It’s Obama who lost Iraq: it's imperative to understand that fact

Sorry, we've been through this ad nauseum... just because you want to believe one thing doesn't mean you get to rewrite history and expect others to buy into the charade.

 

The 'history' which you refer to is the standard government narrative. Some of us have the ability to look beyond propaganda to seek the truth. When Bush left office he also left Iraq a tottering, unstable, faction-riddled disaster. The news media were falling over themselves in reporting 'insurgency' (terrorist) attacks on coalition forces. Nothing has changed except your adulation for Bush and your blindness to reality.

 

It wasn't stable, but it was manageable.

 

Even Obama administration thought so.

[video=youtube;tLteUGkvpOc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tLteUGkvpOc#t=0[/video]

 

Obama lost it when he called ISIS a Jr. Varsity team and refused to bomb them when they came down from Syria. That is what lost it. He had chance after chance to take them out when they got on that desert highway and went from city to city and he refused. Bush would have never let that happen. His Dad showed him how to handle it. Obama more or less whipped his hands clean of Iraq after pulling the troops out and the ISIS knew it.

[video=youtube;hhmXleZXAr0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhmXleZXAr0[/video]

 

by Krauthammer -






Lots of credibility there.

Whether that right wing extremist wants to believe it or not, it is criminal traitor Bush who lost the war he started.

But if right wingers still want to win that war, all they need to do is to volunteer and go fighting there. I'm sure Bush would appreciate it if you stood up for him in order to make him look good.

 

Obama just happened to be the guy in office who brought the troops home. It wouldn't have mattered what guy it was, or when they did it. Once the power vacuum begins as we pull out, the same things would have happened.

Why do I think that?

Because that's what's been happening in that region for thousands of years. Bush created a dud that was going to blow up in the face of whatever guy ended up making the decision to bring our soldiers home.

Some of you might like to seize on this as something to rage on Obama about, but I can bet there are some folks who aren't displeased with his decision.

Those folks are the families of the soldiers that came home alive. The mommies and daddies and brothers and sisters who didn't have to go through the pain of a loved one dying in the sand for what will always end up being a lost cause no matter how noble the goal(s) for going and staying there were.

 

Well, I was referring to the different protagonists in the battle: Kurdish armies, armies from what's left of the non-ISIS rebels and ISIS of course...
And my first point was that, even though I am not in their heads, but IMHO the populations that still live in Syria probably have other things to worry about besides wondering whether their 6 year old daughter will be married to an ISIS soldier... Dodging bombs and struggling to find food to put on your plate are probably their priority, but I may be wrong...

 

Not true. Look at my post 138. That's what lost it. Obama is to blame. He sat there and did nothing till public opinion forced him at act when American heads rolled off their bodies. Then it was to late. Quit standing up for that man and look at reality.

 

There are a lot of soldiers and their families very displeased at Obama's decision. Those that gave their son's and daughter's lives to liberate Iraq and those who fought hard to do it and lost limbs doing it. Because of Obama's action, Iraq is all but lost. The leaders of most of the countries in the Middle East hate Obama and blame him for this mess, not Bush.

 

Charles Krauthammer is a card carrying member of the notorious (and notoriously wrong ) Project for a New American Century ).

In that role, he was one of the loudest voices in the marketing and spinning of the grearest foreign policy disaster in US history. The pronouncements he has made about Iraq over the years have been so consistantly wrong,false,and freqeuntly dishonest that it begs credibility that anyone would quote him with a straight face!

 

Iraq was lost before the first boot hit the ground.

 

I am looking at reality and that's why I say that who the man is doesn't matter. This outcome will have been the same in the long run no matter who was in office. Republican, Democrat, conservative, consitutionalist, etc, doesn't matter. This is a reality of the region, not American politics.

 

Forget what he said. It's our intelligence that got us into this mess. They were positive Iraq had WMD and would have nuclear weapons within 10 years if not checked.

 

No, I disagree. If Bush had still been in office, he would have never allowed ISIS to go from city to city unchecked. I can see Obama failing to act when ISIS took over the first city, but any idiot had to know better when they went after the others. He did nothing. How many do they have to take over before you know there is a major threat there?

 

Are you telling us that a country divided into ethnic camps all armed to the teeth and taking pot shots at one another is "the rest of the world's definition of "stable"???????

 

He was one of the loudest voices peddling the war. Your claim that the intelligence agencies got us into a war is idiotic.

 

How was it under Saddam? He took dissidents to the town square and shot them. Loaded up bus loads of them, took them out in the desert, shot them and buried them in big pits. They found many of those. One loaded with women and children all shot in the back of the head. One child still caring her doll. He gassed towns killing thousands. It wasn't that bad after we took over.

 

As long as theocracies are prevalent in the Middle East, the region will be unstable. No army, no foreign force, nothing can change the crazy stuff people do in wake of their religious beliefs. As long as the West invades, launches air strikes, whatever, we give them purpose to strike back, purpose to continue their cancerous version of Islam to the next generation. Without provocation from the first world, the Middle East will just fight one another, any intervention gives reason for unity, unity against the West, it's part of why ISIS was created in the first place.

 

Well sir, two bipartisan investigations say just the opposite as you claim. Democrats were saying it years before Bush ever came into office or ever intended to run for office.

 

Yeah, it was pretty bad. There were suicide bombings almost every day.

 

Yes there were. But hundreds weren't gassed, or taken out and murdered and tossed in mass graves. Do you think after the North won the Civil War, all was quiet afterwards?

 

Lets look at what Democrats were saying, many years before Bush became President, or even thought of running for President.

Skip to comments.
Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
davidstuff ^ | 1/4/03 | davidstuff

Posted on ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2004‎ ‎12‎:‎28‎:‎26‎ ‎AM by freedom44

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

I don't really understand why everyone here thinks it was Obama who lost Iraq.
Obama is not the last President and he simply has no idea what a War is, even Bush Jr. had better skills in our Foreign policies. But he started this War and never stopped it leaving it all behind.
Iraq War along with millions spent on Guantanamo is burden too heavy for Obama, he didn't start this mess and he is unable to stop it. Blame Bush Jr. for the useless deaths of our soldiers, for millions and billions that might have been spent on repairing our Healthcare or Educational system or..

Obama already is in the History of the United States for being one the most ineffective presidents.
Enough for him.

 

Besides all that. It was Obama who sat on his hands and took no action as the ISIS went from city to city and took them over. It was his inaction which embolden ISIS to continue to go from country to country through out the Middle East, causing the worst mess the Middle East has been in since WWI.