• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Did Obama put politics ahead of security in Iraq?

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
In Iraq, the president was willing to sacrifice the hard-won gains of U.S. military and diplomatic personnel in the pursuit of his overriding objective—getting out. The United States hadn’t created a stable and peaceful Iraq when the president was sworn in on January 20, 2009. But we had largely defeated our enemies there, and even opponents of the war acknowledged the very real prospect of a relatively secure, democratic Iraq. We lost Iraq by choice.

In congressional testimony as far back as November, U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials made clear that the United States had been closely tracking the al Qaida spinoff since 2012, when it enlarged its operations from Iraq to civil war-torn Syria, seized an oil-rich province there and signed up thousands of foreign fighters who’d infiltrated Syria through NATO ally Turkey.

The testimony, which received little news media attention at the time, also showed that Obama administration officials were well aware of the group’s declared intention to turn its Syrian sanctuary into a springboard from which it would send men and materiel back into Iraq and unleash waves of suicide bombings there. And they knew that the Iraqi security forces couldn’t handle it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/new-disorder_797372.html

The latest McClatchy report indicates that the rise of ISIS was the direct result of the administration’s refusal to address the escalating situation in Syria. Rather than embracing and arming moderate anti-Assad rebel forces, it fell to regional powers – Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey – to support the insurgents of their choosing. The result was the rise of the nightmarish, medieval fundamentalist army which is currently carrying out an ethno-religious purge in the Iraqi territories they control.

Even as ISIS began its rapid advance across Iraq, the administration refused to acknowledge it. According testimony from Brett McGurk, the State Department’s deputy assistant secretary for Iraq and Iran, the White House knew Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul, would fall to advancing ISIS fighters three days before it did. They did nothing about it. Today, unspeakable crimes against human dignity and the common heritage of mankind are committed in that ancient city on a near daily basis.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/07/25/did-obama-put-politics-ahead-of-security-in-iraq/
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Friday, Oct 21, 2011 01:03 PM MDT
About that Iraq withdrawal

Both parties work to churn out myths regarding the President's announcement that all troops will leave by year end

Glenn Greenwald


President Obama announced today that all U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the year, and this announcement is being seized upon exactly the way you would predict: by the Right to argue that Obama is a weak, appeasing Chamberlain and by Democrats to hail his greatness for keeping his promise and (yet again) Ending the War. It’s obviously a good thing that these troops are leaving Iraq, but let’s note three clear facts before either of these absurd narratives ossify:

First, the troop withdrawal is required by an agreement which George W. Bush negotiated and entered into with Iraq and which was ratified by the Iraqi Parliament prior to Obama’s inauguration. Let’s listen to the White House itself today: “’This deal was cut by the Bush administration, the agreement was always that at end of the year we would leave. . . .’ an administration official said.” As I said, it’s a good thing that this agreement is being adhered to, and one can reasonably argue that Obama’s campaign advocacy for the war’s end influenced the making of that agreement, but the Year End 2011 withdrawal date was agreed to by the Bush administration and codified by them in a binding agreement.

Second, the Obama administration has been working for months to persuade, pressure and cajole Iraq to allow U.S. troops to remain in that country beyond the deadline. The reason they’re being withdrawn isn’t because Obama insisted on this, but because he tried — but failed — to get out of this obligation. Again, listen to the White House itself:


The Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and Iraq expires at the end of the year. Officials had been discussing the possibility of maintaining several thousand U.S. troops to train Iraqi security forces, and the Iraqis wanted troops to stay but would not give them immunity, a key demand of the administration. . . .

“The Iraqis wanted additional troops to stay,” an administration official said. “We said here are the conditions, including immunities. But the Iraqis because of a variety of reasons wanted the troops and didn’t want to give immunity.”


The Obama administration — as it’s telling you itself — was willing to keep troops in Iraq after the 2011 deadline (indeed, they weren’t just willing, but eager). The only reason they aren’t is because the Iraqi Government refused to agree that U.S. soldiers would be immunized if they commit serious crimes, such as gunning down Iraqis without cause . As we know, the U.S. is not and must never be subject to the rule of law when operating on foreign soil (and its government and owners must never be subject to the rule of law in any context). So Obama was willing (even desirous) to keep troops there, but the Iraqis refused to meet his demands (more on that fact from Foreign Policy‘s Josh Rogin).


http://www.salon.com/2011/10/21/about_that_iraq_withdrawal/

It looks to me like Obama put the US troops ahead of Iraq security- refusing to have them fall under Iraqi legal jurisdiction...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
my post was new info. We don't really want to hear your "bush's fault" propaganda.

You sound like a Russian RT media personality, who can't be trusted, eh?

"obama pulled the troops out of Iraq, that's why we elected him, but that was Bush's plan" :roll:

You must think Americans are as stupid as obama thinks they are...which means you think you are some sort of elitist.

...let me put it another way OT. You are by far, NOT, even close to the smartest person on this forum. Try peddling your BS, somewhere else.

and vote for the most intelligent president evah, when he runs for the UN, that might be when you can once again, fool the masses
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
my post was new info. We don't really want to hear your "bush's fault" propaganda.

You sound like a Russian RT media personality, who can't be trusted, eh?

"obama pulled the troops out of Iraq, that's why we elected him, but that was Bush's plan" :roll:

You must think Americans are as stupid as obama thinks they are...which means you think you are some sort of elitist.

...let me put it another way OT. You are by far, NOT, even close to the smartest person on this forum. Try peddling your BS, somewhere else.

and vote for the most intelligent president evah, when he runs for the UN, that might be when you can once again, fool the masses

New info :???: Its History-- its what happened... Most knew when Bush agreed to it that in a few years Iraq would be torn apart in civil war... Many of the troops early on said they were wasting their time- that you can't make GW's pipe dream of a democracy out of such a split country..

So you are one of those that think the US should not honor its agreements :???: - especially if they were negotiated by a previous President :???: Should we have declared colonial rule and thru out the agreement with Iraq ? Or do we throw out a centuries old rule whereby we would put our soldiers under another countries rules as Iraq wanted? A rule that would have Blackjack Pershing rolling in his grave...

Nope we did what was right....

About a third of this country lived thru the sham of the Vietnam war- that our leaders lied to us and told us if Vietnam fell to communism- all of Asia would... Vietnam fell- and now they are one of our trading partners...

Now anybody with common sense realizes GW lied to get us into Iraq- a war that his administration said would be a "Cakewalk"- that took us into 10 years of fighting- lost over 4000 good troops and eventually may cost us $7 Trillion ... Folks wanted out- and want us to stay out...

They are tired of old grey haired men like GW and Cheney in Washington lying to them so they can go play their war games...
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
my post was new info. We don't really want to hear your "bush's fault" propaganda.

You sound like a Russian RT media personality, who can't be trusted, eh?

"obama pulled the troops out of Iraq, that's why we elected him, but that was Bush's plan" :roll:

You must think Americans are as stupid as obama thinks they are...which means you think you are some sort of elitist.

...let me put it another way OT. You are by far, NOT, even close to the smartest person on this forum. Try peddling your BS, somewhere else.

and vote for the most intelligent president evah, when he runs for the UN, that might be when you can once again, fool the masses

So much for that. We heard it anyway. It never stops even after being told numerous times that Bush had Congressional approval to go into Iraq.
Some people just don't wanna know.
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Hey Fatman....is your boy going to honor the agreement with Ukraine to defend it? You know, since you are all about honoring agreements negotiated by previous Presidents.
 

Traveler

Well-known member
Considering the lives and treasure spent to get where it was, what an incredible shame not to put forth the minimum effort needed to secure the country. To say the regime did the right thing in favor of the stone age barbarians taking over is unconscionable
 

Latest posts

Top