush was right when he said an early withdrawal was the wrong thing to do!
What is the matter? Didn't Bush 43 predict that the Iraqi military would be tested, hold and their new enemy in a new war would retreat?
So did Bush predict an IA, Peshmerga, and Shiite Counter-Offensive? IF not why not?
God, but you're clueless! How would Bush predict a counter offensive to take back parts of Iraq that hadn't been lost when he was President! What Bush DID predict is that if the US withdrew troops too soon bad things would happen in Iraq. ISIS is the very definition of "bad thing".
So your have to admit that a counter-offensive is underway and IS terrorists are being driven out?
Well Bush's 2007 prediction is no good in that case. Iraq will have successfully defended itself with US air power in an assist. No one pulled the troops our to soon.. So the 2008 Bush gets to be correct on that.
The Iraq/US/Civilized World counter-offensive is underway... with the IS terrorists in retreat or being killed.
This crisis will now fade away since the IS terrorists assault into Iraq will steadily be less and less valuable to the right wing media and its following of Obama hating minions. Those minions who think Bush was right when he said this:
"President Bush warned that if we pulled out of Iraq too soon, it would be dangerous for Iraq, the region and the United States; it would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda."
Iraq will NOT surrender its future to al Qaeda. That was a preposterous idea the first time it squirted out of an Obama haters empty head.
Watch this thread fade away as IS terrorists become increasingly on the run.
Its a great example of how America's right engages in political propaganda.
Oh look. It's my favorite liberal dum dum who has absolutely no expertise on this subject lying and misinforming the public again.
What's wrong, StillObsessedWithBush? I trounced you on about 5 other threads where you lied out your teeth about this very subject. You think you're going to find a new crowd of people you haven't lied to or manipulated yet?
And just in case there are.... folks, you're dealing with a pathological liar whom I tried honestly debating on this subject in the first thread it came up in.
He has no military background, no intel background, no time in Iraq, no time with NGOs, no time working with State Department, no time working closely with the White House, and certainly no ability to understand the way diplomacy worked there.
All things I have extensive experience in.
It's unknown whether he's paid to be on this site lying to people, or whether he's just a volunteer political hack, but if incessant lying about a topic on the internet could be punished, he'd be taken all the way to the guillotine.
StillObsessed, I will stay on your lying ass till the elections, because misinforming the public the way you and your idiot friends have in the past 6 years will no longer stand unchallenged....I don't care HOW much you're backed up by a corrupt, lying media.
Another clueless question. Try looking at over a hundred posts on this topic I made in numerous other threads about the same question.
And your credentials are what, idiot?
I'll wait for to never come up with them.......
I'll match mine to yours any day. Except you're scared out of your mind to do that.
Cricketts.
Cricketts.
I don't have the patience to spend time actually posting long, thought out paragraphs of firsthand experience again......since I've already done it multiple times on this forum.....although as we get close to the election, I will take that time again. But in the meantime, your statement is inaccurate.
The foul-mouth insulter is back from hiding. Threatening to run away again. Nothing new here.
Fuck you, idiot.
You and people like you have lied for 6 years and now your chickens are coming home to roost.
Notice the polls today, moron? If they were bad over the past few weeks, now they're really showing a FAILED PRESIDENCY.
He's a failure, and so are his rabid supporters. Everyone can see through his lies, your lies, liberal's lies. Oh, did I remember to tell you to go fuck yourself.
Pathological liars should get MUCH more than a verbal thumping. Feel lucky that's all you morons get.
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?
What gobbely gook is this?
You didn't support the Egyptian army when you sent McCain and Graham over to try to save Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.
This is the truth. This is on record. It's the real mother fucking deal here sweetheart.
Now as to Syria. I can link back to Democrats. One in particular.
We know Obama wanted desperately to rid the ME of Assad. Hence his play time with ISIS.
Learn something....President Bush warned that if we pulled out of Iraq too soon, it would be dangerous for Iraq, the region and the United States; it would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda.
Then it's a good thing we never pulled out of Iraq, isn't it? We still had a major base operational in the capital, in case you forgot.
