What will Obama Do About Iraq Now?

[The Rabbi]

.

I remember Colin Powell saying he told Bush "you break it, you own it".

Well, we broke it, and (not surprisingly) we've left ourselves with only shitty choices.

.

Bush..never owned it.

He passed it on.

Oh, he owned it, all right.

It was his choice to make and he made it.

Then he passed it on.

.

Passed it on with a blueprint for success. Which Obama ignored because polls told him total withdrawal would play better in the media.
So all the Bush blame is really pointless. You might as well blame Winston Churchill.
The question is what is Obama, who is president, going to do about this? Even if he walked into office yesterday it is still his responsibility to do something about it. Simply blaming predecessors will not cut it. That is not his job. His job is to do something.
And as I've written I predict he will do the thing that focus group tests the best: kick it to the UN and then blame them for inaction.

 

[JoeB131]

Passed it on with a blueprint for success. Which Obama ignored because polls told him total withdrawal would play better in the media.
So all the Bush blame is really pointless. You might as well blame Winston Churchill.
The question is what is Obama, who is president, going to do about this? Even if he walked into office yesterday it is still his responsibility to do something about it. Simply blaming predecessors will not cut it. That is not his job. His job is to do something.
And as I've written I predict he will do the thing that focus group tests the best: kick it to the UN and then blame them for inaction.

I'm still waiting for you guys to explain WHY he should do something.

This isn't our problem. And frankly, I'm not even sure which guys I'm supposed to be rooting for here. Maliki is joined at the hip with the Crazy Ayatollah's in Iran, and they were the ones who insisted no Americans remain behind. Let the Crazy Ayatollah's save his ass now.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Bush..never owned it.

He passed it on.

Oh, he owned it, all right.

It was his choice to make and he made it.

Then he passed it on.

.

Passed it on with a blueprint for success. Which Obama ignored because polls told him total withdrawal would play better in the media.
So all the Bush blame is really pointless. You might as well blame Winston Churchill.
The question is what is Obama, who is president, going to do about this? Even if he walked into office yesterday it is still his responsibility to do something about it. Simply blaming predecessors will not cut it. That is not his job. His job is to do something.
And as I've written I predict he will do the thing that focus group tests the best: kick it to the UN and then blame them for inaction.

Which Obama ignored because polls told him total withdrawal would play better in the media.

until very recently anything obama did "played well with the media"

this is one of the reasons you see obama skipping the constitutional process

on such a wide scale

as for not following the blueprint in Iraq he tried

but the country distrusted him so much that the kicked him out

the world warned obama not to arm ISIS in Syria

predicting that if he did you would see them trying to establish a caliphate

which they now have a pretty good leg up on

by 2016 we will be back in the middle east

with a much weaker army and a much stronger op force

the parade of thousands of Iraqi troops captured is a picture of what is

to become most will submit and become ISIS fighters

 

[The Rabbi]

Passed it on with a blueprint for success. Which Obama ignored because polls told him total withdrawal would play better in the media.
So all the Bush blame is really pointless. You might as well blame Winston Churchill.
The question is what is Obama, who is president, going to do about this? Even if he walked into office yesterday it is still his responsibility to do something about it. Simply blaming predecessors will not cut it. That is not his job. His job is to do something.
And as I've written I predict he will do the thing that focus group tests the best: kick it to the UN and then blame them for inaction.

I'm still waiting for you guys to explain WHY he should do something.

This isn't our problem. And frankly, I'm not even sure which guys I'm supposed to be rooting for here. Maliki is joined at the hip with the Crazy Ayatollah's in Iran, and they were the ones who insisted no Americans remain behind. Let the Crazy Ayatollah's save his ass now.

Because terrorism has a way of becoming our problem eventually. I realize that takes thinking beyond today, which you obviously don't have. But that's the truth. We ignored Afghanistan and the Taliban and then got 9/11 for it. How many more 9/11s do you want?

 

[Mr Natural]

Bush..never owned it.

He passed it on.

Oh, he owned it, all right.

It was his choice to make and he made it.

Then he passed it on.

.

Passed it on with a blueprint for success. Which Obama ignored because polls told him total withdrawal would play better in the media.
So all the Bush blame is really pointless. You might as well blame Winston Churchill.
The question is what is Obama, who is president, going to do about this? Even if he walked into office yesterday it is still his responsibility to do something about it. Simply blaming predecessors will not cut it. That is not his job. His job is to do something.
And as I've written I predict he will do the thing that focus group tests the best: kick it to the UN and then blame them for inaction.

A fiasco cannot have a "blueprint for success".



And you people who are trying to pin the Cheney/Bush Iraq Fiasco on Obama are seriously fucked up.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh, he owned it, all right.

It was his choice to make and he made it.

Then he passed it on.

.

Passed it on with a blueprint for success. Which Obama ignored because polls told him total withdrawal would play better in the media.
So all the Bush blame is really pointless. You might as well blame Winston Churchill.
The question is what is Obama, who is president, going to do about this? Even if he walked into office yesterday it is still his responsibility to do something about it. Simply blaming predecessors will not cut it. That is not his job. His job is to do something.
And as I've written I predict he will do the thing that focus group tests the best: kick it to the UN and then blame them for inaction.

A fiasco cannot have a "blueprint for success".



And you people who are trying to pin the Cheney/Bush Iraq Fiasco on Obama are seriously fucked up.

Which objective did we not achieve in Iraq out of the stated objectives at the start of the war?

 

[asterism]

I guess the idea that Biden and others supported, including myself, of some sort of a partition of Iraq,

is looking better and better in hindsight.

I don't think it looks better in hindsight, I think it looks viable now.

The problem with a 3 state solution back in 2003 is that we still needed Turkey as an ally while also being able to keep Iran surrounded (by having most of our deployed combat forces on either side of them). Had we split up Iraq, Kurdistan would have immediately tried to annex about a third of Turkey. The area South of Najaf would have aligned with Iran and the middle would have aligned with Syria. Then all three factions would wage war over the oil assets.

While the situation today is starting to look like that, it's not nearly as significant after the Arab Spring and after the conclusive military victories in Iraq and Afghanistan. We might just be able to split up the country along ethnic lines and deliver a stern warning that those folks need to just leave us the fuck alone.

 

[The Rabbi]

Passed it on with a blueprint for success. Which Obama ignored because polls told him total withdrawal would play better in the media.
So all the Bush blame is really pointless. You might as well blame Winston Churchill.
The question is what is Obama, who is president, going to do about this? Even if he walked into office yesterday it is still his responsibility to do something about it. Simply blaming predecessors will not cut it. That is not his job. His job is to do something.
And as I've written I predict he will do the thing that focus group tests the best: kick it to the UN and then blame them for inaction.

A fiasco cannot have a "blueprint for success".



And you people who are trying to pin the Cheney/Bush Iraq Fiasco on Obama are seriously fucked up.

Which objective did we not achieve in Iraq out of the stated objectives at the start of the war?

Whoops! Bye bye Cleano.

 

[BlindBoo]

The spineless fucks on the far neo-con right drum up a war on bad intelligence and then want to blame everybody else.

Tough that. The American people know very clearly poor neo-con policy lost the war.

Obama has had 5.5 years, but yes, it was a bad move from Day 1.

5.5 years to prolong the inevitable civil war?

 

[The Rabbi]

The spineless fucks on the far neo-con right drum up a war on bad intelligence and then want to blame everybody else.

Tough that. The American people know very clearly poor neo-con policy lost the war.

Obama has had 5.5 years, but yes, it was a bad move from Day 1.

5.5 years to prolong the inevitable civil war?

"Inevitable"? That's a nice excuse. No matter what Obama did there would have been a civil war. Nice meme. Not true, not remotely true.

 

[Mr Natural]

Passed it on with a blueprint for success. Which Obama ignored because polls told him total withdrawal would play better in the media.
So all the Bush blame is really pointless. You might as well blame Winston Churchill.
The question is what is Obama, who is president, going to do about this? Even if he walked into office yesterday it is still his responsibility to do something about it. Simply blaming predecessors will not cut it. That is not his job. His job is to do something.
And as I've written I predict he will do the thing that focus group tests the best: kick it to the UN and then blame them for inaction.

A fiasco cannot have a "blueprint for success".



And you people who are trying to pin the Cheney/Bush Iraq Fiasco on Obama are seriously fucked up.

Which objective did we not achieve in Iraq out of the stated objectives at the start of the war?

How about the "objective" to bring democracy to Iraq.

Unless you consider a constant state of terror attacks and civil war to be a condition of democracy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Passed it on with a blueprint for success. Which Obama ignored because polls told him total withdrawal would play better in the media.
So all the Bush blame is really pointless. You might as well blame Winston Churchill.
The question is what is Obama, who is president, going to do about this? Even if he walked into office yesterday it is still his responsibility to do something about it. Simply blaming predecessors will not cut it. That is not his job. His job is to do something.
And as I've written I predict he will do the thing that focus group tests the best: kick it to the UN and then blame them for inaction.

I'm still waiting for you guys to explain WHY he should do something.

This isn't our problem. And frankly, I'm not even sure which guys I'm supposed to be rooting for here. Maliki is joined at the hip with the Crazy Ayatollah's in Iran, and they were the ones who insisted no Americans remain behind. Let the Crazy Ayatollah's save his ass now.

This is how we know you're a total lying scumbag and your whole narrative is a fake.

Why don't you tell your "Fellow Vets" the real ones, the ones that served in Iraq that it's "not our problem"

Fucking fraud that you are

 

[BlindBoo]

How can anyone discuss Iraq without bringing up Obama?

If we had listened to Obama we never would have invaded Iraq in the first place

If Obama had listened to Bush he would have left troops and we wouldnt be in this mess.
If Churchill hadnt insisted on the borders the way they are we wouldnt have this problem. If King Idris wasnt a fuck up Saddam would never have gotten power.
You can play this all day long.
The fact is Obama was presdient when he rushed headlong out of Iraq because polls told him that's what people wanted. And Obama is president now when the iraq situation is falling apart because of his decisions.
So what is Obama going to do to fix Obama's fuck up?

All American military forces were mandated to withdraw from Iraqi territory by 31 December 2011 under the terms of a bilateral agreement signed in 2008 by President Bush.

Neither president was able to convince the Iraqis to sign the status of forces agreement giving US soldiers immunity from Iraqi law. So we left. No president would leave our soldiers in such a position.

The civil war has been inevitable. It began right after the occupation government disbanded the old Iraqi Army. I believe it was Bremer who disregarded Gen. Garners plan to keep most of the soldiers on the payroll.

 

[Sallow]

Passed it on with a blueprint for success. Which Obama ignored because polls told him total withdrawal would play better in the media.
So all the Bush blame is really pointless. You might as well blame Winston Churchill.
The question is what is Obama, who is president, going to do about this? Even if he walked into office yesterday it is still his responsibility to do something about it. Simply blaming predecessors will not cut it. That is not his job. His job is to do something.
And as I've written I predict he will do the thing that focus group tests the best: kick it to the UN and then blame them for inaction.

I'm still waiting for you guys to explain WHY he should do something.

This isn't our problem. And frankly, I'm not even sure which guys I'm supposed to be rooting for here. Maliki is joined at the hip with the Crazy Ayatollah's in Iran, and they were the ones who insisted no Americans remain behind. Let the Crazy Ayatollah's save his ass now.

Because terrorism has a way of becoming our problem eventually. I realize that takes thinking beyond today, which you obviously don't have. But that's the truth. We ignored Afghanistan and the Taliban and then got 9/11 for it. How many more 9/11s do you want?

Has a way?

Well yeah, it does have a way.

What happens is this country interferes in the internal affairs of other countries because it has the belief that the resources of those countries belong to us. Or we do things like fight proxy wars against super powers we don't like.

That's the way.

Maybe if we employ our own "Free Market" principles on an international level and actually conduct "trade" instead of subterfuge, we will see less terrorism. That and respecting the sovereignty of other nations.

Just a thought.

 

[boedicca]

Now what Obama? Are you going to let Baghdad fall in Taliban/Sunni hands? Make an alliance with Syria for one stronghold in the middle East?

-Geaux

You have to ask?

He only has one move: Blame Bush.

 

[rightwinger]

If it wasn't for Obama, Iraq would be treating us a liberators

 

[Sallow]

Obama has had 5.5 years, but yes, it was a bad move from Day 1.

5.5 years to prolong the inevitable civil war?

"Inevitable"? That's a nice excuse. No matter what Obama did there would have been a civil war. Nice meme. Not true, not remotely true.

Well yeah.

In fact, inevitable.

Biden's solution was the most feasible.

Although, even that, wouldn't assure peace.

Because there are ALOT of old scores to settle.

And if we know anything about conservatives, and for the most part? The people of Iraq are VERY conservative, they NEVER let anything go.

 

[BlindBoo]

Iraq wouldn't be in this mess if we kept some combat troops there like we have done since the 1940s with Japan and Germany....oh wait, you idiots don't know that.

Obama squandered everything we did in Iraq but not until he claimed "he did it and made Iraq a SUCCESS." Joe Biden claimed "Iraq was their greatest success" at the time.

This is what happens when idiots are in charge and don't understand one needs to keep troops in certain parts of the world to prevent evil people from rising up and taking power.

Should have never been there in the first place. Bush should have never gone in there to overthrow Saddam and install a weak puppet government and Obama shouldn't have backed these Islamists in Syria who are now spilling into Iraq.

Saddam, miss him yet?

Correct, After Saddam took control of Iraq and murdered his political opponents. Regardless if our covert support was started under Carter or Reagan, it never should have happened. Covert or overt. Iraq, which was one of the most progressive of all the Arab States in 1979, has been virtually destroyed.

 

[The Rabbi]

A fiasco cannot have a "blueprint for success".



And you people who are trying to pin the Cheney/Bush Iraq Fiasco on Obama are seriously fucked up.

Which objective did we not achieve in Iraq out of the stated objectives at the start of the war?

How about the "objective" to bring democracy to Iraq.

Unless you consider a constant state of terror attacks and civil war to be a condition of democracy.

They staged two free and fair elections.
Iraq in 2006 had fewer civilian deaths than Detroit and Chicago.
/fail

 

[Sallow]

Which objective did we not achieve in Iraq out of the stated objectives at the start of the war?

How about the "objective" to bring democracy to Iraq.

Unless you consider a constant state of terror attacks and civil war to be a condition of democracy.

They staged two free and fair elections.
Iraq in 2006 had fewer civilian deaths than Detroit and Chicago.
/fail

What complete bullshit.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/

BALTIMORE, Maryland (CNN) -- War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis or more than 500 people a day since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports.

Violence including gunfire and bombs caused the majority of deaths but thousands of people died from worsening health and environmental conditions directly related to the conflict that began in 2003, U.S. and Iraqi public health researchers said.

"Since March 2003, an additional 2.5 percent of Iraq's population have died above what would have occurred without conflict," according to the survey of Iraqi households, titled "The Human Cost of the War in Iraq." (Watch as the study's startling results are revealed -- 1:55 Video)

The survey, being published online by British medical journal The Lancet, gives a far higher number of deaths in Iraq than other organizations. (Read the full report -- pdf)

The report's release came as nearly four dozen Baghdad civilians became casualties in another day of bombs and gunfire. (Full story)

It's just amazing how much propaganda you folks CONTINUE to this day, to spew.