In case you haven't noticed, Obama is about to lose Iraq

Fuck you and your whining, Whirlyturd. We never should have been there. We don't belong there now.

FACT JACK !

You post gibberish; The fact is clear, the Bush-negotiated SOFA expired on Obama's watch. Iraq was stabilized and the Iraq Government wanted an extension of the SOFA. Obama said NO. Obama withdrew. Iraq is now falling to radical Islamic extremists.

Obama lost Iraq. Plain and simple. But you Obamazombies will spin away..........

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Another shining example of the right wing mantra of it is always someone else's fault.

Look; you might be right that we shouldn't have been there. But that is meaningless to the situation that Obama had to deal with...........Obama wanted to be president. One of the items on his plate was the wind down of the Iraq war. He chose to withdraw in a manner that created the current crisis. You want to give Obama a pass for his own actions. That is a pathetic stance.

The fact is clear. It is Obama's failure to responsibly withdraw that set up Iraq for failure. He ignored military advice. He ignored the facts on the ground. He is an incompetent arrogant man who is a disgrace to the office he holds.

As much as I hate to see The USA made a fool of, I think we should get the hell out and let the religious knuckle draggers, (ie, Muslims), kill each other until their hearts are contents.

In the mean time, develop all of our energy sources, including fossil fuels, wind, solar, hydro-electric, and so on so we don't need that fuckin bunch of "Jed Clampetts" for anything.

Look; you might be right that we shouldn't have been there. But that is meaningless to the situation that Obama had to deal with...........Obama wanted to be president. One of the items on his plate was the wind down of the Iraq war. He chose to withdraw in a manner that created the current crisis. You want to give Obama a pass for his own actions. That is a pathetic stance.

The fact is clear. It is Obama's failure to responsibly withdraw that set up Iraq for failure. He ignored military advice. He ignored the facts on the ground. He is an incompetent arrogant man who is a disgrace to the office he holds. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You never answered..Would you have left the troops there without a signed agreement they would nor be tried in a Iraq court?

You are an imbecile. I would have gotten a signed agreement. Just like Bush did. Obama didn't want to negotiate a SOFA. He withdrew. He didn't want a SOFA. And the rest is history.

Iraq has fallen and there are many contributing factors for that fall. But in terms of the American role in the fall, this one is on Obama. Starting in Syria and ending in Baghdad !

You never answered..Would you have left the troops there without a signed agreement they would nor be tried in a Iraq court? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Naw, it is onto Kabul. Parts of Kurdistan, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan too.

To be followed later by San Diego, Detroit and Phoenix.

FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING AMERICA. I wonder what Putin has his eyes on now and when Israel will bomb Iran?

Thanks Obama.

Obama told Putin.."wait till i have more flexibility after the elections"...........

Naw, it is onto Kabul. Parts of Kurdistan, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan too.

To be followed later by San Diego, Detroit and Phoenix.

FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING AMERICA. I wonder what Putin has his eyes on now and when Israel will bomb Iran?

Thanks Obama. Originally Posted by gnadfly

You are an imbecile. I would have gotten a signed agreement. Just like Bush did. Obama didn't want to negotiate a SOFA. He withdrew. He didn't want a SOFA. And the rest is history.

Iraq has fallen and there are many contributing factors for that fall. But in terms of the American role in the fall, this one is on Obama. Starting in Syria and ending in Baghdad ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

What iI figured You would have been able to convince Maliki too cave in where Obie couldn't LMAO.. You got any facts where he didn't want SOFA? Or just your opinion.

What iI figured You would have been able to convince Maliki too cave in where Obie couldn't LMAO.. You got any facts where he didn't want SOFA? Or just your opinion. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Here are the facts, Ekim the Inbred Chimp:

The SOFA could have been signed, however, Odumbo, et al, stupidly insisted that the only option was to have the agreement be passed as an act by the Iraqi Parliament: an act that was politically unsustainable in the Iraqi Parliament and guaranteed not to pass; thus, insuring its failure. Odumbo’s actions torpedoed the agreement in a manner that provided Odumbo plausible deniability for its failure to pass. For that reason, Odumbo’s present critics – intelligent people “in the know” who see through Odumbo’s rouse – correctly and rightly fault Odumbo for the failure to secure a SOFA and the current crisis.

FROM October 21, 2011:

Marisa Cochrane Sullivan [managing director at the Institute for the Study of War] was one of 40 conservative foreign policy professionals who wrote to Odumbo in September to warn that even a residual force of 4,000 troops would "leave the country more vulnerable to internal and external threats, thus imperiling the hard-fought gains in security and governance made in recent years at significant cost to the United States."

She said that the [Odumbo] administration's negotiating strategy was flawed for a number of reasons: it failed to take into account Iraqi politics, failed to reach out to a broad enough group of Iraqi political leaders, and sent contradictory messages on the troop extension throughout the process.

"From the beginning, the talks unfolded in a way where they largely driven by domestic political concerns, both in Washington and Baghdad. Both sides let politics drive the process, rather than security concerns," said Sullivan.

As recently as August [2011], Maliki's office was discussing allowing 8,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops to remain until next year, Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaida'ie said in an interview with The Cable. He told us that there was widespread support in Iraq for such an extension, but the Odumbo administration was demanding that immunity for U.S. troops be endorsed by the Iraqi Council of Representatives, which was never really possible.

Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cable that the demand that the troop immunity go through the Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy's diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity.

"An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that's done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry," said one former senior Hill staffer. "If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up its ass."

"The actions don't match the words here," said Sullivan. "It's in the administration's interest to make this look not like they failed to reach an agreement and that they fulfilled a campaign promise."

….So what's the consequence of the failed negotiations? One consequence could be a security vacuum in Iraq that will be filled by Iran.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...l_negotiations

Here are the facts, Ekim the Inbred Chimp:

The SOFA could have been signed, however, Odumbo, et al, stupidly insisted that the only option was to have the agreement be passed as an act by the Iraqi Parliament: an act that was politically unsustainable in the Iraqi Parliament and guaranteed not to pass; thus, insuring its failure. Odumbo’s actions torpedoed the agreement in a manner that provided Odumbo plausible deniability for its failure to pass. For that reason, Odumbo’s present critics – intelligent people “in the know” who see through Odumbo’s rouse – correctly and rightly fault Odumbo for the failure to secure a SOFA and the current crisis.

FROM October 21, 2011:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You just like the others ignore the fact that he could not get a agreement for our troops to not be tried in a Iraq court. Also you retards fail to see he was elected on his promise to end the conflict. I suppose you fucktards want out troops to still be there in force and dying as they oppose the terrorists invading now. If you don't have to fight it is always easy to send someone else there. Fuck you cocksucker.

You never answered..Would you have left the troops there without a signed agreement they would nor be tried in a Iraq court? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You're becoming a regular Tampon (broken record) EVA. Obama did not want a status of forces agreement. He did not negoiate. He took their first no as a NO. He could have easily said that we will not allow our men and women to be drug into an Iraqi court...but he didn't. The Iraqi government might have backed off on that and we have had an agreement but Obama just voted "present" again. Would this be happening if we had 15,000 to 30,000 troops garrisoned in Iraq today? I don't think so.

As for letting them kill each other. The innocents are not killing anyone. They are getting slaughtered. Obama's delay is costing lives of women and children. For all we know that if we show up on the battlefield the insurgents will find some reason to return to the north. It worked for the French Foreign Legion in Chad several years ago. But they knew that the Legion would keep it's promise of total destruction of Libya if they didn't stop. Obama doesn't have the street cred to pull it off.

I did my time, twice, in the Persian Gulf, my cousin trained troops there, my other cousins fought on the ground, and my sister took care of returning injuried vets. You can go fuck yourself, if you can find that pathetic little dick, EVA.

You're becoming a regular Tampon (broken record) EVA. Obama did not want a status of forces agreement. He did not negoiate. He took their first no as a NO. He could have easily said that we will not allow our men and women to be drug into an Iraqi court...but he didn't. The Iraqi government might have backed off on that and we have had an agreement but Obama just voted "present" again. Would this be happening if we had 15,000 to 30,000 troops garrisoned in Iraq today? I don't think so.

As for letting them kill each other. The innocents are not killing anyone. They are getting slaughtered. Obama's delay is costing lives of women and children. For all we know that if we show up on the battlefield the insurgents will find some reason to return to the north. It worked for the French Foreign Legion in Chad several years ago. But they knew that the Legion would keep it's promise of total destruction of Libya if they didn't stop. Obama doesn't have the street cred to pull it off.

I did my time, twice, in the Persian Gulf, my cousin trained troops there, my other cousins fought on the ground, and my sister took care of returning injuried vets. You can go fuck yourself, if you can find that pathetic little dick, EVA. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Judy, the babbling idiot rises again to brag on his accomplishments. There is nothing he hasn't done or anywhere he hasn't been. Or anything he isn't a expert on. Or anything he doesn't have inside info on. He is bringing up my dick again in envy. Then tries to fill my mouth with his lies. Fuck off bitch.

Just like Bush did. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Earth to "Trending" Idiot:

"From where did ISIS spring? One of George W. Bush's most toxic legacies is the introduction of al Qaeda into Iraq, which is the ISIS mother ship."

Editor's note: Peter Bergen is CNN's national security analyst, a director at the New America Foundation and the author of ""The Longest War: The Enduring Conflict between America and Al-Qaeda," which this story draws upon.

(CNN) -- ISIS, the brutal insurgent/terrorist group formerly known as al Qaeda in Iraq, has seized much of western and northern Iraq and even threatens towns not far from Baghdad.

From where did ISIS spring? One of George W. Bush's most toxic legacies is the introduction of al Qaeda into Iraq, which is the ISIS mother ship.

If this wasn't so tragic it would be supremely ironic, because before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, top Bush officials were insisting that there was an al Qaeda-Iraq axis of evil. Their claims that Saddam Hussein's men were training members of al Qaeda how to make weapons of mass destruction seemed to be one of the most compelling rationales for the impending war.

After the fall of Hussein's regime, no documents were unearthed in Iraq proving the Hussein-al Qaeda axis despite the fact that, like other totalitarian regimes, Hussein's government kept massive and meticulous records.

The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency had by 2006 translated 34 million pages of documents from Hussein's Iraq and found there was nothing to substantiate a "partnership" between Hussein and al Qaeda.

Two years later the Pentagon's own internal think tank, the Institute for Defense Analyses, concluded after examining 600,000 Hussein-era documents and several thousand hours of his regime's audio- and videotapes that there was no "smoking gun (i.e. direct connection between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda.)"

How should the U.S. intervene in Iraq? Is the U.S. Embassy safe in Iraq? Expert: ISIS went for 'easy pickings'
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded in 2008, as every other investigation had before, that there was no "cooperative relationship" between Hussein and al Qaeda. The committee also found that "most of the contacts cited between Iraq and al Qaeda before the war by the intelligence community and policy makers have been determined not to have occurred."

Instead of interrupting a budding relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda, the Iraq War precipitated the arrival of al Qaeda into Iraq. Although the Bush administration tended to gloss over the fact, al Qaeda only formally established itself in Iraq a year and a half after the U.S. invasion.

On October 17, 2004, its brutal leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi issued an online statement pledging allegiance to Osama bin Laden. Zarqawi's pledge was fulsome: "By God, O sheikh of the Mujahideen, if you bid us plunge into the ocean, we would follow you. If you ordered it so, we would obey."

Zarqawi's special demonic genius was to launch Iraq down the road to civil war. In early 2004, the U.S. military intercepted a letter from Zarqawi to bin Laden in which he proposed provoking a civil war between Sunnis and Shia.

Zarqawi's strategy was to hit the Shia so they would in turn strike the Sunnis, so precipitating a vicious circle of violence in which al Qaeda would be cast as the protector of the Sunnis against the wrath of the Shia. It was a strategy that worked all too well, provoking first sectarian conflict in Iraq and later civil war.

Al Qaeda in Iraq, or AQI, regularly attacked Shia religious processions, shrines and clerics. The tipping point in the slide toward full-blown civil war was al Qaeda's February 2006 attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra, which is arguably the most important Shia shrine in the world.

Three years into the Iraq War, AQI seemed all but unstoppable. A classified Marine intelligence assessment dated August 17, 2006, found that AQI had become the de facto government of the western Iraqi province of Anbar, which is strategically important because it borders Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia and makes up about a third of the landmass of Iraq.

In addition, AQI controlled a good chunk of the exurban belts around Baghdad, the "Triangle of Death" to the south of the capital and many of the towns north of it, up the Tigris River to the Syrian border.

Thus AQI controlled territory larger than New England and maintained an iron grip on much of the Sunni population.

In other words, the Bush administration had presided over the rise of precisely what it had said was one of the key goals of the Iraq War to destroy: a safe haven for al Qaeda in the heart of the Arab world.

By 2007, al Qaeda's untrammeled violence and imposition of Taliban ideology on the Sunni population provoked a countrywide Sunni backlash against AQI that took the form of Sunni "Awakening" militias. Many of those militias were put on Uncle Sam's payroll in a program known as the "Sons of Iraq".

The combination of the Sunni militias' on-the-ground intelligence about their onetime AQI allies and American firepower proved devastating to al Qaeda's Iraqi franchise. And so, between 2006 and 2008, AQI shrank from an insurgent organization that controlled territory larger than the size of New England to a rump terrorist group.

But AQI did not disappear. It simply bided its time. The Syrian civil war provided a staging point over the past three years for its resurrection and transformation into the "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria," or ISIS. And now ISIS has marched back into western and northern Iraq. Only this time there is no U.S. military to stop it.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/13/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t4

You just like the others ignore the fact that he could not get a agreement for our troops to not be tried in a Iraq court. Also you retards fail to see he was elected on his promise to end the conflict. I suppose you fucktards want out troops to still be there in force and dying as they oppose the terrorists invading now. If you don't have to fight it is always easy to send someone else there. Fuck you cocksucker. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You're the cock sucker with jism in your eyes and ears, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. It's obvious you, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, are too illiterate to read and therefore missed this key segment in the article cited:

"An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that's done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry," said one former senior Hill staffer. "If State [Hildabeast] says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up its ass."

Earth to "Trending" Idiot:

"From where did ISIS spring? One of George W. Bush's most toxic legacies is the introduction of al Qaeda into Iraq, which is the ISIS mother ship."

Editor's note: Peter Bergen is CNN's national security analyst, a director at the New America Foundation and the author of ""The Longest War: The Enduring Conflict between America and Al-Qaeda," which this story draws upon.

(CNN) -- ISIS, the brutal insurgent/terrorist group formerly known as al Qaeda in Iraq, has seized much of western and northern Iraq and even threatens towns not far from Baghdad.

From where did ISIS spring? One of George W. Bush's most toxic legacies is the introduction of al Qaeda into Iraq, which is the ISIS mother ship.

If this wasn't so tragic it would be supremely ironic, because before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, top Bush officials were insisting that there was an al Qaeda-Iraq axis of evil. Their claims that Saddam Hussein's men were training members of al Qaeda how to make weapons of mass destruction seemed to be one of the most compelling rationales for the impending war.

After the fall of Hussein's regime, no documents were unearthed in Iraq proving the Hussein-al Qaeda axis despite the fact that, like other totalitarian regimes, Hussein's government kept massive and meticulous records.

The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency had by 2006 translated 34 million pages of documents from Hussein's Iraq and found there was nothing to substantiate a "partnership" between Hussein and al Qaeda.

Two years later the Pentagon's own internal think tank, the Institute for Defense Analyses, concluded after examining 600,000 Hussein-era documents and several thousand hours of his regime's audio- and videotapes that there was no "smoking gun (i.e. direct connection between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda.)"

How should the U.S. intervene in Iraq? Is the U.S. Embassy safe in Iraq? Expert: ISIS went for 'easy pickings'
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded in 2008, as every other investigation had before, that there was no "cooperative relationship" between Hussein and al Qaeda. The committee also found that "most of the contacts cited between Iraq and al Qaeda before the war by the intelligence community and policy makers have been determined not to have occurred."

Instead of interrupting a budding relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda, the Iraq War precipitated the arrival of al Qaeda into Iraq. Although the Bush administration tended to gloss over the fact, al Qaeda only formally established itself in Iraq a year and a half after the U.S. invasion.

On October 17, 2004, its brutal leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi issued an online statement pledging allegiance to Osama bin Laden. Zarqawi's pledge was fulsome: "By God, O sheikh of the Mujahideen, if you bid us plunge into the ocean, we would follow you. If you ordered it so, we would obey."

Zarqawi's special demonic genius was to launch Iraq down the road to civil war. In early 2004, the U.S. military intercepted a letter from Zarqawi to bin Laden in which he proposed provoking a civil war between Sunnis and Shia.

Zarqawi's strategy was to hit the Shia so they would in turn strike the Sunnis, so precipitating a vicious circle of violence in which al Qaeda would be cast as the protector of the Sunnis against the wrath of the Shia. It was a strategy that worked all too well, provoking first sectarian conflict in Iraq and later civil war.

Al Qaeda in Iraq, or AQI, regularly attacked Shia religious processions, shrines and clerics. The tipping point in the slide toward full-blown civil war was al Qaeda's February 2006 attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra, which is arguably the most important Shia shrine in the world.

Three years into the Iraq War, AQI seemed all but unstoppable. A classified Marine intelligence assessment dated August 17, 2006, found that AQI had become the de facto government of the western Iraqi province of Anbar, which is strategically important because it borders Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia and makes up about a third of the landmass of Iraq.

In addition, AQI controlled a good chunk of the exurban belts around Baghdad, the "Triangle of Death" to the south of the capital and many of the towns north of it, up the Tigris River to the Syrian border.

Thus AQI controlled territory larger than New England and maintained an iron grip on much of the Sunni population.

In other words, the Bush administration had presided over the rise of precisely what it had said was one of the key goals of the Iraq War to destroy: a safe haven for al Qaeda in the heart of the Arab world.

By 2007, al Qaeda's untrammeled violence and imposition of Taliban ideology on the Sunni population provoked a countrywide Sunni backlash against AQI that took the form of Sunni "Awakening" militias. Many of those militias were put on Uncle Sam's payroll in a program known as the "Sons of Iraq".

The combination of the Sunni militias' on-the-ground intelligence about their onetime AQI allies and American firepower proved devastating to al Qaeda's Iraqi franchise. And so, between 2006 and 2008, AQI shrank from an insurgent organization that controlled territory larger than the size of New England to a rump terrorist group.

But AQI did not disappear. It simply bided its time. The Syrian civil war provided a staging point over the past three years for its resurrection and transformation into the "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria," or ISIS. And now ISIS has marched back into western and northern Iraq. Only this time there is no U.S. military to stop it.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/13/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t4 Originally Posted by bigtex

You jumped right over the facts again, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat!

[T]he narrative [about ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi] solidifies in 2005, when he was captured by American forces and spent the next four years a prisoner in the Bucca Camp in southern Iraq. [Odumbo released ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in 2009.] It was from his time there that the first known picture of Baghdadi emerged. And it’s also there, reports Al-Monitor, that he possibly met and trained with key al-Qaeda fighters.

He gained enough respect that by 2010, after several leaders of the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq were killed, he assumed control of it. At that time, the power of the Islamist militancy in Iraq was at its lowest ebb, and the number of killings had plunged. The Sunni rebellion, which it had once spearheaded, was on the verge of collapse.

But then Syria happened. The civil war there, which left a vacuum of authority in large tracts of the country, fueled a resurgence of the group. The upheaval gave rise to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Over the following years, as many as 12,000 militant Islamists — 3,000 of whom were from Western countries — flocked to the region to fight, according to the Soufan Group, an intelligence consultancy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...jihadi-leader/