What is he doing in IRAQ?

[hackjack]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/11/obama-iraq-war_n_5801694.html
When is he going to attack Syria and IRAN? What the hell is all this about helping IRAQ when ISIS works out of SYRIA and IRAN.  The idiot is speaking now.  Bullshit.  He's off now on some tangent about colleges.

[Bonam]

You may want to do a bit of reading. ISIS is primarily located in Syria and Iraq (not Iran).

[hackjack]

GOD what a fool.  HOW exactly is he protecting AMERICA?  By keeping our borders open to them?  We're not protected.  What in the name of God are we doing in IRAQ?

[sana8410]

GOD what a fool.  HOW exactly is he protecting AMERICA?  By keeping our borders open to them?  We're not protected.  What in the name of God are we doing in IRAQ?

Isis is in Iraq and in Syria not iran and Syria. Look on the map, they started in the north near the Syrian border and moved east to the Kurdish area and then down toward Bagdad. And basically after reading that the more than 60% of Americans approve of air attacks on Iraq and Syria obama asked for our support in doing just that. Now lets see what his plan is when he presents it to congress. Oh, and I noticed that he said "we" when he normally would have said "I", maybe he is figuring it out and realized all that "I" stuff wasn't working.

[umair127]

Well I guess the Jayvee team finally made it to varsity.

Obama leads from behind and the polls told him he needed to do something like this. He is purely a political animal and nothing more. He knows how to fund raise, he knows how to bullshit the dumb masses, and he has elevated lying to Americans into a political art form. And of course the media lets him get away with it. However that's not going to last long though once he becomes a lame duck. Soon they will be kissing Hillary's ass, and running cover for her. Obama will be thrown to the curbside like yesterdays trash by the fawning media.

[Rigon]

I'm trying to figure out what this broad coalition is…

Bush had 37 nations with him and the liberals said he was acting unilaterally…

You think that Obama needs to go to the United Nations for permission?

And I'm surprised that there's not numerous threads from the liberals here praising his wonderful leadership…

Maybe because finally they realize his leadership isn't all that wonderful.

And claiming success in Yemen and Somalia… I think most consider those are failures…

But then again failure for a liberal is success.
Just wait for the attack to happen here then things will change… Drastically

[umair127]

I don't know why anyone in the military would put their life on the line for this flip flopping moron. So many of them were maimed or died only to see him give up all their gains in Iraq in just few months time. And will Obama go to the U.N. and Congress like Bush to seek approval. Hell no. Of course the same liberals that voted for Bush's action in Iraq were later protesting and condemning it while calling our troops war criminals. They ran away from it just like they are running away from Obamacare now.

[Hamuki]

It is needed. To stop the ISIS.
Or atleast take the momentum they have away from them.

[hackjack]

You may want to do a bit of reading. ISIS is primarily located in Syria and Iraq (not Iran).

So I learned.  Sorry about that.  He will put Americans on the ground in Iraq to train them to fight ISIS.  Didn't we do the same thing before this?  And look what happened.  Iraq is in another mess.  And Americans were killed.  Lots of them.

[hackjack]

Ok, Iraq is the place to be.  But who is guarding our southern and northern borders while this is happening?  Tomorrow is 9/11.


AND he is going to ask Congress what they want to do?  Of course.  CYA, in case his plans go wrong.  Since when does he care what Congress thinks?

[noviapriani]

Yep, looks like they weren't so soverign, stable, and self reliant after all.  Didn't have a representative government either.  They had a Shia government that went about the business of persecuting the Sunnis and a sham of an army stitched together after the brilliant move of disbanding Saddam's army and dismantling of its infrastructure and institutions.   

Same as it ever was, or ever will be. 

[noviapriani]

So why after 6 years of Bush and Darth's War and $4 trillion and 4500 dead Americans and tens of thousads of injured and maimed Americans and hundreds of thousands of dead and displaced Iraqis - didn't they?   Must be Obama's fault.

[zolace]

"Liar of the year" strikes again.


NYT Baghdad bureau chief: The White House lied to Americans for years about what bad shape Iraq was in
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/351694.php
Via Ace, something to keep in mind tonight while The One is doing his johnny-on-the-spot shtick about fighting jihadism in Iraq. “Lie” is my word, not Tim Arango’s, but read his comment and tell me what’s more likely. That the vast American intelligence community was “ignorant” of how bad things were in a country where we’d spent eight years developing assets? Or that the White House had every reason to know how dangerous Iraq was becoming but chose to suppress that information because the truth was problematic?
Is “ignorant” really the best word to describe willful blindness to a politically inconvenient truth? Obama got elected promising to bring the troops home; the only way he could do that without major domestic headaches was to claim that Iraq didn’t need them anymore. So he did, the truth notwithstanding. Imagine how many low-information voters will watch tonight’s speech and wonder where this bolt-from-the-blue known as ISIS came from. Last they heard, Iraq was doing just fine.

You guys know better, though. I’ve linked it more than once before but it’s worth re-reading Peter Beinart’s post from a few months ago about Obama’s history of malign neglect in Iraq. He had one Iraq goal as president — to get out, come what may, just as he promised voters he would do in 2008. And he did it, even though that meant denying Iraq a small but potent residual American force that could have held Maliki’s sectarian impulses in check (which in turn would have made Iraq’s Sunnis less inclined to turn to ISIS) and would have been well positioned to smash ISIS once it crossed the border from Syria. Dexter Filkins of the New Yorker has written about this at length.

“We used to restrain Maliki all the time,” Lieutenant General Michael Barbero, the deputy commander in Iraq until January, 2011, told me. “If Maliki was getting ready to send tanks to confront the Kurds, we would tell him and his officials, ‘We will physically block you from moving if you try to do that.’ ” Barbero was angry at the White House for not pushing harder for [a Status of Forces] agreement. “You just had this policy vacuum and this apathy,” he said. “Now we have no leverage in Iraq. Without any troops there, we’re just another group of guys.” There is no longer anyone who can serve as a referee, he said, adding, “Everything that has happened there was not just predictable—we predicted it.”

[zolace]

The American ambassador at the time told Filkins that he and his staff got no guidance from the White House while they were trying to negotiate an agreement with Maliki. “[T]hey wanted to leave,” said Iyad Allawai, “and they handed the country to the Iranians. Iraq is a failed state now, an Iranian colony.” And now we’re going to be fighting on the Iranian side against the Wahhabi monster our absence helped create, a prospect so dismal and dangerous that even the famously hawkish David Frum thinks we should leave ISIS alone for fear of empowering Iran even further. Obama checked out on Iraq and now, thanks to his neglect, he has no choice but to check back in under the worst circumstances.

Like I say, read the Beinart piece. That’s how we got here.


http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/10/nyt-baghdad-bureau-chief-the-white-house-lied-to-americans-for-years-about-what-bad-shape-iraq-was-in/

[umair127]

Yep, looks like they weren't so soverign, stable, and self reliant after all.  Didn't have a representative government either.  They had a Shia government that went about the business of persecuting the Sunnis and a sham of an army stitched together after the brilliant move of disbanding Saddam's army and dismantling of its infrastructure and institutions.   

Same as it ever was, or ever will be. 

No it wasn't and you believed the lies Obama told you…

To the point you ridiculed those of us who said they needed to leave some troops there and Obama blew the agreement…

And Obama claimed victory…

Yes this is Obama's fault and now we're going back aren't we?

The ultimate admission of failure…

And you're still pissing on those who fought for all that…

[umair127]

"Liar of the year" strikes again.


NYT Baghdad bureau chief: The White House lied to Americans for years about what bad shape Iraq was in
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/351694.php
Via Ace, something to keep in mind tonight while The One is doing his johnny-on-the-spot shtick about fighting jihadism in Iraq. “Lie” is my word, not Tim Arango’s, but read his comment and tell me what’s more likely. That the vast American intelligence community was “ignorant” of how bad things were in a country where we’d spent eight years developing assets? Or that the White House had every reason to know how dangerous Iraq was becoming but chose to suppress that information because the truth was problematic?
Is “ignorant” really the best word to describe willful blindness to a politically inconvenient truth? Obama got elected promising to bring the troops home; the only way he could do that without major domestic headaches was to claim that Iraq didn’t need them anymore. So he did, the truth notwithstanding. Imagine how many low-information voters will watch tonight’s speech and wonder where this bolt-from-the-blue known as ISIS came from. Last they heard, Iraq was doing just fine.

You guys know better, though. I’ve linked it more than once before but it’s worth re-reading Peter Beinart’s post from a few months ago about Obama’s history of malign neglect in Iraq. He had one Iraq goal as president — to get out, come what may, just as he promised voters he would do in 2008. And he did it, even though that meant denying Iraq a small but potent residual American force that could have held Maliki’s sectarian impulses in check (which in turn would have made Iraq’s Sunnis less inclined to turn to ISIS) and would have been well positioned to smash ISIS once it crossed the border from Syria. Dexter Filkins of the New Yorker has written about this at length.

“We used to restrain Maliki all the time,” Lieutenant General Michael Barbero, the deputy commander in Iraq until January, 2011, told me. “If Maliki was getting ready to send tanks to confront the Kurds, we would tell him and his officials, ‘We will physically block you from moving if you try to do that.’ ” Barbero was angry at the White House for not pushing harder for [a Status of Forces] agreement. “You just had this policy vacuum and this apathy,” he said. “Now we have no leverage in Iraq. Without any troops there, we’re just another group of guys.” There is no longer anyone who can serve as a referee, he said, adding, “Everything that has happened there was not just predictable—we predicted it.”

I did listen to his speech last night and when he said that about Isis, that they weren't Islamic…You talk about giving the opposition motivation…

[Mr.Bitty]

0bamas war hasn't started and we already lost, his refusal/denial to recognize the roots of all of this, which is a desire to have a ISLAMIC state.  Kind of hard to win a war when you refuse to be honest about the enemy.

[sana8410]

0bamas war hasn't started and we already lost, his refusal/denial to recognize the roots of all of this, which is a desire to have a ISLAMIC state.  Kind of hard to win a war when you refuse to be honest about the enemy.

The question is, why did obama tell us Iraq was a stable, self reliant and sovereignty when it wasn't? His military advisors told him Iraq wasn't ready to go it alone and bush explained why we couldn't leave until it was, so how come obama the smartest president ever and the greatest military leader who caught osama wasn't smarter than bush? And BTW more men died in afg under obama than under bush.

[sana8410]

BTW since obama killed osama that murder has been used as a recruiting tool and al qaida has more than doubled in size and tripled its attacks and isis has flourished. So, under bush al qaida was on the run, without a home country, short on cash and their leader lived in hiding and under obama their leader is dead, their numbers are flourishing, their bank accounts raking in close to $100 million a month and they're killing thousands per day. There's a reason Americans feel less safe under obama and it sure as hell isn't because he's done a good job squashing terrorists. Maybe its because he can't even admit they are muslim terrorists.
dd loves to brag that obama has killed more al qaida leaders than anybody ever but when it comes down to it all that killing with drones didn't stop the terrorists from flourishing under obama.

[RodeoX]

We have seen this movie before. America is about to get it's ass handed to it by a bunch of guys in pajamas... Again.
Honestly, how stupid can we be? We fought these guys for over a decade in Iraq before we gave up, and they just got stronger. Now I'm supposed to believe that we can do it from the air? Our foreign policy s ridiculous.