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

Many of our countries are thankful for ISIS. It's the perfect opportunity to rat out all the religious fanatics living in our countries by letting them go to fight for ISIS and die there, or come back and be forever branded like cattle as terrorists and therefore be kept in prison or shot on sight if they so much as raise a finger.

So far, ISIS has killed tourists and cartoonists, or helping countries like Turkey to get rid of annoying minorities like the Kurds... not a big threat to the world order or economic growth! The moment ISIS starts to plan a strategic and well thought through attack like the 9/11 attack against the WTC, heart of our financial system, then we will really see if the west is still "sitting on it's hands".

 

Jim Phillips, a Middle East analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, thinks the pullout in late 2011 was rushed. Even though that deadline was set by the Bush administration, it was widely expected that it would be extended. The Obama team refused to negotiate an extension because Iraqi authorities would not bend on one key point: granting immunity to U.S. forces in Iraqi courts.
Obama announced the full withdrawal. Within weeks of the withdrawal announcement, the Obama campaign put out an ad claiming credit for ending the combat mission. I think Obama turned his back on the need for continued military support prematurely.
During February 2009, Obama proclaimed. "Today, I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end," Under the new plan, Obama said, the United States would remove all combat troops by Aug. 31, 2010. The result, the U.S. now had less political coverage within the country, while Iran’s influence had increased.

 

Complete waste of time and lives to support an Iraqi government that does not have the support of the Iraqi people or the Iraqi Army. As one US general put it, "The Iraqi Army wasn't driven out, they drove out ..."

 

You are of course referring to Bubba Clinton....

 

That sounds a lot like the racial tensions in the US. Yep, that doesn't bump us out of running for stable, does it?

 

According to the link in the OP, Krauthammer makes the claim:
"This is nonsense. The fact is that by the end of Bush’s tenure, the war had been won"
Krauthammer confuses victory with bribery; Bush's surge resulted in a temporary truce, and it came at the cost of tens of millions of US dollars paid to Anbar sheiks to kill fellow Sunnis instead of American crusaders. Perhaps a better question to ask is this: should Obama have continued to fund the protection money, and how much should rich war whores (like Krauthammer) have been required to contribute?

 

As compared to what? Even if you ignore the terrorist and insurgent attacks that were still taking place and being planned, their infrastructure was still severely degraded from US bombings, and the Sunnis and Shias still hadn't come to a fundamental power-sharing agreement, so whatever "stability" may have existed in 2008 was really just an illusion.

 

Most Americans aren't aware of how long the US degradation of Iraq has been going on.
1990 - 1999 THE FIRST GULF WAR AND WEAPONS INSPECTIONS Invasion of Kuwait, US Military Operations, UNSCOM and No-Fly Zones, Cheney "Quagmire" Comment, Oil-for-Food, UNMOVIC
2000-
Feb. 2003 WEAPONS INSPECTIONS UN Weapons Inspections, "Axis of Evil", UN Resolution 1441, Secretary of State Powell at UN
Mar.-Dec. 2003 START OF THE US-IRAQ WAR Operation Iraqi Freedom, US Takes Baghdad, UNAMI, Hussein Captured
2004 YEAR ONE - US-IRAQ WAR
Abu Ghraib, Iraqi Interim Government, Operation Phantom Fury: Securing Fallujah, WMD Search Ends
2005 YEAR TWO Elections, Operation Lightning, Trial of Hussein Begins, Haditha Killings
2006 YEAR THREE New Iraqi Government, Al-Zarqawi Killed, Iraq Study Group Report, Hussein Hanged
2007 YEAR FOUR US Troop Surge, Iraq War Is "Civil War", Bush Vetoes Withdrawal Legislation, British Transfer Control of Basra to Iraq
2008 YEAR FIVE Iraq Attacks Decline, Iraq Calls for US Withdrawal Timetable, Iraq Sets US Troop Withdrawal Date, Oversight Agency Cites "Massive Waste" in Reconstruction
2009 YEAR SIX US Hands over Green Zone Control to Iraq, US Embassy in Iraq Opens, Remaining Non-US Coalition Forces Leave Iraq, Obama Announces End of Combat Mission in Iraq by Aug. 31, 2010, Deadliest Attack of 2009
2010 YEAR SEVEN Multi-National Force-Iraq Becomes United States Forces-Iraq, Official End to US Combat Operations in Iraq, Wikileaks Publishes Classified US Military Logs on the War in Iraq
2011 YEAR EIGHT Iraqi Leaders and al-Sadr Debate US Troop Departure, New US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Makes First Trip to Iraq, United States Declares Official End to War in Iraq with Final Troop."

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000670

 

Nnot even remotely true. You're just making up nonsense now!

The intelligence agencies didno

 

Here are the statements from Democrats. Look at what they said and when they said it. Many long before Bush ever ran for office, or thought of running. I have already posted what the two bipartisan committees said. Go back and read it.

"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

 

Why do you WANT it in the first place? Who cares about Iraq?

 

We didn't want another North Korea in the Middle East.

 

Agreed. If Obama truly felt blameless (or thought he could get away with it) he would not have gone back into Iraq. But to commit whole heartedly to defeating ISIS-would mean he was massively wrong about the withdrawal an ISIS. So he's committed to the only option that will allow him to save face while by definition being unattainable-air strikes.

Just today, he blasts Iraqi forces for not fighting-but still he does nothing substantive.
http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-slam...yb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

 

Iraqi forces aren't given the air power and missiles that American forces had. We watch on television of coalition air forces knocking out a truck, a group of buildings. But has anyone saw our air force attack a ISIS convoy heading into another city? They showed two big convoys celebrating after ISIS took over this last city, Not one plane in sight. It sure isn't like we don't know where they are or where they're going. What kind of war is Obama fighting?

 

Where is the attack planes?

 

Whatever kind of war he thinks he's fighting-he's not fighting it to win.

 

Where are the attack planes? Click on picture to make larger. Both places they are sitting ducks.

 

Iraq is nowhere close to being North Korea, nor could it. If Saddam Hussein tried to act like Kim Jong Il he'd have so many Jihadists on his hands he'd be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed.

 

This is what Bush would have done and it would be all over.

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

 

Saddam had desires of being the leader of the Middle East. That's why he wanted those weapons. Anyone who crossed him was either shot in the town square and taken out in the desert and shot. Our soldiers found many mass graves in Iraq. One filled with nothing but women and children shot in the back of the head. If he didn't do that, he bombed them with chemical weapons. Which he did several times.

 

It's not about winning.

It's about keeping a threat around (for political purposes), and it's about selling lots of weapons and enriching your campaign contributors.

 

We know you don't have a case when you go back and throw up the old reliable collection of throwaway quotes.

Politician mouthing conventional wisdom proves nothing.

None of the people saying what people commonly believed were calling for a war. And the intelligence agencies weren't busy looking too deeply into what Hussein actually had. He was contained. He had no air force, no navy, and his army was half the size it was in 1990.

The quotes from 2002 all preceeded the Authorization to use Military Force, and reflect the impressions created by the doctored NIE that the President presented to Congress after his boys over in the Pentagon got done making sure it expressed no doubts.

I am not going to go through this entire thread to see which investigations you cherry picked conclusions from.

The historical record is clear, and the definitive conclusion were reached by the Senate Intelligence Committee. That report undermines your claims.

 

You like posting this video, don't you?

Do you honestly believe that George W Bush would have been able to get support for reinserting 180,000 troops in Iraq in the middle of a severe recession????????

Americans knew that Iraq was a disaster, and support for Bush's war completely collapsed by 2006. Once the US was committed to withdrawal, there was little chance that Congress would support going back, and the public certainly would not have.

The right wing is long on blame Obama when it comes to Isis, and very, very short of solutions.

 

The US invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 qualifies as a war of aggression under international law
"he International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war 'essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
IS is the latest example of the evil accumulated within the whole
There will likely be many more unless Americans reject both wings of the War Party when they vote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression#Sources_and_definitions_of_the_crime

 

If it required our presence to be "stable," then it's not, we're just holding the pieces together. Had we won? Depends on what the goal is. To kill Hussein and dismantle his party? Check. To leave a stable glittering democracy? Was never going to happen