WOW, Anyone Just See Obama's Press Conf on IRAQ?

[Ibentoken]

No shitstain....Obama took credit for victory in Iraq under Bush then left too early and caused this mess today.

Iraq wasn't a "fuck-up" when Bush left office otherwise you need to explain Obama and Biden bragging about Iraq being their "greatest accomplishment."

You're arguing that Obama is fucking up because he didn't prolong Bush's fuckup. That's insane..

He left when the agreement said to leave. The agreement the Iraqis signed and supported.

You'd have Americans dying now in Iraq in an illegal occupation? Unbelievable.

Obama is lying about troop withdrawal in Iraq and you know it. Shame.

 

[EconChick]

You stupid son of a bitch....he didn't try to get an agreement with Iraq's leaders because he had petty personal differences with them and he wanted to make cocksuckers like you happy here.

No shitstain....Obama took credit for victory in Iraq under Bush then left too early and caused this mess today.

Iraq wasn't a "fuck-up" when Bush left office otherwise you need to explain Obama and Biden bragging about Iraq being their "greatest accomplishment."

He left when the agreement said to leave. The agreement the Iraqis signed and supported.

You'd have Americans dying now in Iraq in an illegal occupation? Unbelievable.

Exactly. Plus Obama put a poison pill that made it impossible to accept. Jesus, they spell that out in the PBS doc that these idiots claim to have watched.

 

[EconChick]

LOL, Reagan was the best president of the last century. Very few seem to have his ability to lead and persuade. That's on either side of the aisle.

Reagan would be handling this in the opposite way O is.

I can't help that your guy is the biggest fucking loser of a leader. O is a marketer. He will make lots of money one day as he should as a marketer. But he's no Commander in Chief.

Excuse me, but you just said a president who cares about public opinion in military matters such as Iraq is NOT A LEADER.

Reagan made that a RULE. You just defined a core Reagan foreign policy principle as characteristic of a lack of leadership and then you turn around a post later and declare Reagan a great leader.

Try to put together a coherent, consistent version of your grab bag of partisan-infected ideas, would you?

It's fun watching her tie herself up in incoherent, inconsistent knots.

She does it over and over and doesn't even see it.

It's fun watching how your emoting brain fails to grasp any logic. You need to go back to writing poems because you're way in over your head on serious topics.

I'm sure you write good love letters though. Hey, I'm sure someone out there appreciates it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

LOL, Reagan was the best president of the last century. Very few seem to have his ability to lead and persuade. That's on either side of the aisle.

Reagan would be handling this in the opposite way O is.

I can't help that your guy is the biggest fucking loser of a leader. O is a marketer. He will make lots of money one day as he should as a marketer. But he's no Commander in Chief.

Excuse me, but you just said a president who cares about public opinion in military matters such as Iraq is NOT A LEADER.

Reagan made that a RULE. You just defined a core Reagan foreign policy principle as characteristic of a lack of leadership and then you turn around a post later and declare Reagan a great leader.

Try to put together a coherent, consistent version of your grab bag of partisan-infected ideas, would you?

It's fun watching her tie herself up in incoherent, inconsistent knots.

She does it over and over and doesn't even see it.

It's an occupational hazard of being a Reagan worshipper without actually knowing what Reagan stood for and believed.

 

[Kosh]

Excuse me, but you just said a president who cares about public opinion in military matters such as Iraq is NOT A LEADER.

Reagan made that a RULE. You just defined a core Reagan foreign policy principle as characteristic of a lack of leadership and then you turn around a post later and declare Reagan a great leader.

Try to put together a coherent, consistent version of your grab bag of partisan-infected ideas, would you?

It's fun watching her tie herself up in incoherent, inconsistent knots.

She does it over and over and doesn't even see it.

It's an occupational hazard of being a Reagan worshipper without actually knowing what Reagan stood for and believed.

The irony of those comments from one that will not condemn Obama for illegal action in Iraq.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You stupid son of a bitch....he didn't try to get an agreement with Iraq's leaders because he had petty personal differences with them and he wanted to make cocksuckers like you happy here.

No shitstain....Obama took credit for victory in Iraq under Bush then left too early and caused this mess today.

Iraq wasn't a "fuck-up" when Bush left office otherwise you need to explain Obama and Biden bragging about Iraq being their "greatest accomplishment."

He left when the agreement said to leave. The agreement the Iraqis signed and supported.

You'd have Americans dying now in Iraq in an illegal occupation? Unbelievable.

The Iraqi parliament wasn't going to have any of it.

 

[Kosh]

You stupid son of a bitch....he didn't try to get an agreement with Iraq's leaders because he had petty personal differences with them and he wanted to make cocksuckers like you happy here.

He left when the agreement said to leave. The agreement the Iraqis signed and supported.

You'd have Americans dying now in Iraq in an illegal occupation? Unbelievable.

The Iraqi parliament wasn't going to have any of it.

You have no proof of that, but when has a far left Obama drone needed proof.

 

[Plasmaball]

LOL, Reagan was the best president of the last century. Very few seem to have his ability to lead and persuade. That's on either side of the aisle.

Reagan would be handling this in the opposite way O is.

I can't help that your guy is the biggest fucking loser of a leader. O is a marketer. He will make lots of money one day as he should as a marketer. But he's no Commander in Chief.

Excuse me, but you just said a president who cares about public opinion in military matters such as Iraq is NOT A LEADER.

Reagan made that a RULE. You just defined a core Reagan foreign policy principle as characteristic of a lack of leadership and then you turn around a post later and declare Reagan a great leader.

Try to put together a coherent, consistent version of your grab bag of partisan-infected ideas, would you?

It's fun watching her tie herself up in incoherent, inconsistent knots.

She does it over and over and doesn't even see it.

this is a typical tactic done by people like her. Whine about how Obama is doing something, Then have it pointed out someone like Reagan did it as well, and then watch them make excuses as to why Reagan knew what he was doing and thus wasnt fucking things up.

It really shows who is ignorant of history and the context of how things work.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your ape brain can't comprehend this stuff.

It's fun watching her tie herself up in incoherent, inconsistent knots.

She does it over and over and doesn't even see it.

I hate to say it but they don't realize that what they suffer from is exactly that. Ape brains.

Could you imagine trying to teach something as abstract as physics to these libs?

Look carbonator, you have to ditch your cognitive leaning toward everything as an ON or OFF switch to understand this topic.

There is NOTHING black and white about it.

When I make a statement, I'm thinking in gradations. Like on a scale of 1-100.

When you post, it's as if it's either 1 or 0.

It means you don't have the ability to understand ambiguity.

Or all the things that go on between 2 to 99.


Reagan believed that it was optimal if you could convince the public to see it your way, but he sure as hell didn't wait for the public to approve of something if it needed to be done.

What do I mean by optimal? I mean the teacher would give Ronnie a score of 100 out of 100 if he could sway every single American on the topic.

But even Reagan didn't. There were still a small percentage that were the usual tards.

Do you think Reagan meant 100%?

Of course not. He was speaking about probabilities.

Filibuster all you want but that doesn't change the fact that I walked you right into trashing a core principle of Ronald Reagan.

Oh, and btw, Reagan put his military intervention principles in writing AFTER Beirut, which even you should be able to figure out the significance of.

You can pretend that Reagan was anything you want.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You stupid son of a bitch....he didn't try to get an agreement with Iraq's leaders because he had petty personal differences with them and he wanted to make cocksuckers like you happy here.

The Iraqi parliament wasn't going to have any of it.

You have no proof of that, but when has a far left Obama drone needed proof.

Who's providing proof of anything in this thread? Econchick posted here 'proof' in the form of a large collection of opinions in a PBS documentary.

And enough of this skewed framing of the debate to make the assumption that keeping troops in Iraq would have made anything any better. Prove THAT if you think that 'proof' is the issue here.

 

[Kosh]

The Iraqi parliament wasn't going to have any of it.

You have no proof of that, but when has a far left Obama drone needed proof.

Who's providing proof of anything in this thread? Econchick posted here 'proof' in the form of a large collection of opinions in a PBS documentary.

And enough of this skewed framing of the debate to make the assumption that keeping troops in Iraq would have made anything any better. Prove THAT if you think that 'proof' is the issue here.

Typical racist, bigoted far left poster that can not back up their comments.

So in other words you can not prove your comments. Well I knew that before you even posted it.

The burden of proof is on you to back up your comments. So can you?

You finally going to condemn Obama for his illegal actions in Iraq?

 

[Peach]

The Iraqis begged us for help, all our allies are behind us; 20,000 Yazidis freed, big victory over ISIS. Kurds the US armed are breaking through ISIS lines now. GO USA!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

He left when the agreement said to leave. The agreement the Iraqis signed and supported.

You'd have Americans dying now in Iraq in an illegal occupation? Unbelievable.

LOL!

Are you denying that the Iraqi Parliament had to approve a rewrite of the SOFA?

Can you back that up with anything of substance?

Rewrite? Just making it up as you go along, eh?


Is it dope? A little of the ol' Mary Jane? Is that it? A little of the ol' yahoo?

My position is clearly more complex and nuanced than you would have it.

You've never been anything else but a straw man on this board.

The status of forces agreement was not necessarily a general pull out by a certain date, but a systematic reduction in forces over time as we built up and trained an Iraqi army with a targeted date. It provided for an extension of a force of roughly 10,000 if Iraq were not stable by that date or for a redeployment of additional forces in the event it were to become unstable. Iraq clearly was not ready by December 2011! Everyone with an IQ above that of a gnat understood that.

A faction of the Iraqi Parliament reneged on that provision and threatened to oust Maliki. At that time it should have been explained to them in no uncertain terms that they owed us big, and that we were not about to squander the blood and the treasure that we had vested in their success. There is no way in hell a Republican president would have allowed that, but Obama, because that was his wont all along in any event, folded like the pair of soiled panties in your top drawer.

It was sheer politics, not leadership, and it was irresponsible. Within a year it was clear that the fledgling government was in trouble; moreover, it has been abundantly clear for nearly a year now that it could not adequately defend its people, and this Administration and the MSM ignored the mounting crisis.

You're playing the same game as Kosk, albeit, on the other side of the matter: either pretending not to understand or failing to understand certain realities.

But as I have said before, at this point, the hell with it. Let the Iraqi Shias sleep in the bed they made for themselves as the Sunnis of ISIS ravage their nation. All of our efforts should now be directed at defending Kurdistan, which was the only reliably stable and friendly region of Iraq anyway, primarily because its people are not lunatics.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Iraqis begged us for help, all our allies are behind us; 20,000 Yazidis freed, big victory over ISIS. Kurds the US armed are breaking through ISIS lines now. GO USA!

Yes. This is good stuff. Now, we need to stay the course and defend Kurdistan. In the meantime we need to kill every last swinging dick of these murderous barbarians.

 

[EconChick]

M.D. Rawlings, thank you for explaining this again to them. I've tried in other threads and it's like explaining physics to my 8 yr old nephew, to whom I finally say, let's thy this again in 4 years darling'.

But if you don't mind, I'll post your words again, not for the partisans who could care less about the truth, but the undecideds in our country who are realizing they were duped by Obama and want to hear something the idiot press never tells them.

So to those interested in the truth:

The status of forces agreement was not necessarily a general pull out by a certain date, but a systematic reduction in forces over time as we built up and trained an Iraqi army with a targeted date. It provided for an extension of a force of roughly 10,000 if Iraq were not stable by that date or for a redeployment of additional forces in the event it were to become unstable. Iraq clearly was not ready by December 2011! Everyone with an IQ above that of a gnat understood that.

A faction of the Iraqi Parliament reneged on that provision and threatened to oust Maliki. At that time it should have been explained to them in no uncertain terms that they owed us big, and that we were not about to squander the blood and the treasure that we had vested in their success. There is no way in hell a Republican president would have allowed that, but Obama, because that was his wont all along in any event, folded like the pair of soiled panties in your top drawer.

It was sheer politics, not leadership, and it was irresponsible. Within a year it was clear that the fledgling government was in trouble; moreover, it has been abundantly clear for nearly a year now that it could not adequately defend its people, and this Administration and the MSM ignored the mounting crisis.

 

[EconChick]

You stupid son of a bitch....he didn't try to get an agreement with Iraq's leaders because he had petty personal differences with them and he wanted to make cocksuckers like you happy here.

He left when the agreement said to leave. The agreement the Iraqis signed and supported.

You'd have Americans dying now in Iraq in an illegal occupation? Unbelievable.

The Iraqi parliament wasn't going to have any of it.

The German intelligentsia wasn't going to have any part of our winning WWII either.

What the hell does your one little data point have to do with the complex situation??

 

[EconChick]

Excuse me, but you just said a president who cares about public opinion in military matters such as Iraq is NOT A LEADER.

Reagan made that a RULE. You just defined a core Reagan foreign policy principle as characteristic of a lack of leadership and then you turn around a post later and declare Reagan a great leader.

Try to put together a coherent, consistent version of your grab bag of partisan-infected ideas, would you?

It's fun watching her tie herself up in incoherent, inconsistent knots.

She does it over and over and doesn't even see it.

this is a typical tactic done by people like her. Whine about how Obama is doing something, Then have it pointed out someone like Reagan did it as well, and then watch them make excuses as to why Reagan knew what he was doing and thus wasnt fucking things up.

It really shows who is ignorant of history and the context of how things work.

Dude, you need to stagger back into your Union Office with your bottle and get back to reading talking points. You couldn't think for yourself if your life depended on it.

And secondly, you don't know shit about the glorious Reagan years except for what your Lib masters have told you to think.

 

[EconChick]

Your ape brain can't comprehend this stuff.

I hate to say it but they don't realize that what they suffer from is exactly that. Ape brains.

Could you imagine trying to teach something as abstract as physics to these libs?

Look carbonator, you have to ditch your cognitive leaning toward everything as an ON or OFF switch to understand this topic.

There is NOTHING black and white about it.

When I make a statement, I'm thinking in gradations. Like on a scale of 1-100.

When you post, it's as if it's either 1 or 0.

It means you don't have the ability to understand ambiguity.

Or all the things that go on between 2 to 99.


Reagan believed that it was optimal if you could convince the public to see it your way, but he sure as hell didn't wait for the public to approve of something if it needed to be done.

What do I mean by optimal? I mean the teacher would give Ronnie a score of 100 out of 100 if he could sway every single American on the topic.

But even Reagan didn't. There were still a small percentage that were the usual tards.

Do you think Reagan meant 100%?

Of course not. He was speaking about probabilities.

Filibuster all you want but that doesn't change the fact that I walked you right into trashing a core principle of Ronald Reagan.

Oh, and btw, Reagan put his military intervention principles in writing AFTER Beirut, which even you should be able to figure out the significance of.

You can pretend that Reagan was anything you want.

No you didn't moron.

I can't help you have a rigid fucking brain. You have the cognitive capacity of a 14 yr old. Some things you will just never get.

You libs can get on here and say 2+2 is 8 all you want. It's the independents that see right through your stupidity. Seen the polls lately??

 

[EconChick]

The Iraqi parliament wasn't going to have any of it.

You have no proof of that, but when has a far left Obama drone needed proof.

Who's providing proof of anything in this thread? Econchick posted here 'proof' in the form of a large collection of opinions in a PBS documentary.

And enough of this skewed framing of the debate to make the assumption that keeping troops in Iraq would have made anything any better. Prove THAT if you think that 'proof' is the issue here.

Filibuster all you want, he asked YOU for proof.

I answer to libtards all day long.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I hate to say it but they don't realize that what they suffer from is exactly that. Ape brains.

Could you imagine trying to teach something as abstract as physics to these libs?

Look carbonator, you have to ditch your cognitive leaning toward everything as an ON or OFF switch to understand this topic.

There is NOTHING black and white about it.

When I make a statement, I'm thinking in gradations. Like on a scale of 1-100.

When you post, it's as if it's either 1 or 0.

It means you don't have the ability to understand ambiguity.

Or all the things that go on between 2 to 99.


Reagan believed that it was optimal if you could convince the public to see it your way, but he sure as hell didn't wait for the public to approve of something if it needed to be done.

What do I mean by optimal? I mean the teacher would give Ronnie a score of 100 out of 100 if he could sway every single American on the topic.

But even Reagan didn't. There were still a small percentage that were the usual tards.

Do you think Reagan meant 100%?

Of course not. He was speaking about probabilities.

Filibuster all you want but that doesn't change the fact that I walked you right into trashing a core principle of Ronald Reagan.

Oh, and btw, Reagan put his military intervention principles in writing AFTER Beirut, which even you should be able to figure out the significance of.

You can pretend that Reagan was anything you want.

No you didn't moron.

I can't help you have a rigid fucking brain. You have the cognitive capacity of a 14 yr old. Some things you will just never get.

You libs can get on here and say 2+2 is 8 all you want. It's the independents that see right through your stupidity. Seen the polls lately??

Yes I have seen the polls. And I also have you on the record saying that a president who governs by the polls is showing a lack of leadership.

Would you like that read back to you?