Why did Obama turn Iraq over to Al Qaeda?

[BlindBoo]

Our troops did the heavy lifting and they recommended that we stay on to properly train the ISF. Obama overruled them.

Maybe you should talk to the families of people who served and ask them what they think of the Obama Doctrine.

What we did in another country doesn't matter. Iraq is a sovereign nation. Unless we are directly at war with that nation, when a sovereign nation tells us they don't want us there, WE GET OUT. Period, end of story.

Our president has no say in it. Our generals have no say in it. No one in this country has the right tell Iraq "Fuck you, we don't care what you want. We're doing whatever WE want with your country". To even imagine that we can shows incredible hubris.

You mean like the US did in Serbia, Libya and Syria?

How long did the US occupation of those places last?

 

[Peach]

Far from leaving a "sovereign, stable and self-reliant" Iraq, Obama has succeeded in giving AQ what it had prior to the GWOT: State sponsorship.

What was the plan? Did Obama intend to leave Iraq for the Jihadists?

Did Obama intend to throw away and waste the sacrifices of our troops?

Obama's not stupid, so we know this wasn't a blunder. We have to ask, what was his intent?

They bought it for a reasonable price..they(Sunnis) seem to have the balls the Shiites do not..

Show me a time in the history of the area known as Iraq, that has ever had a long stable history....

Not in recent memory, and the war was six years old when Obama entered office; Bush cannot explain the large part of the responsibility, which does NOT leave Obama off the hook, however.

 

[AceRothstein]

Remember how we totally abandoned Germany and Japan in 1946 and pulled out all our troops?

Well no actually FDR and Truman installed fair occupations and helped restore civil order in those countries. So unlike the fucked up occupation of Iraq which created anarchy and sparked the ongoing civil war. Germans were fighting to get into the US sector of occupied Germany.

You're confused, the anarchy started AFTER we abandoned Iraq

BWAHAHAHAHA! Did you really just say that?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Our troops did the heavy lifting and they recommended that we stay on to properly train the ISF. Obama overruled them.

Maybe you should talk to the families of people who served and ask them what they think of the Obama Doctrine.

What we did in another country doesn't matter. Iraq is a sovereign nation. Unless we are directly at war with that nation, when a sovereign nation tells us they don't want us there, WE GET OUT. Period, end of story.

Our president has no say in it. Our generals have no say in it. No one in this country has the right tell Iraq "Fuck you, we don't care what you want. We're doing whatever WE want with your country". To even imagine that we can shows incredible hubris.

You mean like the US did in Serbia, Libya and Syria?

I think the US should get out of every foreign nation and stop trying to fuck around with them.

 

[Sallow]

Far from leaving a "sovereign, stable and self-reliant" Iraq, Obama has succeeded in giving AQ what it had prior to the GWOT: State sponsorship.

What was the plan? Did Obama intend to leave Iraq for the Jihadists?

Did Obama intend to throw away and waste the sacrifices of our troops?

Obama's not stupid, so we know this wasn't a blunder. We have to ask, what was his intent?

Should we have made Iraq a commonwealth, like Puerto Rico?

And had ourselves some brand new citizens able to travel all through the US?

That's a bold plan, CF.

Remember how we totally abandoned Germany and Japan in 1946 and pulled out all our troops?

Ah yes..two countries that attacked declared war on us. And we actually had to fight them.

Here's a thought..maybe we should have enacted the Marshall plan in Iraq. And not disbanded their military. And not banned government officials from doing their jobs.

Man..nostalgia.

 

[GHook93]

Why did Bush lie and invade Iraq thus making it unstable?Put the blame where its supposed to be.

If you got an education you might be able to get a job! Bush didn't lie, he along with everyone else believed Sadam had WNDs. He was wrong.

Second, Iraq was stablish, but was still a powder keg! This war between Shia and Sunni Iraq was inevitable. We just spend up that time line.

 

[Unkotare]

Far from leaving a "sovereign, stable and self-reliant" Iraq, Obama has succeeded in giving AQ what it had prior to the GWOT: State sponsorship.

What was the plan? Did Obama intend to leave Iraq for the Jihadists? We have to ask, what was his intent?

For what he expected would be even a temporary political gain for himself personally. Why does he do anything? Same answer. He gives not a shit about anything else.

 

[BlindBoo]

Why did Bush lie and invade Iraq thus making it unstable?Put the blame where its supposed to be.

If you got an education you might be able to get a job! Bush didn't lie, he along with everyone else believed Sadam had WNDs. He was wrong.

Second, Iraq was stablish, but was still a powder keg! This war between Shia and Sunni Iraq was inevitable. We just spend up that time line.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

 

[chikenwing]

Why did Bush lie and invade Iraq thus making it unstable?Put the blame where its supposed to be.

If you got an education you might be able to get a job! Bush didn't lie, he along with everyone else believed Sadam had WNDs. He was wrong.

Second, Iraq was stablish, but was still a powder keg! This war between Shia and Sunni Iraq was inevitable. We just spend up that time line.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Yet still every leading dem at the time was saying the very opposite. So where does that leave the truth?

 

[rightwinger]

If you got an education you might be able to get a job! Bush didn't lie, he along with everyone else believed Sadam had WNDs. He was wrong.

Second, Iraq was stablish, but was still a powder keg! This war between Shia and Sunni Iraq was inevitable. We just spend up that time line.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Yet still every leading dem at the time was saying the very opposite. So where does that leave the truth?

Not this Dem

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaida, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

 

[Desperado]

Same thing will happen when you pull out of Afghanistan too.
We should never have invaded those countries. What a waste of men and money.

 

[BlindBoo]

If you got an education you might be able to get a job! Bush didn't lie, he along with everyone else believed Sadam had WNDs. He was wrong.

Second, Iraq was stablish, but was still a powder keg! This war between Shia and Sunni Iraq was inevitable. We just spend up that time line.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Yet still every leading dem at the time was saying the very opposite. So where does that leave the truth?

Except that most Democrats in Congress voted against giving GWB the power to decide to use military force.

 

[Bush92]

Senate Democrats who voted for the invasion of Iraq:
YEAs — 77
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)...Ohhhhh loookee here!
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)....Ohhhhhh lookee here!
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)...Ohhhhh lookkee here!
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)...Ohhh loookeeee here!
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV) ...Ohhhhhh lookkkee here!
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)...Ohhhhh lookkkee here!
Torricelli (D-NJ)

 

[rightwinger]

Senate Democrats who voted for the invasion of Iraq:
YEAs — 77
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)...Ohhhhh loookee here!
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)....Ohhhhhh lookee here!
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)...Ohhhhh lookkee here!
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)...Ohhh loookeeee here!
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV) ...Ohhhhhh lookkkee here!
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)...Ohhhhh lookkkee here!
Torricelli (D-NJ)

Why do we keep doing this?

More Democrats voted against the war than voted for it. We have been through it dozens of times

Only one man was "The Decider" on Iraq and that was Bush. The responsibility rests with the decider

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Senate Democrats who voted for the invasion of Iraq:
YEAs — 77
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)...Ohhhhh loookee here!
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)....Ohhhhhh lookee here!
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)...Ohhhhh lookkee here!
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)...Ohhh loookeeee here!
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV) ...Ohhhhhh lookkkee here!
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)...Ohhhhh lookkkee here!
Torricelli (D-NJ)

Why do we keep doing this?

More Democrats voted against the war than voted for it. We have been through it dozens of times

Only one man was "The Decider" on Iraq and that was Bush. The responsibility rests with the decider

Apparently Bush is still deciding things for Obama today

 

[Avatar4321]

This is hardly Obama alone responsible. Bush was the one who set up the time table for withdrawal, Obama just accelerated it.

Of course, Obama could try to do something now.

 

[Avatar4321]

Senate Democrats who voted for the invasion of Iraq:
YEAs — 77
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)...Ohhhhh loookee here!
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)....Ohhhhhh lookee here!
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)...Ohhhhh lookkee here!
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)...Ohhh loookeeee here!
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV) ...Ohhhhhh lookkkee here!
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)...Ohhhhh lookkkee here!
Torricelli (D-NJ)

Why do we keep doing this?

More Democrats voted against the war than voted for it. We have been through it dozens of times

Only one man was "The Decider" on Iraq and that was Bush. The responsibility rests with the decider

That's 28 Democrats listed above. Democrats had a bare majority in the Senate when the vote was taken. 51-28 = 23.

28 > 23

So no more Senate Democrats voted for it.

 

[rightwinger]

Senate Democrats who voted for the invasion of Iraq:
YEAs — 77
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)...Ohhhhh loookee here!
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)....Ohhhhhh lookee here!
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)...Ohhhhh lookkee here!
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)...Ohhh loookeeee here!
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV) ...Ohhhhhh lookkkee here!
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)...Ohhhhh lookkkee here!
Torricelli (D-NJ)

Why do we keep doing this?

More Democrats voted against the war than voted for it. We have been through it dozens of times

Only one man was "The Decider" on Iraq and that was Bush. The responsibility rests with the decider

Apparently Bush is still deciding things for Obama today

Actually, once he pulled the trigger, he did

 

[rightwinger]

Senate Democrats who voted for the invasion of Iraq:
YEAs — 77
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)...Ohhhhh loookee here!
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)....Ohhhhhh lookee here!
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)...Ohhhhh lookkee here!
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)...Ohhh loookeeee here!
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV) ...Ohhhhhh lookkkee here!
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)...Ohhhhh lookkkee here!
Torricelli (D-NJ)

Why do we keep doing this?

More Democrats voted against the war than voted for it. We have been through it dozens of times

Only one man was "The Decider" on Iraq and that was Bush. The responsibility rests with the decider

That's 28 Democrats listed above. Democrats had a bare majority in the Senate when the vote was taken. 51-28 = 23.

28 > 23

So no more Senate Democrats voted for it.

Want to tell us about House Democrats too?

Or are you trying to hide that?

 

[chikenwing]

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Yet still every leading dem at the time was saying the very opposite. So where does that leave the truth?

Except that most Democrats in Congress voted against giving GWB the power to decide to use military force.

Nope not true ,many more than not voted yes,pertiqually all the Dem leadership was on board,and had been even before Bush was elected,facts don't change even for the dishonest. Dems had more than enough voting power to derail the iraq resolution,that didn't happen did it.

Both parties are just as much involved as the next trying to say otherwise is just dishonesty.