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

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran.'"
This plan dates to the 1980s, at least.
It doesn't matter whether a Republican OR a Democrat occupies the White House.

Bush and Obama followed their orders, and whoever comes next will do likewise (or else)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark#Book_on_modern_wars

 

How many reports from Iraq in 2008 of mass casualty-causing terrorist events do you want to link to for you to be willing to concede?

 

If only Obama listened to Bush's warning.

 

So what you're saying is that Obama stuck to Bush's plan regardless of the developing evidence.

Look, time to climb out of the swamp and get real. You guys have been damning all things Bush for seven long and annoying years. And now that the chickens have come home to roost, your defense is Obama is even dumber than Bush, who we all know would have changed the plan with the arrival of ISIS.

Your demander in chief ignored the reality of the day and got those troops home in time for the "you can keep your plan election".

Now that we know his biggest defenders admit Obama is that stupid, how can you conviunce anyone Hillary is capable, since by losing to Obama and your logic, she's even dumber, she was the one to have advised him it was a very moronic and move and a risk to national security.

Thanks for clearing that up, I have been saying for years compared to Obama Bush was genius incarnate

 

Yeah point fingers at the guy previous,what a great (*)(*)(*)(*)ing motto.

Bush was wrong for invading Iraq, Obama is wrong for not requesting an extension and withdrawing early,

Don't point fingers at anything, state the facts and move on.

 

Not when everywhere else you look, the legacy is one of deceit, deception, lies and incompetence. Look, they can't talk about health care without facing "you can keep your plan", they can't claim any success in Libya where ISIS rules as a result of Hillary's "smart power" regime change....

so they have the meme that THEY believe and keep telling it to themselves to take away the frightening prospect that the party's future is in the hands of a washed up old lying hag whose "expertise" in foreign policy consists of dodging imaginary bullets, Benghazi and spontaneous demonstrations

 

no.. I'm saying the new administration made an attempt to form a new agreement with the Iraqi government to keep US troops in Iraq even longer, but the Iraqi government rejected the law, and thus the new administration was confined by law to abide by the agreement made by the old administration.

a few years ago I used to explain this to Obama supporters, I would tell them he didn't end the war in Iraq.. now I tell the same damn thing to those who try to use the end of the Iraq war as a negative.. whether you think the war should have ended or not is another discussion, but it must be understood that ultimately it was the status of forces agreement and the Iraqi government's decision to not sign a new deal that ended the war

 

no it's not, Iraq lost Iraq....

 

source.....

that's bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and you know it

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement#SOFA_Negotiations

just because you are uneducated to a subject does not mean it is "bull (*)(*)(*)(*)"

 

President Obama did request and extension, the Iraqi government said no. Malaki refused to create an inclusive government.

Bush invaded Iraq.
Bush disbanded the Iraqi army.
Bush signed the withdrawal agreement.

You're damned right we're going to point the fingers at Bush, EXACTLY where they belong

Bush's legacy is one of miserable failures that we will be cleaning up for decades.

 

He's the leader of the free world, he better be able to tell some (*)(*)(*)(*) ant country that can't keep their extremist in check what's going down.

It's sad, instead of focusing on the problem at hand, "Blame bush".

 

Sorry, I do not recognize Wiki as a credible source.

try harder and stick the personal insults about my education right where it hurts the worst.
Bye

 

My apologies, it was not my intention to personally insult you, but rather insult the notion that the information on the Iraq war Status Of Forces Agreement was "bull (*)(*)(*)(*)" (it is an untrue notion, and deserves to be put down)

I was not calling you an uneducated person, but rather addressing your lack of knowledge to the specific subject. There's no shame in being uneducated to a subject, that's where we all start until we educate ourselves to the subject. The only shame is being unwilling to learn

http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/w...expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html?_r=0
http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/05/barack-obama-did-not-end-the-war-in-iraq


you have been given the information now, the big question is do you take it in, or do you reject all of it?

 

Whatever you say.

But you attacked the poster and not the post, then and here.

When you tell people the usual liberal troll lines "you must have a reading comprehension problem", or "you have a lack of knowledge", etc. you are calling that individual 'stupid' in a way that the mods can't nail you for it.

To me it's evidence of a closed mind

 

excuse me, but I never accused you of having a reading comprehension problem.. I addressed what was true, and that is your lack of knowing about the specific subject (the Status Of Forces Agreement negotiations). Not only did you not know about it, but you assumed it was a lie

That's the fact of the matter, you didn't know about it, so you assumed it was a lie. So I responded by defending the information as true, and stated that just because you don't know about it does not mean it is a lie.. or as I worded it at the time '"just because you are uneducated to a subject does not mean it is "bull (*)(*)(*)(*)"'

I did apologize for the harsh choice of wording, but again I was criticizing the notion that the information was a lie (or as you worded it at the time"bull (*)(*)(*)(*)"), which was an assumption based on you not previously knowing about the information given in my post. That's exactly what happened, and I don't now what else to say other than I'm sorry you took it as a personal attack

 

Executive Agreements such as the status of forces agreement are NOT legally binding only treaties ratified by congress are legally binding, Obama could have changed it anytime he wanted.

 

lol - now you are suggesting that we could have reconquered Iraq immediately after having made it a sovereign nation!

In fact, we could set the precedent that when the presidency changes, anything we sign is irrelevant - that our word is only as good as our electoral college - congress be damned.

Was our act of creating Iraq a joke to you?

 

Obama did not lose Iraq, that certainly is not a fact.

 

This one REALLY bugs me.


We wrote the constitution for Iraq (except for the clause that says the Qur'an is the final legal appeal), we chose their leader (when they had what was essentially a four-way tie). We, as members of the UN Security Council, confirmed Iraq to be a sovereign nation. We fully support the fundamental principle of the rule of law. We signed a SOFA with this new nation.

Yet YOU suggest that a few short months later the US president could simply toss the SOFA and move troops into Iraq against the expressed will of Iraq without any process of justification for that invasion?


What the heck, buddy?

 

I've been reading how it was Bush who created ISIS because Obama was bound to the status of forces agreement Bush signed, so he had to pull the troops out. I'm simply pointing out how that narrative is false.

Obama WAS warned........Just too ignorant to listen and just too arrogant to care.

 

I have no idea what "narrative" you are reading.

But, let me point out that the cause of ISIS was the extreme repression and disenfranchisement of Sunnis in Iraq at the hands of the US and the leader of Iraq (Maliki) who Bush chose. That started with the "deBaathification" and, (with a lull during the "Awakening" when we found common cause with Sunnis) continued through the end of the Bush administration and well into the Obama administration.

More recently under Obama (and with the end of the Maliki administration) the US has worked with al-Abadi to train and integrate Sunnis in the Iraq military. We've also placed additional pressure on al-Abadi to accept the 20 million Sunnis who live in Iraq - to stop lethal Shiite militia attacks on Sunni civilians and allow Sunnis some representation in government, presence in the military, civil service jobs which are so important in their economic organization, etc.

Yes, the US has had zero right to invade Iraq during any moment of the Obama administration.

But, that was NOT just because of the SOFA.

Iraq was declared to be a sovereign nation by the United Nations Security Council declaration which Bush supported. That is how new and reconstituted nations are created and recognized. That was before Bush signed the SOFA.

So, again, at the time of the Bush Sofa, Iraq was a sovereign nation not willing to have the US carrying out military operations within its borders. Whether there was a SOFA was irrelevant. The SOFA only makes it crystal clear what the situation was and itemized solutions to the NUMEROUS issues of the US withdrawal.

 

This is exactly what happened.

Obama apparently did this to satiate his base before the 2012.

 

We do not put combat troops in a country without the agreements that Maliki and his parliament denied.

Blaming that on Obama is LUDICROUS, dude. That is the way America does business.

Maliki and his parliament did not want our troops carrying out war in Iraq, so he denied the agreements America requires for that to happen. And, obviously, we are not ready to overthrow the Iraqi government again.

You're just tapping into an anti-Obama partisan screed.

 

Krauthammer is an Israel First guy and he wants to deflect from the dual citizen neocons who told Dubya that we would be greeted as liberators and pay for the war.. all 13 years of it....with Iraqi oil.