Chef Jim Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Outrage? Really? I'd have thought you'd be laughing your ass off. Nah, he'd only laugh if it were a bunch of American kids at an international school there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Outrage? Really? I'd have thought you'd be laughing your ass off. Ahhhhh, what's the matter, did I bad mouth one of your little Conservative minions? Does that upset you? The Tom fan club was attacked? Nah, he'd only laugh if it were a bunch of American kids at an international school there. What, and you'd laugh if they were Americans kids at an American school? Then you'd blame Obama. Ninny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 What, and you'd laugh if they were Americans kids at an American school? Then you'd blame Obama. Ninny Why on earth would I blame something like that on Obama? I'd like to hear your answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Why on earth would I blame something like that on Obama? I'd like to hear your answer. He's projecting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Why on earth would I blame something like that on Obama? I'd like to hear your answer. You wouldn't, I was mocking you and it of course went over your head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 You wouldn't, I was mocking you and it of course went over your head I'm sorry. I had no idea you were so !@#$ing brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Wow, how low can you get? Taking some attack that murdered a bunch of children in a foreign land and turning it into a Romney love post? You are scum 126 deaths are pretty hysterical, aren't they? However, what difference, at this point, does it make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 Stars and Stripes reports: Approximately 1,000 paratroopers from the Army's famed 82nd Airborne Division will deploy to Iraq early next year to help the Iraqi security forces take on the Islamic State, the Pentagon announced Friday. … The paratroopers are preparing for a nine-month deployment, according to a spokeswoman for the 82nd Airborne. Approximately 300 troops from other Army, Air Force and Marine Corps units will also deploy to provide "enabler" support in areas such as counterintelligence, logistics, and signals, Kirby said. Yes, the paratroopers are reportedly part of the 1,500 additional troops President Obama authorized last month, three days after the midterm elections, to serve in “non-combat roles” in Iraq. It's unfortunate that none of the ladies at the press conference yesterday thought to ask the President anything about Iraq. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Meanwhile, in Iraq... Islamic State militants are using children — including the mentally challenged — as suicide bombers and human shields, according to officials from a UN watchdog that also reported the terror group is killing, torturing and raping Iraqi kids. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child released a report Wednesday in Geneva in which it said it has received reports of “several cases of mass executions of boys, as well as reports of beheadings, crucifixions of children and burying children alive.” But hey... Barry says people have done bad things in the name of Christ, too, so you should lay off ISIS, mmmkay, people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 WHAT COULD GO WRONG? Backed by Obama, Iranian militias move to the forefront in Iraq. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 WHAT COULD GO WRONG? Backed by Obama, Iranian militias move to the forefront in Iraq. . It's almost like Barry doesn't know what he's doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 It's almost like Barry doesn't know what he's doing. Sectarianism, with or without violence, between the Kurds, Sunni, and Shia in Iraq is an unavoidable fact of the region. Any policy with regards to Iraq that fails to take that into account is bound to fail. The Bush administration's plans for Iraq were truly execrable in that regard. How the Obama administration has managed to come up with an even worse policy is absolutely mind-boggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 National Journal: The World Will Blame Obama If Iraq Falls. And someone needs to ask the 2016 Democratic candidates how they’d avoid Obama-like screwups in the future. Because between now and November of 2016, avoiding Obama-like screwups is going to become more salient than avoiding Bush-like screwups. Related: What Kind Of Iraq Did Obama Inherit? Plus: 2008 Flashback: Obama Says Preventing Genocide Not A Reason To Stay In Iraq. He was warned. He didn’t care. And who can forget this? Barack Obama ✔ @BarackObama Follow FACT: President Obama kept his promise to end the war in Iraq. Romney called the decision to bring our troops home “tragic.” 12:21 PM - 22 Oct 2012 2,684 Retweets 690 favorites Another Romney foreign policy prediction, derided by all right-thinking people at the time, that turned out to be spot-on. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpberr Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Ever get the feeling the ISIS problem is getting to the point where it's about to break containment? I do. I am more worried about ISIS than I am about al Qaeda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Ever get the feeling the ISIS problem is getting to the point where it's about to break containment? I do. I am more worried about ISIS than I am about al Qaeda. ... Al Qaeda in Iraq is ISIS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 "The fact is that by the end of Bush’s tenure the war had been won. You can argue that the price of that victory was too high. Fine." "We can debate that until the end of time. But what is not debatable is that it was a victory. Bush bequeathed to Obama a success. By whose measure? By Obama’s. As he told the troops at Fort Bragg on Dec. 14, 2011, 'We are leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.' This was, said the president, a 'moment of success.' Which Obama proceeded to fully squander. With the 2012 election approaching, he chose to liquidate our military presence in Iraq. We didn’t just withdraw our forces. We abandoned, destroyed or turned over our equipment, stores, installations and bases. We surrendered our most valuable strategic assets, such as control of Iraqi airspace, soon to become the indispensable conduit for Iran to supply and sustain the Assad regime in Syria and cement its influence all the way to the Mediterranean. And, most relevant to the fall of Ramadi, we abandoned the vast intelligence network we had so painstakingly constructed in Anbar province, without which our current patchwork operations there are largely blind and correspondingly feeble. The current collapse was not predetermined in 2003 but in 2011. Isn’t that what should be asked of Hillary Clinton? We know you think the invasion of 2003 was a mistake. But what about the abandonment of 2011? Was that not a mistake?"Writes Charles Krauthammer. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 "The fact is that by the end of Bush’s tenure the war had been won. You can argue that the price of that victory was too high. Fine." "We can debate that until the end of time. But what is not debatable is that it was a victory. Bush bequeathed to Obama a success. By whose measure? By Obama’s. As he told the troops at Fort Bragg on Dec. 14, 2011, 'We are leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.' This was, said the president, a 'moment of success.' Which Obama proceeded to fully squander. With the 2012 election approaching, he chose to liquidate our military presence in Iraq. We didn’t just withdraw our forces. We abandoned, destroyed or turned over our equipment, stores, installations and bases. We surrendered our most valuable strategic assets, such as control of Iraqi airspace, soon to become the indispensable conduit for Iran to supply and sustain the Assad regime in Syria and cement its influence all the way to the Mediterranean. And, most relevant to the fall of Ramadi, we abandoned the vast intelligence network we had so painstakingly constructed in Anbar province, without which our current patchwork operations there are largely blind and correspondingly feeble. The current collapse was not predetermined in 2003 but in 2011. Isn’t that what should be asked of Hillary Clinton? We know you think the invasion of 2003 was a mistake. But what about the abandonment of 2011? Was that not a mistake?" Writes Charles Krauthammer. . Bush's Status Of Forces Agreement For Iraq Scheduled Removal Of All Troops "No Later Than December 31, 2011"Bush Set A Timetable For Withdrawal "No Later Than December 31, 2011." A 2008 Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed by Bush set a deadline for withdrawing from Iraq "no later than December 31, 2011" Obama Followed 2008 SOFA Agreement And Advice Of Military LeadersABC News: "Obama Announces Complete Drawdown Of U.S. Troops From Iraq" By End Of 2011. ABC News reported that Obama followed through with Bush's withdrawal timeline in 2011. Administration officials said this decision was in line with the Bush administration's plan and that experts had determined that "Iraqis were ready and they proved they could fully take over their security": "This deal was cut by the Bush administration, the agreement was always that at end of the year we would leave, but 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." http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/09/05/fox-hides-bushs-actions-to-claim-bush-gave-visi/200662 Would you have kept U.S troops in Iraq without immunity? guess Obama could of said !@#$ you we're staying and !@#$ your laws but it would be pretty hard to claim Iraq was a sovereign democracy in that case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/09/05/fox-hides-bushs-actions-to-claim-bush-gave-visi/200662 Would you have kept U.S troops in Iraq without immunity? guess Obama could of said !@#$ you we're staying and !@#$ your laws but it would be pretty hard to claim Iraq was a sovereign democracy in that case. Everyone knows that the extension of the status of forces agreement was something that could have been attained if the administration had pursued it. Bottom line, Obama !@#$ed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Everyone knows that the extension of the status of forces agreement was something that could have been attained if the administration had pursued it. Bottom line, Obama !@#$ed up. prove it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 (edited) prove it Sure “Privately, the various leadership factions in Iraq all confided that they wanted some U.S. forces to remain as a bulwark against sectarian violence. But none was willing to take that position publicly,” writes Panetta, who pins the blame on the White House for failing to use its leverage to get a deal. “To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them. Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away.” If you don't believe Panetta's words, Then how about Obama's? During a presidential debate with GOP nominee Mitt Romney, there also was this exchange: ROMNEY: You and I agreed, I believe, that there should have been a Status of Forces Agreement. OBAMA: That’s not true. ROMNEY: Oh, you didn’t? You didn’t want a Status of Forces Agreement? OBAMA: No. What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East. Like I said, pretty much everyone knew... Well, except you. Edited May 22, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts