Republican Candidates Blame Obama for Republican Mistakes

I read the following new story yesterday:

http://news.yahoo.com/us-republican...RzZWMDbWl0X3NoYXJlBHNsawNtYWlsBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3

Let's face it, everyone knew that the removal of the Sunni minority government of Saddam would lead to a Shiite majority government in Iraq prior to the Bush adminstration invasion of Iraq in 2003. We knew that Iran and Iraq would share this religious relationship and considering that they shared a common border that there would be an eventual alliance between the two nations. That was a given fact when we invaded. The Bush adminstration knew it and invaded realizing that this eventual alliance was going to happen. The very invasion of Iraq and the overthrowing of the Sunni minority government established that Iran would have political "clout" in Iraq.

Also of note is the withdrawal of US Troops was also dictated by the SOFA agreement between the Bush adminstration. It set the date of the withdrawal.

Finally the Republican candidates are complaining that Obama did not leave US troops in Iraq without immunity from prosecution, something the Iraqi government was not going to conntinue to allow, while not a single one of them would have supported the prosecution of US troops in the Iraqi courts for criminal acts that might have been committed.

The facts related to the Iraq War are well established. The Bush adminstration intentionally ignored the most current and accurate intelligence related to WMD's in Iraq that was coming from the UN weapons inspectors. They uncategorically reported they they could find no evidence of any active WMD programs or WMD's. The Bush adminstration ignored the fact that overthrowing Saddam's regime would result in a future alliance between Iran and Iraq that would upset the political balance in the region. The Bush administration established the date of withdrawal with a SOFA agreement with the Iraqi government. Finally not a single Republican candidate would support leaving US troops in Iraq if they were subject to criminal prosecution by the Iraqi courts.

I don't support Obama but I would like to see a little integrity and honesty from the Republican candidates and that is obviously missing in this attack on Obama.

 

Just a little correction. All candidates besides Paul.....

 

That is true. Ron Paul opposed the invasion and has opposed the occupation in Iraq.

This also ignores that the Bush adminstration was assisted in it's invasion plans by Democrats as well including that idiot Hillary Clinton who voted for the Iraq War Resolution and then as a candidate for president later stated, and I paraphrase, "I voted to go to war but didn't vote to go to war because I didn't think the president would go to war based upon my vote to go to war." What a complete idiot.

 

Agreed 100%

 

I have mixed feelings about the withdrawal, I think we're going to fast military wise but we should of never been there ,


this is politics in America , just about all of them are liars and the few that are not are ignored ,Like Ron Paul . It has made me consider 3rd party as my only choice and I am hoping it will someday send the crooks a message

 

agreed republicans are to blame for the iraq alliance with iran, shiite.

the President has left their mess behind and now they are angry, but no president can totally be against war because most american voters wanted it

after the truth about iraq was revealed that they dont have atomic bombs democrat and independent voters were the only voters left for no war but republicans still want the iraq war which is uncalled for

 

I believe that some facts are simply being ignored by the Republican candidates in their "attack" on Obama related to the withdrawal of US forces.

The reason that the Iraqi government was adamant against the continuation of immunity for US forces is that the US failed to properly address criminal violations by those protected under the immunity clauses tht existed. Murder and criminal abuse of Iraqis was clearly documented by those covered by the immunity and yet, for the most part, the US failed to prosecute those responsible for these criminal acts.

Let us just address the criminal acts of Blackwater which was a contracted US company that was afforded immunity from prosecution in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/world/middleeast/08blackwater.html

http://www.thenation.com/article/blackwater-founder-implicated-murder

In these cases no one was held criminally responsible. Not a single person went to jail and Eric Prince remains free today. Blackwater later reorganized as Xe Services LLC and then again as Academi and continues to receive tens of millions of dollars in US goverment contracts.

This doesn't even address the murder and abuse of Iraqis by members of the US military. Some have been indicted and even convicted but most have not.

I can understand why the Iraq won't allow US forces to stay in Iraq with immunity from prosecution. Iraq may require additional assistance in training it's forces but it can do so by employing private contractors that are subject to compliance with the criminal laws in Iraq. It doesn't need the US military to perform this role as their are literally hundreds of retired US military officers that would be willing to work in Iraq in an advisory capacity.

Of course Iraq can also pay for their services as opposed to the US taxpayers paying to keep the US military in Iraq a fact that Republican candidates should be endorsing if they are concerned with deficit spending by the US government. Sort of hypocritical for Republican candidates to support private enterprise but oppose private enterprise at the same time. Why should the US military be doing that which private contractors can do if the Iraq government chooses to employ them?

 

You are in err as usual to most Liberals.Bush used the best INTEL possible
{ British } and waited on more.Virtually every major senator said the same
thing about Saddam as a Thread and having WMD's.Bush asked for a vote
in Congress for use of force and also had a unanimous 15-0 security
council vote of confidence to possible oust Saddam by force.
Don't act like nothing good at all came of ousting Saddam and Sadist Sons.
Saddam was averaging 30,ooo murders a year on surrounding Baghdad.
He and his sons were torturing with the most cruel of method.Like using
Industrial size shredders and either putting a person in feet first for a slow
painfull death or head first.Saddam took newborn infants from parents and watched those parents as he demanded whatever info he asked for { usually
who was against him } and if he didnt get the right answer would drop that
infant{'s} from a height just high enough to permanently cripple.
Uday used to sashay into any school in Baghdad and on a whim call for the
principle and pick out a young girl or 2 or 3 and take off for his own personal
orgy.I say it is extremely good that Iraqi Freedom was mounted.
Plus it proved to the world that sometimes a Brutal dictator like Saddam is
all *bravura,because when it came to actually fighting back he cowered and
slithered off,even abandoning his own sons in order to save his own hide.
There's a history lesson right there.
Of course we never would have unravelled the corruption going on with
the - Oil for Food Program -.
There's more.

* Saddam consistently bragged about how tough he was and you Americans
better watch out.Even in the Dan Rather interview { Rather braved a
tete-a-tete with Saddam at one of his Palaces } where Saddam was seen
later in expensive Fedora hat and shotgun in arm as if some 30's Tommy
gun Gangster.

 

The Republicans blame Obama for the economy too. And they completely ignore the fact that he prevented THEIR Great Depression.

 

We know what the British were providing as intelligence. They were citing a post graduate paper by a US student that was written in 1991 about Iraq's WMD programs of the 1980's.

We also know that the Bush adminstration was using coercion to obtain "intelligence" reports from Britian that supported a decision already made to invade Iraq in the summer of 2002.

http://www.rense.com/general65/intel.htm

The most accurate and timely intelligence was coming directly from the UN weapons inspectors when they were allowed to return after being ejected from Iraq because the US was using the prior inspections as a cover for CIA operations. The UN inspectors in 2002 were being given complete and unrestricted access to anywhere they wanted to go including Saddam's private residences. They found no evidence of WMD's or any evidence of WMD programs during their inspections and reported that. That was highly accurate and timely intelligence that was intentionally being ignored by the Bush adminstration that had decided in July of 2002 to invade Iraq.

The UN Security Council never voted to authorize a military invasion of Iraq in 2002 or 2003 and Congress was intentionally duped by the Bush adminstration.

People can make as many unsupported claim as the want but the facts were actually established in an Iraqi court of law.

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

148 murders and 399 illegal arrests are all of the documented crimes that Saddam was convicted for. There were absolutely no claims made that he was murdering 30,000 people a month by anyone in Iraq. This is a pure fabrication.

Some of this related to Saddam's sons is probably true and no one has ever claimed that Saddam was anything but a tyrannical dictator. I didn't follow the trials of his sons but I do believe that they were convicted of atrocities.

Of course we, Americans, can't really say much considering that the Bush administration also authorized torture with the "enhanced interrogation techniques" all of which violate the legal definition of torture under Title 18 and also lead to several indentified cases of murder by agents of the United States government. That is, of course, a subject of other threads so it will not be explored here.

All things considered the Iraq War was not justifiable based upon the most accurate and timely intelligence which was coming from the UN weapons inspectors. We also knew prior to the invasion that it would ultimately lead to close ties between Iran and Iraq and that it would also lead to a civil war which, while minor compared to 2007, continues to this day in Iraq. None of this is surprising and all of it falls at the feet of former President Bush. Even the date of withdrawal for US troops from Iraq was based upon a SOFA agreement from former President Bush.

 

It's my understanding those candidates, more likely their advisors in an effort to show the electorate the alternative to potential unrest in Iraq, which was simply following the original plan of some military presence. It's also my understanding that the contingency 30k figure (original) down to 3-5K was causing political problems for the Administration, which in turn broke down any agreement between the US Administration and Iraq's Government. I agree then with those candidates, that an agreement should have made to maintain a small presence (30K), even if subjecting those involved to Iraq Law (the problem), backing up what is currently a religiously integrated Iraq Military.

Obama, as did Bush 43, are IMO underestimating the revenge factor, between the various Muslim Sect's, which Hussein had controlled with a great deal of US assistance (Iran/Iraq war). Adding other factors, primarily the so called "Muslim Spring", then area stability, Israel Security and if you like Oil, that presence IN Iraq will be very important. I could continue with the planned exit from Afganistan, the European instability and other factors which make "no presence" in Iraq at this time, VERY questionable move.

 

But we did find WMD's in Iraq.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM

 

lol... Quite the loaded gun...

 

This is news?

 

While I will agree that we should have never been in Iraq, I cannot simply dismiss the inability of the Obama administration to properly negotiate with the new Iraqi government. I could dismiss this inability if the administration were not trying to receive political credit for removing the troops when in actuality, it was not a choice.

 

according to the standards used there, an assault rifle would be considered a weapon of mass destruction

the republicans sold americans on going to war by saying they had atomic bombs.

 

they also sold it to the so called smart Democrats, give me a break.

 

That is graspong at straws. That stuff found was so old and degraded you could drink it. It was a few shells left over from the Iran - Iraq war that the Iraqi's buried and forgot about.

If you are justifying the Iraq was based upon that, you need to update your information. The facts are that there were no WMD.

 

The truth is that the resolution was written when Saddam was not allowing weapons inspectors into Iraq. The Resolution says it's purpose is to enforce UN resolutions. The Resolution worked, Saddam capitulated, allowed inspectors into the country and inspectors had unfettered and even "pro-active" assistence from the Iraqi government.

The resolution accomplished it's goals of enforcing the UN resolutions.

Then Bush decided to invade anyway. So it is a reasonable stance to say that I voted for a threat of war if Saddam did not allow inspectors in, but he did. So I did not vote for the war under the conditions upon which it was launched, that is, with inspectors in Iraq.

An anology would be if a cop corned a criminal and said, drop the gun or I will shot. The criminal drops the gun and raises his hands, then the cop shoots. You can say you supported the threat to shot him, but not support the shooting under those conditions.

 

Iraq has been in charge of Iraq since Bush was in office.

Do you think Bush negotiated the withdrawl? Bush was claiming 2 weeks before he signed the status of forces agreement that a timeline for withdrawl would be destabilizing and Iraq would not do it. He also claimed that a timeline was not even part of the discussions.

See: http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-07-...ional-security-adviser-mowaffak-iraqi-control

Two weeks after this article, Bush signed a status of forces agreement with a timeline for withdrawl.

The Iraqi's have told us what to do and when since july 2008. They are an autonomous country and have a right to kick us out. The right thing to do is then leave.

 

Try actually reading what was stated. These were basically piles of junk laying around in the Iraqi desert and none of these were operational weapons. An canister round for artillary that has had the agents removed will still show signs of once having contained the agent as well as a canister that has laid around rusting where the agent has escaped. That's the junk that was found and what was being reported on.

Not a single operational round containing chemical or biological agents was found it Iraq after the invasion. A lot of junk was found in Iraq that used to be chemical or biological weapons from the 1980's.

By analogy it would be like comparing a new car to a scrap car found at a junkyard where the engine has been removed. Yep, we can tell it used to have an engine and run but it doesn't anymore!!!

 

Agree Shiva, but without going into all those that thought the engine was still good, the question not answered is, "Where did it go"....

 

We don't know for sure because Iraq didn't keep very good records. We do know from the interrogation of Saddam that he'd ordered any remaining WMD's destroyed in 1998 which is why neither the UN Weapons inspectors 2002-2003 or the US military found any usable munitions in Iraq. Any that might have still existed were destroyed in 1998. Many of those chemical agents might simply have dissipated into the atmosphere. In any case no functional chemical or biolagical ordinance existed so any claims that they did either completely misleading or false.

That still doesn't really address the issue of this thread which is that the Republicans are really blaming Obama for Republican mistakes. Obama did not invade Iraq and Obama didn't make the SOFA agreement that established the date of the complete US troop withdrawal. Additionally the failure of the US to prosecute individuals that violated the laws of all nations such as murder and abuse of civilians by the Bush Adminstration lead to the position of the Iraqi government that it could not extend the amnesty previously afforded to US and not a single Republican would have supported the continuation of a US military presence without that amnesty being in place.

 

It is kind of funny to see how removing Saddam actually has strengthened Iran.

In hindsight, invading Iran actually would have made more sense.

 

If the USA was not involved in Iraq, it is highly likely, the people of Iraq would have had their own Arab spring and did what the other Arab countries had done to their dictators. And they would have taken Sad-man Husane down with their own military. Un lke Libya, Sad-man had his military spread well ou where they could not effectively protect him. Hence, easier to overthrow.

Result would be a more economic USA, and better realtions in that part of the world.

However, now we are like the former USSR who after a long costly war in Afganistan lost the cold war and the USA is now losing an economic battle bedause of our own defense industry that has depleted the power and finances of the USA.