Iraq: The Bush Legacy

Lol! Your video doesn't come up.

 

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head.

- - - Updated - - -

[video=youtube;tLteUGkvpOc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tLteUGkvpOc#t=24 [/video]

 

What's all that have to do with Iraq?

What other muti-tasking does Obama need to do other than minding his own business with Iraq? Which by the way is what we should have done in 2003. Maliki said he would take it from here. Okay, then take it from here Mr. President.

 

He was exactly right. You are going to see 90,000 troops come marching home. Biden was dead on the money. They came marching home. And those 90,000 should stay home too. We also left a stable Iraq, which Biden was also correct about. And their president said that now that we have a stable Iraq, we will take it from here. At that point, it's all on Maliki and the Iraqi people. Not on Obama and the American people any more.

 

Mind his own business in Iraq. Is that your idea of facing this problem? That isn't what Kerry thinks, or many others.

Prodded on whether the United States would consider cooperating militarily with Iran, Kerry replied: "Let’s see what Iran might or might not be willing to do before we start making any pronouncements."
But "I think we are open to any constructive process here that could minimize the violence, hold Iraq together — the integrity of the country — and eliminate the presence of outside terrorist forces that are ripping it apart," the top U.S. diplomat told Couric.

 

What they were saying was Obama got his timetable and was following his timetable. Bush did not want not only a timetable but did not want a full withdrawal. Suggest you read up on my exact the he signed the agreement he did.

 

And? If Iran wants to help serve up stability with Iraq, that's on them. They are neighbors. It is more of an interest to their security that they get involved in getting Iraq stabilized once again. That has nothing to do with us. Other than wishing them well, Iraq told us they would take it from here.

 

Of course he did not want a full withdraw. He's protecting his interests for what he went there for to begin with. Which is to start a war on false information of WMD's, and stay there indefinitely; http://www.leadingtowar.com/claims_facts_aluminum.php, for the procurement of a continuous uninterrupted flow of oil.

 

I have and it has no bearing here.

 

We're lamenting the fact and that your guy has gotten us to this point.

To meet Obama's demand for a timeline which gave Maliki all he needed at the negotiation table. Get your history straight.

 

Obama GOT WHAT HE WANTED. Geez have you guys no memory or do you think you can get away with blaming it on Bush. It was President-Elect Obama, the man how ran promising an immediate withdrawal who dictated the terms of the agreement and gave Maliki the negotiating ammunition to beat back Bush's demand there be no timetable and there be forces left in Iraq to help as a security force.

 

Thanks. I perhaps have a clearer perspective on this than some because I unrelentingly bashed Bush and now I bash Obama with equal fervor and vitriol. The end result is that I don't play favorites in regards to the two presidents.

 

My how history is forgotten. The plan was to get the SOFU with no withdrawal timetable and forces left in county to continue training and provide security and a trip wire. Then candidate Obama came along promising immediate withdrawal and no forces left in county giving Maliki a stronger hand and then candidate Obama became President elect and the time to sign the agreement else all forces would have to be withdrawn was coming fast with Maliki refuse the Bush terms and the Bush team seeing it would do far more harm to NOT have an agreement or one that had to be renegotiated and signed it with the OBAMA DEMANDS. It was Obama who stuck to the withdrawl timetable and got what HE wanted.

So let's deal with the reality not the excuse making for the fix Obama got us in with HIS demands.

 

The FREE FLOW of oil is always a concern in the middle-east but the was a minor reason Saddam could not be allowed to remain in power. Saddam wanted to sell as much oil as he could and had the Oil for Food program which he was stealing money from to rebuild his military and WMD stocks. Go read Clintons Iraq Liberation Act it spells out why Saddam could not be allowed to remain in power. But thanks for admitting the troop withdrawal was not Bush policy.

 

It was OK to contain Saddam, that we could have done forever for short money.
Invading was about the stupidest thing that any president ever did....

He could be contained forever, we contained the Soviet Union until it collapsed, we could have contained Saddam, no problem.
But we had enough stupid voters in 2000 to elect Bush, pretty stupid huh, but Bush taught them....

 

Why did he need to be contained?

And no the containment was ending as he was bribing the UN to end it and the sanctions.

But again if he was no threat why did we need to contain him?

 

I have no intention of feeding the fringe Bush Hater desire to change todays Obama mess into some sort of a fantasy 'Bush did it' diversion...

 

Obama just notified Congress that he is sending troops to Iraq.

 

275 armed personnel to guard the Embassy and other areas of special interest to the United States. Good ol' Barack; 'Can't do anything right? Then make a gesture.' I just wish that it did not always consist of a middle finger salute to the United States. Barack Obama . . . the best buddy Islamic militants ever had.

 

Containment was US policy.. to manage both Iraq and Iran.

Saddam wanted to end the sanctions and repair the oil installations using Haliburton.. The bill was about 20 billion.

If you recall, Cheney's job was to use his influence to get the Clinton administration to lift sanctions on Libya, Iran, Iraq and the Stans. He failed.

Sure would have been cheaper and more constructive than the Iraq war.

DUAL CONTAINMENT POLICY.

Dual containment was an official United States foreign policy aimed at containing Iraq and Iran, Israel's and America's two most important strategic adversaries in the Middle East. It was first outlined in May 1993 by Martin Indyk at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and officially announced on February 24, 1994 at a symposium of the Middle East Policy Council by Indyk, then the senior director for Middle East Affairs of the National Security Council (NSC).[1][2] It represented Bill Clinton's attempt to formulate a Persian Gulf strategy after the end of the Cold War and America's eviction of Iraq from Kuwait.

Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_containment

 

I see, so in your opinion the decision to go to war was well-considered and well-justified, and the results were a resounding success?

 

I have ZERO culpability. I wrote my congressmen and senators and urged them to vote no. I wrote letters to the editor warning against exactly this sort of sectarian mayhem in the wake of our departure whenever that would be. I vowed to never vote for anyone who voted FOR the use of force unless they publicly apologized for their mistake in voting that way and I have remained true to that vow. My hands are clean.

 

Me too..

Meanwhile I think our members have never heard of the Dual Containment policy.

 

these sentences are nonsensical. Was that by design?

 

Come again? Bush did not want a troop withdraw ever, because of the oil. Obama wanted to withdraw because he did not want to occupy a country we had no business occupying. "The free flow of oil is always a concern". You've got that right. It's actually the only concern.