Oblamer is now blaming Bush for ISIS

It's almost too hard to believe except this is the kind of behavior we have come to expect from the spineless Oblamer.

"Obama adjusts Iraq narrative, now blames Bush for troop withdrawal"

By Ben Wolfgang - The Washington Times - Monday, August 11, 2014

The president who spent years touting the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq suddenly has had to distance himself from that action.

At the White House on Saturday morning — less than 48 hours after authorizing airstrikes against Islamist militants and humanitarian air drops to save the lives of trapped Iraqi civilians — President Obama blamed his predecessor, George W. Bush, for the absence of American troops in Iraq and rejected the assertion that he could have left a small peacekeeping force in the war-torn nation.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/11/obama-adjusts-iraq-narrative-now-blames-george-w-b/#ixzz3ABSN14D5

nochain wrote:

It's almost too hard to believe except this is the kind of behavior we have come to expect from the spineless Oblamer.

"Obama adjusts Iraq narrative, now blames Bush for troop withdrawal"

By Ben Wolfgang - The Washington Times - Monday, August 11, 2014

The president who spent years touting the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq suddenly has had to distance himself from that action.

At the White House on Saturday morning — less than 48 hours after authorizing airstrikes against Islamist militants and humanitarian air drops to save the lives of trapped Iraqi civilians — President Obama blamed his predecessor, George W. Bush, for the absence of American troops in Iraq and rejected the assertion that he could have left a small peacekeeping force in the war-torn nation.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/11/obama-adjusts-iraq-narrative-now-blames-george-w-b/#ixzz3ABSN14D5

    Wasn't it several members of the Bush Administration from VP Cheney and others that criticized the decision to withdraw from Iraq?... Like him or not...Former President Bush HAS NOT commented and/or criticized the cowh and his governing abilities/inabilities...The closest he's commented is saying that..."It's a tough job and decisions have to be made with the information available at the time".... He [Bush] could be like other former presidents and be on the front page criticizing every move or non-move but he hasn't...President Bush has some CLASS as opposed to the cowh that has to assign blame rather than accept responsibility...accountability or to be a leader....CLASSLESS!...

salinsky wrote:

Your headline to this thread is outrageously false, and the article from the fish wrap you linked completely mischaracterizes what the President said.

He placed the blame on Al-Maliki for his failure to agree to a SOFA which granted our residual troop force legal immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts.

The Washington Times is a 'fish wrap'?... If memory serves correct it was the cowh that walked away from signing any SOFA with Iraq although don't want to defend Al-Maliki for his share in the failure...

Why would it be a mischaracterization for the cowh to blame the former president?...Is there anything that this administration has done that they are responsible/accountable for?....

In 2011, President Obama pronounced Iraq "self-reliant and democratic" and "a country in which people from different religious sects and ethnicities can resolve their differences peacefully through the democratic process."

In 2010, Vice President Joe Biden called Iraq "one of the great achievements of this administration."

Obama ignored pleas by top generals who advised against pulling out without leaving a residual force.

Then there is this little conveniently forgotten tidbit during the last campaign that illustrates Oblamer wasn't willing to continue discussions about a SOFA, he just wanted a quick political "win".

During the third 2012 presidential debate with Mitt Romney:

Romney: With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should have been a status-of-forces agreement. Did you--

Obama: That's not true.

Romney: Oh, you didn't--you didn't want a status of forces agreement?

Obama: No, but what I--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.

Sal......that is where foreign negotiations is necessary and essential. But Obama already touted during his campaign he would with draw all troops. His boasting was done without the benefit of military advisers and officials. While president he went against military, government officials, and Iraqi leaders.....he with drew. Now it is Bush's fault.

If a community objects initially to changes a community organizer runs.

ne·go·ti·a·tion

noun
discussion aimed at reaching an agreement.
"a worldwide ban is currently under negotiation"
synonyms: discussion(s), talks, deliberations; More
arrangement, brokering;
settlement, conclusion, completion, transaction
the action or process of negotiating.
"negotiation of the deals"




It doesn't mean oh darn......never mind.

salinsky wrote:

The protection of our troops from foreign prosecution is not open to negotiation.

Why don't conservatives support our troops?

At any other time it's progressive or liberals or left wingers - whatever the current name is - who accuse conservatives of bias toward the military.

You can't have it both ways.

In any case the thread is about Oblamer and his latest blame game.

The obstacles to obtaining a workable SOFA were not insurmountable, fact is Oblamer didn't want one. That much is obvious if you do a little objective research on why there wasn't an agreement. He needed an excuse to get out and used that.

salinsky wrote:

nochain wrote:

At any other time it's progressive or liberals or left wingers - whatever the current name is - who accuse conservatives of bias toward the military.

You can't have it both ways.

In any case the thread is about Oblamer and his latest blame game.

The obstacles to obtaining a workable SOFA were not insurmountable, fact is Oblamer didn't want one. That much is obvious if you do a little objective research on why there wasn't an agreement. He needed an excuse to get out and used that.

You can spin it all you want, but the facts remain cut and dry ...



Which leaves us with only one remaining question ....

Why would conservatives wish to leave U.S. troops exposed and vulnerable?

No spin, just facts. What "conservatives" wanted to leave troops with no SOFA? Why didn't BHO work a little harder at overcoming Iraq obstacles? He wanted out, that's why. He wanted out so he could tootle and preen on the campaign trail about how he ended the war. The SOFA was an "obstacle" to him for political reasons, his personal political reasons.

Read the post about the debate again, he said he didn't want one. Fact, not spin.

Now he wants to dodge the blame. Again.

salinsky wrote:

The protection of our troops from foreign prosecution is not open to negotiation.

Why don't conservatives support our troops?

Yes it is open to negotiations. Bush negotiated with a time line....Obama did not negotiate an extension.


Successful negotiations to protect our troops and leave and active military presence would have prevented the problems we are currently facing.

Remember we still have thousands of military and civilian personnel in Iraq.

Y'all mean that America would open up negotiations that might allow as an example, the beheading of an American serviceman for having premarital sex?

Help me out here.

I don't think we would agree to this... or even allow this to be on the negotiation table.

No Eric, negotiating and extension of SOFA so some active troops remain in Iraq.

It is essential to protect our Embassy and remaining military personnel that are still in Iraq. Obama did not use his foreign prowess to obtain a solution for military presence. His goal was stated in his campaign.....he ended the war.

Unfortunately, shit is now hitting the fan.

Yeppers!

Joanimaroni wrote:

No Eric, negotiating and extension of SOFA so some active troops remain in Iraq.

It is essential to protect our Embassy and remaining military personnel that are still in Iraq. Obama did not use his foreign prowess to obtain a solution for military presence.  His goal was stated in his campaign.....he ended the war.

Unfortunately, shit is now hitting the fan.

Are you saying that SOFA was needed to protect our embassy personnel there? and we have not had it all this time with embassy personnel being there?

No the SOFA would protect active combat ready military units in Iraq. Meaning they could engage the  enemy with out retribution from Iraq courts.

The limited military there are listed as trainers for the Iraqi military and to guard our Embassy.

Sal, do I have that stated correctly?

Joanimaroni wrote:

No the SOFA would protect active combat ready military units in Iraq. Meaning they could engage the  enemy with out retribution from Iraq courts.

The limited military there are listed as trainers for the Iraqi military and to guard our Embassy.

Sal, do I have that stated correctly?

Well I just have the biggest question of all.............................

When in the hell did we have to have a agreement to protect us from legal retribution when we are going after the ENEMY? That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

All this BS, no one will ever win a war again playing by all these stupid assed rules.

Like I said years ago, should have just sent in social workers with checks. It would have been cheaper and the left would have had more voters.

I disagree with soft wars and ROE. War is war.

Joanimaroni wrote:

I disagree with soft wars and ROE. War is war.

I agree Joanie

I think soft wars kill more people in the ling run and make situations worse in the long run such as with this one.