Stunning! Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created

[Brain357]

And if Bush hadn't taken out Saddam we would have none of this mess.

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

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Uh, R.D., US commanders DID tell us we were ready to withdraw from Iraq. It was according to THEIR plan, mostly finished before Bush left office.

So, no, former Pres. Bush's comments were not very prophetic at all. But I'm not surprised that FOX would try to use this tactic.

Fox News goes back to quoting Bush in 2007. What Fox News doesn't tell is that when Bush was saying all that Maliki penned a letter to the UNSC demanding that the CPA (coalition provisional authority) be terminated in Iraq by Jan 1 2009. That meant that worthless Lil Dubby's military control over Iraq was coming to an end. Bush had no say in what needed to be done in Iraq. He was for all of 2008 being told what to do by Maliki.

So Bush cuts the deal that all troops had to be gone on Maliki's terms and the consequences fall 100% on the two that cut the deal. That was Maliki and Bush.

And if Lyin' Fox News wants to go back to 2007 they ought to go back to March 2003 when there was no al Qaeada in Baathist run Sunni Iraq and where the Shiites. lived too.

It was Bush and Blair's dumb invasion that sucked al Qaeada into Iraq in the first place.

The right wing lie machine is full throttle fooling the hell out of all the ditto heads who are drooling over their idiot exPresident as if nothing went wrong.

 

[Vigilante]

Uh, R.D., US commanders DID tell us we were ready to withdraw from Iraq. It was according to THEIR plan, mostly finished before Bush left office.

So, no, former Pres. Bush's comments were not very prophetic at all. But I'm not surprised that FOX would try to use this tactic.

Fox News goes back to quoting Bush in 2007. What Fox News doesn't tell is that when Bush was saying all that Maliki penned a letter to the UNSC demanding that the CPA (coalition provisional authority) be terminated in Iraq by Jan 1 2009. That meant that worthless Lil Dubby's military control over Iraq was coming to an end. Bush had no say in what needed to be done in Iraq. He was for all of 2008 being told what to do by Maliki.

So Bush cuts the deal that all troops had to be gone on Maliki's terms and the consequences fall 100% on the two that cut the deal. That was Maliki and Bush.

And if Lyin' Fox News wants to go back to 2007 they ought to go back to March 2003 when there was no al Qaeada in Baathist run Sunni Iraq and where the Shiites. lived too.

It was Bush and Blair's dumb invasion that sucked al Qaeada into Iraq in the first place.

The right wing lie machine is full throttle fooling the hell out of all the ditto heads who are drooling over their idiot exPresident as if nothing went wrong.

Of course we had a say, WHO WAS GOING TO THROW US OUT...the CORRUPT U.N.?

We should still be there, taking ALL THEIR OIL, as payment for freeing them from Saddam death squads, and paying back the FAMILIES of fallen hero's that died there! ! ....I'm sure we could have found a SUITABLE leader that would become a strong ally of ours in the ME, and all this ISIS shit would be wiped away!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Because Obama and Kerry are inept.

Obama was not President in 2008 when Maliki forced you wimpy whipped Bush into signing an agreement that said all US troops needed to get gone by a set timeline and fixed date.

Obama had nothing absolutely nothing to do with what those two buffoon leaders did in 2007 and 2008.

 

[Vigilante]

Because Obama and Kerry are inept.

Obama was not President in 2008 when Maliki forced you wimpy whipped Bush into signing an agreement that said all US troops needed to get gone by a set timeline and fixed date.

Obama had nothing absolutely nothing to do with what those two buffoon leaders did in 2007 and 2008.

So as we've seen the puny, feckless Obomanation couldn't CHANGE details? Perhaps an attempt or 2 on Maliki's life would have had him quivering in the corner looking for us to stay there. You think something like that wasn't possible?...No, the feckless one just let ISIS form all by itself over his last 5.5 years of GOLF, and incompetence!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Remember Obama was against the surge that won in Iraq.

What did the Surge 'win' in Iraq?

The surge did not find stockpiles of the most lethal weapons ever devised and hidden from the 2003 UN inspectors.

How can there be a win when the purpose for invading turned out to be all wrong?

And the surge failed to produce a stable non-sectarian government wherein Kurds Sunnis and Shiite were included and represented in the central government for once and for all.

I'll let a conservative tell you that the Surge in Iraq failed to produce its primary objective:

From Diana West, a conservative columnist:

The main reason the "surge" in Afghanistan is on is because the conventional wisdom tells us the "surge" in Iraq "worked."

The problem is, the Iraq surge did not work. Yes, the U.S. military perfectly executed its share of the strategy -- the restoration of some semblance of calm to blood-gushing Mesopotamian society -- but that was only Step One. The end-goal of the surge strategy, Step Two was always out of U.S. control -- a fundamental flaw. Step Two was up to the Iraqis: namely, to take the opportunity afforded by U.S.- provided security (see Step One) to bring about both "national reconciliation" and, as the powers-that-were further promised, the emergence of a U.S. ally in the so-called war on terror.

Step One worked. Step Two didn't. The surge, like an uncaught touchdown pass, was incomplete. The United States is now walking off the battlefield with virtually nothing to show for its blood, treasure, time and effort. In fact, another "success" like that could kill us.

Petraeus and the Myth of the Surge Mother Jones

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Perhaps an attempt or 2 on Maliki's life would have had him quivering in the corner looking for us to stay there.

Not too bright on these batters are you? You couldn't just try to kill Maliki . You would have to kill the equivalent in Iraq's of all the Tea Party members Congress too. Their elected legislators had to approve whatever deal that Maliki could have considered.

Besides not being workable any attempted assassination on an elected government leader or head of state would be a criminal act.

You are one sick soul to suggest that our president commit such a heinous crime.

 

[Vigilante]

Perhaps an attempt or 2 on Maliki's life would have had him quivering in the corner looking for us to stay there.

Not too bright on these batters are you? You couldn't just try to kill Maliki . You would have to kill the equivalent in Iraq's of all the Tea Party members Congress too. Their elected legislators had to approve whatever deal that Maliki could have considered.

Besides not being workable any attempted assassination on an elected government leader or head of state would be a criminal act.

You are one sick soul to suggest that our president commit such a heinous crime.

Why , your POS, I mean POTUS, has killed dozens of civilians already, what's an attempted assassination of another POS!
Who is the Commander in Chief?....

 

[Lakhota]

Remember Obama was against the surge that won in Iraq.

What did the Surge 'win' in Iraq?

The surge did not find stockpiles of the most lethal weapons ever devised and hidden from the 2003 UN inspectors.

How can there be a win when the purpose for invading turned out to be all wrong?

And the surge failed to produce a stable non-sectarian government wherein Kurds Sunnis and Shiite were included and represented in the central government for once and for all.

I'll let a conservative tell you that the Surge in Iraq failed to produce its primary objective:

From Diana West, a conservative columnist:

The main reason the "surge" in Afghanistan is on is because the conventional wisdom tells us the "surge" in Iraq "worked."

The problem is, the Iraq surge did not work. Yes, the U.S. military perfectly executed its share of the strategy -- the restoration of some semblance of calm to blood-gushing Mesopotamian society -- but that was only Step One. The end-goal of the surge strategy, Step Two was always out of U.S. control -- a fundamental flaw. Step Two was up to the Iraqis: namely, to take the opportunity afforded by U.S.- provided security (see Step One) to bring about both "national reconciliation" and, as the powers-that-were further promised, the emergence of a U.S. ally in the so-called war on terror.

Step One worked. Step Two didn't. The surge, like an uncaught touchdown pass, was incomplete. The United States is now walking off the battlefield with virtually nothing to show for its blood, treasure, time and effort. In fact, another "success" like that could kill us.

Petraeus and the Myth of the Surge Mother Jones

In short, the so-called "surge" was a "cash-for-peace" scheme that backfired.

Surge or splurge in Iraq - CNN.com

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Obama didn't want the agreement, he wanted out completely.

Obama didn't want what agreement? Obama kept troops in Iraq to the end of the only status of forces agreement that was ever finalized. That was the Maliki/Bush agreement of 2008.

Obama could have brought troops out faster if he didnt want the agreement..

A good team would have shown Iraq who was boss in a nice way and told them "this is the deal".

Iraq did not want to be shown that a foreign invader was the boss even if it was in a nice way.

The last opportunity for the US to remain 'boss of Iraq' was in 2007 prior to Maliki writing a request to the UN to put an end to the US occupation of Iraq by the end of 2008.

Bush failed to prevent Maliki from terminating US authority in Iraq, therefore beyond 2008 there was nothing any US president could do to force Iraq to do anything it did not want to do. Except re-invade Iraq of course. But that does not fit your 'nice way' criteria dies it?

I said earlier that I wonder if perhaps there needed to be specific time frames for X,Y and Z to happen, but I dont' know that for certain.

I really don't have a dog in the hunt, I want the truth.

The truth on date certain is that Maliki chose in 2007 to request of the UNSC not to renew the CPA's UN authorization to 'govern' Iraq as an occupation army. The truth is the Iraqis wanted sovereignty and right wrong or indifferent they were and are entitled to it. They got sovereignty whiie Bush was still president. So all this hogwash, this politically motivated drama about what Obama wanted, has absolutely nothing to do with the only fact that mattered on January 1 2009 - Iraq became fully a sovereign nation once again.

You wanted the truth? I hope you can handle the truth and respect it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Why , your POS, I mean POTUS, has killed dozens of civilians already, what's an attempted assassination of another POS

I've heard from no one that Maliki has joined a terrorist organization with th intent of attacking the US or US cituzens. You can't assassinate a head of state because he won't negotiate terms in a Status of Forces Agreement to one's liking.

You are sick. Calling for murder of a head of state.

In short, the so-called "surge" was a "cash-for-peace" scheme that backfired.

Surge or splurge in Iraq - CNN.com

Here's a good explanation of what failed expectations came with the surge in 2007:

Had lawmakers engaged in serious oversight of the war, they might have uncovered one of the more significant changes that occurred under Petraeus. The core national objective that Bush had framed in going to war in Iraq was quietly shelved. No longer did American military commanders and civilian officials in Iraq expect to establish a pluralist, liberal democracy within the foreseeable future. Petraeus and company defined success down. At best, the United States might leave behind a stable government with some representation for the three main ethnosectarian groups and a level of violence not so extreme as to disrupt the precarious political order. As for transforming the Middle East, the Iraqi solution would hold little appeal, especially given the enormous price Iraqis had paid. Yet no one in the American leadership in Iraq ever explicitly declared the original goal unachievable. The president continued to express his vision of an Iraq that would become a beacon of hope across the region.

President George W. Bush and The Surge Iraq Command Posts

Excerpted from Elusive Victories: The American Presidency at War

by Andrew J. Polsky

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Stunning! Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created

The only thing stunning is the partisan ignorance and stupidity of the OP.


Iraq is Mr. Bush's failed, illegal war – he owns it forever, its consequences are solely his responsibility, regardless the current administration.


If GWB was so concerned about the people of the region he shouldn't have pursued his unwarranted, unjustified invasion to begin with.


And for the partisan right to seek to propagate the lie that current conditions in Iraq are somehow the president's 'fault' is both typical and reprehensible.


GWB made this mess, consequently neither he nor his apologists are in any position to be critical of those seeking to clean up that mess in good faith.

 

[Oldstyle]

Stunning! Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created

The only thing stunning is the partisan ignorance and stupidity of the OP.


Iraq is Mr. Bush's failed, illegal war – he owns it forever, its consequences are solely his responsibility, regardless the current administration.


If GWB was so concerned about the people of the region he shouldn't have pursued his unwarranted, unjustified invasion to begin with.


And for the partisan right to seek to propagate the lie that current conditions in Iraq are somehow the president's 'fault' is both typical and reprehensible.


GWB made this mess, consequently neither he nor his apologists are in any position to be critical of those seeking to clean up that mess in good faith.

Compared to how George W. Bush left the Middle East...Barack Obama has done nothing but make things worse. He's a man who doesn't look at the world around him with clear eyes but instead sees the world through lenses colored by his own beliefs. There is a reason why the US's foreign policy is now in shambles and it's name is Barack Obama!

Remember way back when Barry was getting a Nobel Peace Prize? Anyone want to make the point that he STILL deserves that puppy! Because of his total lack of leadership hundreds of thousands of people have been slaughtered and the world is in chaos.

But on the bright side...his golf game is much improved!

 

[Bfgrn]

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

Bush? Do you mean George W. Bush who SIGNED the Status of Forces Agreement?

President Bush and Iraq Prime Minister Maliki Sign the Strategic Framework Agreement and Security Agreement


Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence

President Barack Obama’s announcement on Friday that all 40,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq will leave the country by New Year’s Eve will, inevitably, draw howls of derision from GOP presidential hopefuls — this is, after all, early election season. But the decision to leave Iraq by that date was not actually taken by President Obama — it was taken by President George W. Bush, and by the Iraqi government.

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, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

more

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Of course we had a say, WHO WAS GOING TO THROW US OUT...the CORRUPT U.N.?

Yes on December 18 2007, the UN Security Council decided to extend the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq “for the last time” until Jan 1 2009. After that date all multinational forces would have to leave if Iraqis wanted them to leave

Recognizing the request from Iraq, the Security Council today decided to extend the mandate of the multinational force in that country -- “for the last time”, according to its Permanent Representative -- until 31 December 2008

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTING ON IRAQ S REQUEST EXTENDS FOR LAST TIME MANDATE OF MULTINATIONAL FORCE

 

[auditor0007]

Democrats are known for this. If you tell them an action will make things worse, they double down on it. Pat Moynihan warned that the biggest threat to the black family was fartherlessness. So, of course, the Democrat Party made it their goal to have a government check replace the black male head of household and as an added bonus they so destroyed the educational system that blacks have the highest drop out and illiteracy rates.

Bush warns them that leaving Iraq early will destabilize the region so Obama makes that his Middle East plan

Are you actually from this planet?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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.

Stunning Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created www.independentsentinel.com

Have you noticed that Bush's prediction ( underlined and bold) has not happened, nor will it ever happen.

Bush should have focused on getting 'politucal reconciliation' moving in Iraq rather than keeping US troops there longer than needed.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

so why didn't Bush negotiate a status of forces agreement when he had the leverage?

That's a fair question. Maybe that couldn't be done before a certain timeline?

We know Obama didn't do it, but did Bush have the chance prior? Anyone know?

Bush did negotiate the SOFA in 2008, but he had no leverage. Maliki had all the leverage and US troops were given a date certain to be gone.

 

[House]

completely destabilizing an area that has never been stable

Derp of the decade material, right there.

 

[Bfgrn]

Democrats are known for this. If you tell them an action will make things worse, they double down on it. Pat Moynihan warned that the biggest threat to the black family was fartherlessness. So, of course, the Democrat Party made it their goal to have a government check replace the black male head of household and as an added bonus they so destroyed the educational system that blacks have the highest drop out and illiteracy rates.

Bush warns them that leaving Iraq early will destabilize the region so Obama makes that his Middle East plan

THIS Democratic Party?

Obama’s Father’s Day Remarks

Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation. They are teachers and coaches. They are mentors and role models. They are examples of success and the men who constantly push us toward it.

But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing – missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.

You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled – doubled – since we were children. We know the statistics – that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.

How many times in the last year has this city lost a child at the hands of another child? How many times have our hearts stopped in the middle of the night with the sound of a gunshot or a siren? How many teenagers have we seen hanging around on street corners when they should be sitting in a classroom? How many are sitting in prison when they should be working, or at least looking for a job? How many in this generation are we willing to lose to poverty or violence or addiction? How many?

Yes, we need more cops on the street. Yes, we need fewer guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. Yes, we need more money for our schools, and more outstanding teachers in the classroom, and more afterschool programs for our children. Yes, we need more jobs and more job training and more opportunity in our communities.

But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child – it’s the courage to raise one.

more