Obama Considering Sending Special Forces To Iraq
Click here for reuse options!Three U.S. officials familiar with ongoing discussions said the potential of sending special forces to Iraq is high on a list of military options that are being considered.
It’s not clear how quickly the special forces could arrive in Iraq. It’s also unknown whether they would remain in Baghdad or be sent to the nation’s north, where the al-Qaida-inspired Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has overrun several cities in the worst threat to the Shiite-led government since U.S. troops left in 2011…
The troops would fall under the authority of the U.S. ambassador and would not be authorized to engage in combat, another U.S. official said. Their mission is “non-operational training” of both regular and counter terrorism units, which the military has interpreted to mean training on military bases, not in the field, the official said…
The White House also is considering launching air strikes and increased surveillance over insurgent bastions to thwart ISIL’s march toward Baghdad after capturing the Sunni-dominated cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tikrit.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
112 responses to Obama Considering Sending Special Forces To Iraq
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Roctuna June 16th, 2014 at 17:07
A million times, no. Haven’t we trained them and equipped them enough? Look at the recent result of years of training. Please, stop the madness.
arc99 June 16th, 2014 at 17:11
as far as I am concerned, you and I make it unanimous.. no troops back to Iraq
Bob Waas June 16th, 2014 at 20:44
Count me in too. We should have left some there for awhile, It would have deterred what is taking place today.
Roctuna June 16th, 2014 at 17:07
A million times, no. Haven’t we trained them and equipped them enough? Look at the recent result of years of training. Please, stop the madness.
arc99 June 16th, 2014 at 17:11
as far as I am concerned, you and I make it unanimous.. no troops back to Iraq
Bob Waas June 16th, 2014 at 20:44
Count me in too. We should have left some there for awhile, It would have deterred what is taking place today.
arc99 June 16th, 2014 at 17:10
Two words to describe our reinvolvement in Iraq in-sane.
When are we going to overcome this compulsion to be the policeman of the entire world? Why is it that Germany, Japan, Italy, France, Britain, and Canada feel no compulsion to expend hundreds of billions of dollars in treasure, and the precious blood of their young people in countries that are thousands of miles away?
Why can’t the Jordanians, the Saudis and the Iranians take the responsiblity? AFter all this is on their front doorstep
Bob Waas June 16th, 2014 at 17:54
Maybe they don’t buy their oil from the middle east.
Ron Paul campaigned on this very issue and his critics laughed at him.
Roctuna June 16th, 2014 at 18:27
We don’t buy it there either, for the most part, which shows the motivation is not oil.
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised
Bob Waas June 16th, 2014 at 20:43
THESE are the top ten countries that the U.S. imports from:
1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. Angola
7. Iraq
8. Algeria
9. United Kingdom
10. Brazil
http://www.energyrefuge.com/archives/where_oil_comes_from.htm
Roctuna June 17th, 2014 at 10:24
If you see any meaningful difference between the two, please let me know. The list is limited to imports, the pie chart coves all sources. The list and the pie chart are saying the same thing. The middle east is not the major source of oil it once was. My original point was that oil security for the US, per se, is not the motivation to stay over there and continue to muck about in their tribal wars.
Bob Waas June 21st, 2014 at 23:52
Notice how the price of oil has been rising since the unrest in Iraq. It doesn’t seem to matter where we get our oil for us to feel the effect of a possible disruption in the world supply.
Obewon June 22nd, 2014 at 18:27
Nobody notices the 2 penny gasoline price rise over the past two weeks because America is far more energy independent today than in the past 20 years.
-There is “more oil produced at home than we buy from the rest of the world – the first time that’s happened in nearly 20 years.”-True! http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jan/28/barack-obama/state-union-obama-says-us-produces-more-oil-it-buy/
arc99 June 16th, 2014 at 19:40
China certainly imports its oil from the middle east in porportions that are projected to increase, not decrease in the years to come. Yet, they don’t spend hundreds of billions of dollars in pointless wars.
Bob Waas June 16th, 2014 at 21:09
You said, “Why is it that Germany, Japan, Italy, France, Britain, and Canada feel no compulsion to expend hundreds of billions of dollars in treasure, and the precious blood of their young people in countries that are thousands of miles away?”
No mention of China, but your point is well taken. How about we drill for our own oil, install the Keystone Pipeline, continue developing renewable energy with the whole intent of becoming energy independent; then maybe we can mind our own business.
arc99 June 16th, 2014 at 21:33
According to the numbers I see, we get maybe 12% of our oil from Iraq. It is not a matter of our supply, it is a matter of price. Even if we were 100% self sufficient, events in the middle east will still affect the price of oil. Do you honestly think that out of the goodness of its heart, Chevron will sell oil in America for $45 per gallon when the worldwide going rate is $100?
My personal opinion on domestic drilling is that we should do it the way they do it in Alaska. Oil profits are taxed and an annual royalty is paid to every man woman and child in the state, whether they need it or not. Sarah Palin boasted about this “socialism”.
As the gulf oil spill showed, the risk of oil exploration is borne by all of us, so no more of this privatizing the profits but socializing the risks. We socialize the profit as well as the risk.
granpa.usthai June 17th, 2014 at 00:58
how in transporting Canadian oil across the US Heartland for Canada to sell on the world markets helping US, Bob?
mea_mark June 16th, 2014 at 18:08
When we don’t have a MIC that dominates politics.
They don’t have a MIC that dominates their politics.
They don’t have a MIC like the US does.
It kinda makes you wonder doesn’t it?
arc99 June 16th, 2014 at 17:10
Two words to describe our reinvolvement in Iraq in-sane.
When are we going to overcome this compulsion to be the policeman of the entire world? Why is it that Germany, Japan, Italy, France, Britain, and Canada feel no compulsion to expend hundreds of billions of dollars in treasure, and the precious blood of their young people in countries that are thousands of miles away?
Why can’t the Jordanians, the Saudis and the Iranians take the responsiblity? AFter all this is on their front doorstep
Bob Waas June 16th, 2014 at 17:54
Maybe they don’t buy their oil from the middle east.
Ron Paul campaigned on this very issue and his critics laughed at him.
Roctuna June 16th, 2014 at 18:27
We don’t buy it there either, for the most part, which shows the motivation is not oil.
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised
Bob Waas June 16th, 2014 at 20:43
THESE are the top ten countries that the U.S. imports from:
1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. Angola
7. Iraq
8. Algeria
9. United Kingdom
10. Brazil
http://www.energyrefuge.com/archives/where_oil_comes_from.htm
Roctuna June 17th, 2014 at 10:24
If you see any meaningful difference between the two, please let me know. The list is limited to imports, the pie chart coves all sources. The list and the pie chart are saying the same thing. The middle east is not the major source of oil it once was. My original point was that oil security for the US, per se, is not the motivation to stay over there and continue to muck about in their tribal wars.
Bob Waas June 21st, 2014 at 23:52
Notice how the price of oil has been rising since the unrest in Iraq. It doesn’t seem to matter where we get our oil for us to feel the effect of a possible disruption in the world supply.
Obewon June 22nd, 2014 at 18:27
Nobody notices the 2 penny gasoline price rise over the past two weeks because America is far more energy independent today than in the past two decades. Gasoline now includes up to 15% ethanol:)
-There is “more oil produced at home than we buy from the rest of the world – the first time that’s happened in nearly 20 years.”-True! http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jan/28/barack-obama/state-union-obama-says-us-produces-more-oil-it-buy/
Lundberg’s latest “The Gasoline price peaked five weeks ago on May 2, 2014, and is down three cents from there. A bit unusual, this current price plateau has been enabled by lack of much volatility in crude oil prices and in the U.S gasoline supply scene”-June 6 beats the crap out of FNC’s “Former Oil Trader Eric Bolling”-currently theFive’s hypocritical airhead de jour. http://www.cspnet.com/fuels-news-prices-analysis/fuels-analysis/articles/price-margin-still-buoyant Fox’s Oil Man Eric Bolling: Short On Science, Long On Climate Misinformation. http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/02/08/foxs-oil-man-eric-bolling-short-on-science-long/185431 “NJ Star-Ledger: “At His Peak,” Bolling “Accounted For 5% Of The Daily Trading” On Oil And Energy Futures. In a June 2008 interview”-As oil hit US Record $147/brl Bolling Pumped his stupid viewers!
arc99 June 16th, 2014 at 19:40
China certainly imports its oil from the middle east in porportions that are projected to increase, not decrease in the years to come. Yet, they don’t spend hundreds of billions of dollars in pointless wars.
Bob Waas June 16th, 2014 at 21:09
You said, “Why is it that Germany, Japan, Italy, France, Britain, and Canada feel no compulsion to expend hundreds of billions of dollars in treasure, and the precious blood of their young people in countries that are thousands of miles away?”
No mention of China, but your point is well taken. How about we drill for our own oil, install the Keystone Pipeline, continue developing renewable energy with the whole intent of becoming energy independent; then maybe we can mind our own business.
arc99 June 16th, 2014 at 21:33
According to the numbers I see, we get maybe 12% of our oil from Iraq. It is not a matter of our supply, it is a matter of price. Even if we were 100% self sufficient, events in the middle east will still affect the price of oil. Do you honestly think that out of the goodness of its heart, Chevron will sell oil in America for $45 per gallon when the worldwide going rate is $100?
My personal opinion on domestic drilling is that we should do it the way they do it in Alaska. Oil profits are taxed and an annual royalty is paid to every man woman and child in the state, whether they need it or not. Sarah Palin boasted about this “socialism”.
As the gulf oil spill showed, the risk of oil exploration is borne by all of us, so no more of this privatizing the profits but socializing the risks. We socialize the profit as well as the risk.
granpa.usthai June 17th, 2014 at 00:58
how in transporting Canadian oil across the US Heartland for Canada to sell on the world markets helping US, Bob?
mea_mark June 16th, 2014 at 18:08
When we don’t have a MIC that dominates politics.
They don’t have a MIC that dominates their politics.
They don’t have a MIC like the US does.
It kinda makes you wonder doesn’t it?
Bob Waas June 16th, 2014 at 18:06
Obama is losing support from the likes of NPR regarding his handling of Iraq. Dexter Filkins a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for his dispatches from Afghanistan, and a winner of the Pulitzer in 2009 as part of a team of Times reporters for their dispatches from Pakistan and Afghanistan was interviewed on NPR and had this to say:
“What the senior American military commanders told me was that every single senior political leader, no matter what party or what group, including Maliki, said to them privately, we want you to stay. We don’t want you to fight. We don’t want combat troops. We don’t want Americans getting killed, but we want 10,000 American troops inside the Green Zone training our army, giving us intelligence, playing that crucial role as the broker and interlocutor that makes our system work.”
The New Yorker would run Filkins’ expose on how Barack Obama lost Iraq and let it be turned into an Iranian colony.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2014/06/23/140623taco_talk_filkins
mea_mark June 16th, 2014 at 18:20
Maliki wanted us gone, we left. If Maliki wanted us there he should of made a deal to keep us there. Maliki blew it because he wanted to concentrate his power and flex is muscles. Now everything is coming unraveled because of his arrogance. Opinion and support or lack thereof, in America stems from partisan political maneuvering and is not really related to what is happening in reality. Maliki blew it, he is incompetent and selfish and what is happening is the results of his actions, not ours.
Bob Waas June 16th, 2014 at 20:39
Obama left without trying to negotiate; which according to Dexter Filkin, would have not been a problem. Obama wanted to be able to say he ended the war in Iraq as a talking point for the 2012 presidential campaign.
Here is what Filkin reported: “What the senior American military commanders told me was that every single senior political leader, no matter what party or what group, including Maliki, said to them privately, we want you to stay. We don’t want you to fight. We don’t want combat troops. We don’t want Americans getting killed, but we want 10,000 American troops inside the Green Zone training our army, giving us intelligence, playing that crucial role as the broker and interlocutor that makes our system work.”
According to Obewon qualifications, Dexter Filkin more than qualifies to report on the issue. “He was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for his dispatches from Afghanistan, and he won a Pulitzer in 2009 as part of a team of Times reporters for their dispatches from Pakistan and Afghanistan.”
arc99 June 16th, 2014 at 20:59
and you keep leaving out the key point in Filkin’s article that the Iraqi government refused to consider immunity for American troops. that was a deal-breaker for the President.
we all know that if the President had agreed to Iraqi terms and an American soldier was later arrested and prosecuted for a crime in an Islamic court, you would right here in this forum ranting about the “weak” President, Muslims, etc. etc. etc.
right now, you are ranting about a US Marine in jail in Mexico, then you turn right around have the unmitigated gall to condemn the President for refusing to accept terms that could have created dozens if not hundreds of similar cases in Iraq.
the hypocrisy and blatant dishonesty of the right wing noise machine is nauseating.
Bob Waas June 16th, 2014 at 21:26
Reread what the Iraqi officials told the military. “What the senior American military commanders told me was that every single senior (Iraqi) political leader, no matter what party or what group, including “Maliki”, said to them privately, we want you to stay. We don’t want you to fight. We don’t want combat troops. We don’t want Americans getting killed, but we want 10,000 American troops inside the Green Zone training our army, giving us intelligence, playing that crucial role as the broker and interlocutor that makes our system work.”
Hardly sounds like a deal couldn’t be worked out…
arc99 June 16th, 2014 at 21:35
of course it does not sound like it, if you keep leaving out the crucial piece of information which makes it clear a deal was impossible
don’t know how it could be any more clear than Maliki saying WE CAN’T DO IT
—————
“”There was almost a deal but essentially the sticking point was whether American soldiers would have immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts.
Which Americans have always insisted on pretty much everywhere where they’ve stationed troops, and which they had. They had that immunity throughout the Iraq War. And Maliki basically said, look, I can’t sell that in parliament. So if you need that, then****** we can’t do it.***** And it basically fell apart over that, over that question.””
Bob Waas June 16th, 2014 at 23:13
You and I can continue to debate the issue, however, the experts have been saying that the “immunity” issue would have been a non-issue. More will come out in the days and weeks ahead and we can revisit it then.
OldLefty June 17th, 2014 at 08:37
Iran has made very clear to Maliki that its No. 1 demand is that there be no American troops remaining in Iraq.
And Maliki owes them big time.
How would Americans have reacted if they prosecuted, convicted and hanged an American soldier in the public square on TV?
Bob Waas June 17th, 2014 at 18:13
Obama is sending 275 troops to Iraq. Does that mean Maliki has lifted his demand that they be prosecuted for crimes?
Exactly how will 275 troops be effective against the savages who were able to kill 1700 Iraqi military en masse?
OldLefty June 17th, 2014 at 18:31
Does that mean Maliki has lifted his demand that they be prosecuted for crimes?
_______
I doubt it, and I disagree.
As for Exactly how will 275 troops be effective against the savages who were able to kill 1700 Iraqi military en masse?
Should have thought of that in 2003.
Bob Waas June 17th, 2014 at 19:03
2003 is old news and not relevant to the discussion. We already know all the blame game stories, but it doesn’t change the current situation.
Today I spoke to a gentleman who was born and raised in Egypt as a Christian. He immigrated (legally) to the USA when he was 23.
I mentioned to him that my youngest daughter went to Egypt to help out in a orphanage in Alexandria and left there in June 2013, about a week before the Morsi ouster. Afterwards Egyptian Muslims went on a Christian killing spree. Having lived there he saw first hand the workings of the so called religion of peace, Islam and he said they are the most hateful group of people he has ever en-counted. He said the west is being lulled into a false sense of complacency regarding Islam and that it is a clear and present danger. He pointed to the situation in England and France as examples where Islam has gained a strong presence. Just recently a Islam convert from Florida became a suicide bomber in Syria, so if you think it can’t happen here, think again.
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2014/05/a_florida_man_carried_out_a_suicide_bombing_in_syria_this_week.php
He said Islam is not a religion, but a form of government with Sharia law as the guiding principle.
Allowing Iraq to be taken over by the terrorists should be a concern to all countries where freedom is a way of life.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/#
OldLefty June 17th, 2014 at 19:31
Do you know how many Christians were slaughtered and persecuted in Iraq after we removed Saddam?
Did you know that the first suicide bomber in Lebanon was Loula Abboud, a 19 year old female Lebanese Christian?
As for;
He said Islam is not a religion….
And radical Christians say that about Hinduism, while Hagee said the Catholic Church was the “Great Wh0re”
So what.
My husband is from India, his dad, (Hindus) worked for a Muslim company for years.
Funny how we all know people who confirm our world views.
Meanwhile people like Saadat Hasan Manto , who wrote
“Letters to Uncle Sam” in the 1950’s, tried to warn us way back then about supporting radical Islam over secular countries.
Remember when In the late 1980s, Pakistani President Benazir Bhutto, feeling the mujaheddin network has grown too strong, tells President George H. W. Bush, “You are creating a jihadi Frankenstein.”
Bob Waas June 17th, 2014 at 19:43
“Do you know how many Christians were slaughtered and persecuted in Iraq after we removed Saddam?”
No, how many?
“Did you know that the first suicide bomber in Lebanon was Loula Abboud, a 19 year old female Lebanese Christian?”
No, how many since?
I’m not sure what a secular Christian is; it sounds like an oxymoron.
Loula Abboud, a 19-year-old secular Christian Lebanese girl, commanded a small leftist resistance cell in southern Lebanon against the Israeli invaders.
OldLefty June 17th, 2014 at 20:00
Vicar: Dire Times For Iraq’s Christians
Tells 60 Minutes Most Of Iraq’s Christians Have Fled Or Been Killed
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vicar-dire-times-for-iraqs-christians/
Iraq’s Christians Flee as Extremist Threat Worsens
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: October 17, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/world/middleeast/17christians.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
IRAQ: Christians live in fear of death squads
http://www.irinnews.org/report/61897/iraq-christians-live-in-fear-of-death-squads
A Haircut in Iraq Can Be the Death of the Barber
By ROBERT F. WORTH
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/18/international/middleeast/18barber.html
Liquor sales a risky trade in new Iraq
July 21, 2004|By Aamer Madhani, Tribune staff reporter.
Published: March 18, 2005
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-07-21/news/0407210324_1_liquor-store-liquor-sales-islamic-law
And I don’t know what a secular Christian is, I did not say it.
OldLefty June 17th, 2014 at 20:06
As for How many since??
I don’t know that, but in our hospital, there are a lot of Lebanese Christians.
They like Hezbollah.
In case you don’t believe me;
In Hezbollah stronghold, Lebanese Christians find respect, stability
In a Christian home in a Shiite suburb of Beirut, images of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah share mantel and wall space with the Virgin Mary.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/1221/In-Hezbollah-stronghold-Lebanese-Christians-find-respect-stability
Hizballah’s Christian Soldiers?
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1650192,00.html
My point being that there is more to the world than what we see on our infotainment.
arc99 June 17th, 2014 at 08:46
Right wing Obama-hating blogs are not experts. Iraqis refused immunity. Either concede that you accept our troops being subject to Islamic law or recognize that leaving was the only option regardless of the BS spewing from the right wing noise machine.
Obewon June 16th, 2014 at 21:37
Consumers Allowed to Keep non ACA compliant Health Care Plans Through 2017-MARCH 5, 2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/us/politics/obama-extends-renewal-period-for-noncompliant-insurance-policies.html
OldLefty June 17th, 2014 at 09:07
Reread what the Iraqi officials told the military. “What the senior American military commanders told me was that every single senior (Iraqi) political leader, no matter what party or what group, including “Maliki”, said to them privately, we want you to stay. We don’t want you to figh…
_______
I’m sorry, but I think that’s the dumbest thing I ever heard.
That’s why we don’t make policy based on ‘people told me, that people told them…(privately, of course)”
So what happens when the barracks where our non-fighting people are staying gets attacked?
Most people who understood the region, knew that this would happen, and that we set fire to a tinder box that will go on like this for decades.
granpa.usthai June 17th, 2014 at 00:54
all you have said is FACTUALLY TRUE, especially the last part, which is why they will continuously berate CIC Obama (as they always have) for supporting the Iraq FIASCO, in every single minute detail up to and especially continued rantings of Maliki being Democrats vision of ‘MORAL VALUES’.
IF Democrats have any believable way of countering that at the polls that elect US government leaders, yesterday would have been a good time to start.
otherwise, the blatant dishonest hypocrites (false religion and all) of the right wing noise machine will have their bogus leaders in the driver seats 2014, and I really don’t think they’ll be all that interested in the people any bit whatsoever as the last time, do you?
Crying may be appropriate, but I really don’t think it’ll pan out to a majority of votes.
Roctuna June 16th, 2014 at 18:22
I’d say it’s not a working “system” if it takes 10000 American troops. What have they been doing the last 6 years besides scheming to extract revenge from rival factions while we “broker” and “interlocute”. Total BS.
granpa.usthai June 17th, 2014 at 00:40
Total BS, yes, but TOTAL BS that sends a clear message to Sunnis that Maliki now has full control of the US Military placed in his hands by the current US Political Power that turned over command to the US Military to him. Any action taken by Maliki that brings harm to Sunni men, women, children, homes, dogs, cats, pet birds, is a specific signal that the USA is to blame, totally, completely, and without hesitation as ‘his excellency’ is ‘AMERICA’s MORAL VALUES’.
William June 16th, 2014 at 18:35
So as usual, it’s not about the loss of life and treasure. It’s not about the suffering and mayhem. For Bot-Wasshole and his Right wing puppet masters it’s all about how popular or unpopular the black guy is.
Bob Waas June 16th, 2014 at 21:21
Forget his popularity. It’s his lack of leadership.
“While Iraqi jihadists are slaughtering the masses, taking over major cities and engaging in the mass execution of Iraqi military in their march on Baghdad, you have to ask: How much sense does it make for Secretary of State John Kerry to be tweeting to Hollywood celebrities about the environment this past weekend? Or for President Obama to be working on his golf swing?”
“Imagine the “optics” that sends to our foreign enemies.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are you really saying that this type of behavior by the leader of the free world is okay by you?
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/adriana_cohen/2014/06/adriana_cohen_amid_iraq_crisis_obama_kerry_golf_and
William June 16th, 2014 at 22:49
Or for President Obama to be working on his golf swing?”
..Again. You don’t give a rats ass about what’s happening in Iraq, you are more focused on what the President is doing. No matter what that is, you’ll find fault with it. How does Secretary Kerry’s tweeting effect the outcome of this mess either way? Please explain that. Playing golf over the weekend is acceptable to me yes.
granpa.usthai June 17th, 2014 at 01:14
-and now, they have an entire region in flames that they can find continuous fault with, Granpa Wil. When you think of Vietnam, which POTUS comes to America’s mind FIRST? -and why think anywhere past that when you have the likes of Limbag to remind you 24/7 vocally, allowing you to visually see the portraits of POTUS Obama and ‘his excellency’ side by side at every pop-up ad/commercial – Historical Museum.?.
Great deal for GOPs foreign offshore bank accounts –
and the successful future of GOP Politics.
granpa.usthai June 17th, 2014 at 00:33
I think by the end of June, during July, and all the way up to voting day in November the GOP’s will be showing voters a portrait of ‘his excellency’ as Democrat’s optical vision of what “AMERICA’s MORAL VALUES” really look like to the rest of the world, and will do so with each and every election thereafter. Politically it’ll be worth it’s weight a lot more than verbal/written near past (that will melt away as decades pass) history, until the majority of Americans view America’s mess in the mid east as solely belong to POTUS Obama and the Democrats. Much like they do Vietnam with Johnson, not really caring that much that actual US on the ground involvement started a long time, and by the other political party’s ‘AMERICAN MORAL VALUES’, before.
Don’t believe anyone in the current Democrat Party, POTUS included, was willfully stupid enough to re-engage, especially knowing that ‘his excellency’ has now been made the picture of ‘AMERICAN MORAL VALUES’ worth shedding blood for, (why you see my references to $$$).
granpa.usthai June 17th, 2014 at 00:16
you got it, William, and now that they’ve finally succeeded in selling their used car ‘AS IS’ they’ll definitely be pointing out who the car belongs to!
fancypants June 16th, 2014 at 18:42
maybe if the Iraq soldiers didn’t wear their street clothes under their uniforms Iraq wouldn’t be crawling with terrorists ? Now we are confronted once again by the doorknob gop who is blaming Obama for the moron behavior of the Iraq troops.
try and read more then the comics
arc99 June 16th, 2014 at 18:53
here is the portion of the article that the right wing noise machine conveniently omits. The Iraqis were unwilling to provide legal immunities to American personnel.
Any American solider accused of a crime, even if the act is criminal only under Sharia law would be subject to prosecution. The President insisted on immunity.
You can imagine the howls of indignation from right wingers if we had agreed to this arrangement and an American soldier ended up being tried in an Islamic court.
Bob, you right wingers are hypocrites of the highest order. You condemn the President for not agreeing to have American personnel subject to local Islamic laws. As always, the President is damned no matter what he does. If you folks are so gung-ho, then grab the Cliven Bundy brigade and head to Baghdad, you deserve each other.
The NPR interview is not an expose on the President losing Iraq. It is an expose of the the gutless hypocrisy of chickenhawk right wingers who want to spend endless hundreds of billions of dollars trying to paint a happy face on a catastrophe that they are responsible for. .
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/04/28/140428fa_fact_filkins?currentPage=all
==========================================================
And I think in late 2011, President Obama made a telephone call to Prime Minister Maliki and said, OK, how’s 5,000 American troops, non-combat? We keep them to train people, to do intelligence, and that sort of thing. How’s that? And it didn’t happen, basically. It fell apart. There was almost a deal but essentially the sticking point was whether American soldiers would have immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts.
Which Americans have always insisted on pretty much everywhere where they’ve stationed troops, and which they had. They had that immunity throughout the Iraq War. And Maliki basically said, look, I can’t sell that in parliament. So if you need that, then we can’t do it. And it basically fell apart over that, over that question.
Not whether they wanted American troops in the country, because I think it’s fair to say they did. Maliki denies it publicly but I think it’s pretty clear that he wanted several thousand Americans to stay inside Iraq.
=====================================================
granpa.usthai June 17th, 2014 at 00:13
Bob’s RWNJ’s are indeed hypocrites of the highest order, arc, and have been since 1980 and to some extent before, but politically (as in holding political offices with power) SUCCESSFUL hypocrites of the highest order.
Good luck on selling your history lessons to the American voters. My experience is – usually they pay more attention to ‘CURRENT AFFAIRS’ when placing their votes.
May want to encourage the Political Party that now looks more each passing day to the past to play some of the ‘oldie goldie’ musical hits of the GOPs:
Bomb,Bomb,Bomb
Bomb, Bomb Iran
would be a good musical backdrop in some of the political ads.
I got a feeling more and more GOPs will have a portrait of “his excellency’ in their backdrops as a visual reminder of the Democrat’s new ‘AMERICAN MORAL VALUES’.
granpa.usthai June 16th, 2014 at 19:15
finally the ‘Democrats” have handed POTUS Obama over to the GOPs on a silver platter, Bob? – you may be right, so – now what?
those who view this ‘re-entanglement’ in the internal affairs of Iraq so that we might weave US into the position of being eternal enemies of the Sunni sect, and give world the notice that we will continue our foreign policy of backing brutal despots for our financial gains (no matter the initial cost) has once again been permanently and irrevocably established are correct in viewing it as insanity.
It truly is insane to believe that we can walk the exact same pathway to oblivion and accomplish in 2 years with 10,000 troops what we failed to do in 10 years with 120,000 troops?!?
The political problem I see for Clinton or any other Democrat is the continuing questions that have now resurfaced as a cutting blade on the throat of their political party’s now perilous existence (ie: how well they will be able to hide/BS their way around Despot Maliki) – why should Americans vote for you when you will do what the GOPs tell you to do anyway?
The ONLY possible thing that I know of that causes such insanity in human beings is … M O N E Y! – and as one who has supported this POTUS (who in my opinion made one hell of a ‘Hail Mary’ that came ever so close to the espoused ideals of Lady Liberty, I bear you no grudge or ill will Mr. President, and in knowing something of how the political game is played, will only hope that you and your team got their’s. $$$
Bob Waas June 16th, 2014 at 20:33
No boots on the ground! Use air support and drone’s to push them back. The oil fields need to be protected as any disruption in the flow of oil will affect the entire global economy. Is that the $$$ you’re talking about?
granpa.usthai June 16th, 2014 at 23:43
air support to move them back from the towns they’re already entrenched in? You really believe we’ll be able to convince the Sunni’s whose families become crispy fries -AGAIN, that the US is coming back -AGAIN, as ‘THEIR” Liberators this time -AGAIN, and will ask Maliki to be a bit more inclusive and treat them nicer this time is why we’re there to INSURE he stays the absolute ruler of Iraq with ABSOLUTE power, right?
$$$ as in, how much will it take to sell out the Democrat party with the American people.
Bob Waas June 17th, 2014 at 07:25
We provide air support so the Iraqi soldiers can do the boots on the ground.
craig7120 June 17th, 2014 at 09:54
“Obama losing support”
It has to be so foreign to you, like staring at the Chinese alphabet, but I’m telling you, liberals will criticize bad decisions even if it means it’s someone in their own party.
That’s why, while every single member of the gop, their supporters (you) were waving flags and cheering for war, liberals and some dems were saying stop and think about the consequences. The 5 we exchanged for our soldier looks small compared to the army we created of the orphaned in that happy dance you called the Iraq war.
Bob Waas June 16th, 2014 at 18:06
Obama is losing support from the likes of NPR regarding his handling of Iraq. Dexter Filkins a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for his dispatches from Afghanistan, and a winner of the Pulitzer in 2009 as part of a team of Times reporters for their dispatches from Pakistan and Afghanistan was interviewed on NPR and had this to say:
“What the senior American military commanders told me was that every single senior political leader, no matter what party or what group, including Maliki, said to them privately, we want you to stay. We don’t want you to fight. We don’t want combat troops. We don’t want Americans getting killed, but we want 10,000 American troops inside the Green Zone training our army, giving us intelligence, playing that crucial role as the broker and interlocutor that makes our system work.”
The New Yorker would run Filkins’ expose on how Barack Obama lost Iraq and let it be turned into an Iranian colony.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2014/06/23/140623taco_talk_filkins
mea_mark June 16th, 2014 at 18:20
Maliki wanted us gone, we left. If Maliki wanted us there he should of made a deal to keep us there. Maliki blew it because he wanted to concentrate his power and flex his muscles. Now everything is coming unraveled because of his arrogance. Opinion and support or lack thereof, in America stems from partisan political maneuvering and is not really related to what is happening in reality. Maliki blew it, he is incompetent and selfish and what is happening is the result of his actions, not ours.
Bob Waas June 16th, 2014 at 20:39
Obama left without trying to negotiate; which according to Dexter Filkin, would have not been a problem. Obama wanted to be able to say he ended the war in Iraq as a talking point for the 2012 presidential campaign.
Here is what Filkin reported: “What the senior American military commanders told me was that every single senior political leader, no matter what party or what group, including Maliki, said to them privately, we want you to stay. We don’t want you to fight. We don’t want combat troops. We don’t want Americans getting killed, but we want 10,000 American troops inside the Green Zone training our army, giving us intelligence, playing that crucial role as the broker and interlocutor that makes our system work.”
According to Obewon qualifications, Dexter Filkin more than qualifies to report on the issue. “He was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for his dispatches from Afghanistan, and he won a Pulitzer in 2009 as part of a team of Times reporters for their dispatches from Pakistan and Afghanistan.”
arc99 June 16th, 2014 at 20:59
and you keep leaving out the key point in Filkin’s article that the Iraqi government refused to consider immunity for American troops. that was a deal-breaker for the President.
we all know that if the President had agreed to Iraqi terms and an American soldier was later arrested and prosecuted for a crime in an Islamic court, you would right here in this forum ranting about the “weak” President, Muslims, etc. etc. etc.
right now, you are ranting about a US Marine in jail in Mexico, then you turn right around have the unmitigated gall to condemn the President for refusing to accept terms that could have created dozens if not hundreds of similar cases in Iraq.
the hypocrisy and blatant dishonesty of the right wing noise machine is nauseating.
Bob Waas June 16th, 2014 at 21:26
Reread what the Iraqi officials told the military. “What the senior American military commanders told me was that every single senior (Iraqi) political leader, no matter what party or what group, including “Maliki”, said to them privately, we want you to stay. We don’t want you to fight. We don’t want combat troops. We don’t want Americans getting killed, but we want 10,000 American troops inside the Green Zone training our army, giving us intelligence, playing that crucial role as the broker and interlocutor that makes our system work.”
Hardly sounds like a deal couldn’t be worked out…
arc99 June 16th, 2014 at 21:35
of course it does not sound like it, if you keep leaving out the crucial piece of information which makes it clear a deal was impossible
don’t know how it could be any more clear than Maliki saying WE CAN’T DO IT
—————
“”There was almost a deal but essentially the sticking point was whether American soldiers would have immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts.
Which Americans have always insisted on pretty much everywhere where they’ve stationed troops, and which they had. They had that immunity throughout the Iraq War. And Maliki basically said, look, I can’t sell that in parliament. So if you need that, then****** we can’t do it.***** And it basically fell apart over that, over that question.””
Bob Waas June 16th, 2014 at 23:13
You and I can continue to debate the issue, however, the experts have been saying that the “immunity” issue would have been a non-issue. More will come out in the days and weeks ahead and we can revisit it then.
OldLefty June 17th, 2014 at 08:37
Iran has made very clear to Maliki that its No. 1 demand is that there be no American troops remaining in Iraq.
And Maliki owes them big time.
How would Americans have reacted if they prosecuted, convicted and hanged an American soldier in the public square on TV?
Bob Waas June 17th, 2014 at 18:13
Obama is sending 275 troops to Iraq. Does that mean Maliki has lifted his demand that they be prosecuted for crimes?
Exactly how will 275 troops be effective against the savages who were able to kill 1700 Iraqi military en masse?
OldLefty June 17th, 2014 at 18:31
Does that mean Maliki has lifted his demand that they be prosecuted for crimes?
_______
I doubt it, and I disagree.
As for Exactly how will 275 troops be effective against the savages who were able to kill 1700 Iraqi military en masse?
Should have thought of that in 2003.
Bob Waas June 17th, 2014 at 19:03
2003 is old news and not relevant to the discussion. We already know all the blame game stories, but it doesn’t change the current situation.
Today I spoke to a gentleman who was born and raised in Egypt as a Christian. He immigrated (legally) to the USA when he was 23.
I mentioned to him that my youngest daughter went to Egypt to help out in a orphanage in Alexandria and left there in June 2013, about a week before the Morsi ouster. Afterwards Egyptian Muslims went on a Christian killing spree. Having lived there he saw first hand the workings of the so called religion of peace, Islam and he said they are the most hateful group of people he has ever en-counted. He said the west is being lulled into a false sense of complacency regarding Islam and that it is a clear and present danger. He pointed to the situation in England and France as examples where Islam has gained a strong presence. Just recently a Islam convert from Florida became a suicide bomber in Syria, so if you think it can’t happen here, think again.
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2014/05/a_florida_man_carried_out_a_suicide_bombing_in_syria_this_week.php
He said Islam is not a religion, but a form of government with Sharia law as the guiding principle.
Allowing Iraq to be taken over by the terrorists should be a concern to all countries where freedom is a way of life.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/#
OldLefty June 17th, 2014 at 19:31
Do you know how many Christians were slaughtered and persecuted in Iraq after we removed Saddam?
Did you know that the first suicide bomber in Lebanon was Loula Abboud, a 19 year old female Lebanese Christian?
As for;
He said Islam is not a religion….
And radical Christians say that about Hinduism, while Hagee said the Catholic Church was the “Great Wh0re”
So what.
My husband is from India, his dad, (Hindus) worked for a Muslim company for years.
Funny how we all know people who confirm our world views.
Meanwhile people like Saadat Hasan Manto , who wrote
“Letters to Uncle Sam” in the 1950’s, tried to warn us way back then about supporting radical Islam over secular countries.
Remember when In the late 1980s, Pakistani President Benazir Bhutto, feeling the mujaheddin network has grown too strong, tells President George H. W. Bush, “You are creating a jihadi Frankenstein.”
Bob Waas June 17th, 2014 at 19:43
“Do you know how many Christians were slaughtered and persecuted in Iraq after we removed Saddam?”
No, how many?
“Did you know that the first suicide bomber in Lebanon was Loula Abboud, a 19 year old female Lebanese Christian?”
No, how many since?
I’m not sure what a secular Christian is; it sounds like an oxymoron.
Loula Abboud, a 19-year-old secular Christian Lebanese girl, commanded a small leftist resistance cell in southern Lebanon against the Israeli invaders.
OldLefty June 17th, 2014 at 20:00
Vicar: Dire Times For Iraq’s Christians
Tells 60 Minutes Most Of Iraq’s Christians Have Fled Or Been Killed
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vicar-dire-times-for-iraqs-christians/
Iraq’s Christians Flee as Extremist Threat Worsens
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: October 17, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/world/middleeast/17christians.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
IRAQ: Christians live in fear of death squads
http://www.irinnews.org/report/61897/iraq-christians-live-in-fear-of-death-squads
A Haircut in Iraq Can Be the Death of the Barber
By ROBERT F. WORTH
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/18/international/middleeast/18barber.html
Liquor sales a risky trade in new Iraq
July 21, 2004|By Aamer Madhani, Tribune staff reporter.
Published: March 18, 2005
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-07-21/news/0407210324_1_liquor-store-liquor-sales-islamic-law
And I don’t know what a secular Christian is, I did not say it.
OldLefty June 17th, 2014 at 20:06
As for How many since??
I don’t know that, but in our hospital, there are a lot of Lebanese Christians.
They like Hezbollah.
In case you don’t believe me;
In Hezbollah stronghold, Lebanese Christians find respect, stability
In a Christian home in a Shiite suburb of Beirut, images of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah share mantel and wall space with the Virgin Mary.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/1221/In-Hezbollah-stronghold-Lebanese-Christians-find-respect-stability
Hizballah’s Christian Soldiers?
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1650192,00.html
My point being that there is more to the world than what we see on our infotainment.
arc99 June 17th, 2014 at 08:46
Right wing Obama-hating blogs are not experts. Iraqis refused immunity. Either concede that you accept our troops being subject to Islamic law or recognize that leaving was the only option regardless of the BS spewing from the right wing noise machine.
Obewon June 16th, 2014 at 21:37
Another day and Wass only delivers more birther troll droppings. But now Wass claims to support Iraq’s sovereign insistence that U.S. Troops be subject to and tried under “Sharia Law”-Status of Forces agreement refused by POTUS Obama & GWB Admins.
Update: Iraq’s Shi’ite rulers defied Western calls on Tuesday June 10, 2014 to reach out to Sunnis to defuse the uprising in the north of the country, declaring a boycott of Iraq’s main Sunni political bloc and accusing Sunni power Saudi Arabia of promoting “genocide”-Via Reuters June 16, 2014 continues:
-Washington has made clear it wants Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to embrace Sunni politicians as a condition of U.S. support to fight a lightning advance by forces from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/17/us-iraq-security-idUSKBN0EP0KJ20140617 Good luck trying to actualy convince Big Oil GOP that USA should now embrace an increasingly erratic Maliki and dump ally Saudi Arabia!
OldLefty June 17th, 2014 at 09:07
Reread what the Iraqi officials told the military. “What the senior American military commanders told me was that every single senior (Iraqi) political leader, no matter what party or what group, including “Maliki”, said to them privately, we want you to stay. We don’t want you to figh…
_______
I’m sorry, but I think that’s the dumbest thing I ever heard.
That’s why we don’t make policy based on ‘people told me, that people told them…(privately, of course)”
So what happens when the barracks where our non-fighting people are staying gets attacked?
Most people who understood the region, knew that this would happen, and that we set fire to a tinder box that will go on like this for decades.
granpa.usthai June 17th, 2014 at 00:54
all you have said is FACTUALLY TRUE, especially the last part, which is why they will continuously berate CIC Obama (as they always have) for supporting the Iraq FIASCO, in every single minute detail up to and especially continued rantings of Maliki being Democrats vision of ‘MORAL VALUES’.
IF Democrats have any believable way of countering that at the polls that elect US government leaders, yesterday would have been a good time to start.
otherwise, the blatant dishonest hypocrites (false religion and all) of the right wing noise machine will have their bogus leaders in the driver seats 2014, and I really don’t think they’ll be all that interested in the people any bit whatsoever as the last time, do you?
Crying may be appropriate, but I really don’t think it’ll pan out to a majority of votes.
Roctuna June 16th, 2014 at 18:22
I’d say it’s not a working “system” if it takes 10000 American troops. What have they been doing the last 6 years besides scheming to extract revenge from rival factions while we “broker” and “interlocute”. Total BS.
granpa.usthai June 17th, 2014 at 00:40
Total BS, yes, but TOTAL BS that sends a clear message to Sunnis that Maliki now has full control of the US Military placed in his hands by the current US Political Power that turned over command to the US Military to him. Any action taken by Maliki that brings harm to Sunni men, women, children, homes, dogs, cats, pet birds, is a specific signal that the USA is to blame, totally, completely, and without hesitation as ‘his excellency’ is ‘AMERICA’s MORAL VALUES’.
William June 16th, 2014 at 18:35
So as usual, it’s not about the loss of life and treasure. It’s not about the suffering and mayhem. For Bot-Wasshole and his Right wing puppet masters it’s all about how popular or unpopular the black guy is.
Bob Waas June 16th, 2014 at 21:21
Forget his popularity. It’s his lack of leadership.
“While Iraqi jihadists are slaughtering the masses, taking over major cities and engaging in the mass execution of Iraqi military in their march on Baghdad, you have to ask: How much sense does it make for Secretary of State John Kerry to be tweeting to Hollywood celebrities about the environment this past weekend? Or for President Obama to be working on his golf swing?”
“Imagine the “optics” that sends to our foreign enemies.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are you really saying that this type of behavior by the leader of the free world is okay by you?
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/adriana_cohen/2014/06/adriana_cohen_amid_iraq_crisis_obama_kerry_golf_and
William June 16th, 2014 at 22:49
Or for President Obama to be working on his golf swing?”
..Again. You don’t give a rats ass about what’s happening in Iraq, you are more focused on what the President is doing. No matter what that is, you’ll find fault with it. How does Secretary Kerry’s tweeting effect the outcome of this mess either way? Please explain that. Playing golf over the weekend is acceptable to me yes.
granpa.usthai June 17th, 2014 at 01:14
-and now, they have an entire region in flames that they can find continuous fault with, Granpa Wil. When you think of Vietnam, which POTUS comes to America’s mind FIRST? -and why think anywhere past that when you have the likes of Limbag to remind you 24/7 vocally, allowing you to visually see the portraits of POTUS Obama and ‘his excellency’ side by side at every pop-up ad/commercial – Historical Museum.?.
Great deal for GOPs foreign offshore bank accounts –
and the successful future of GOP Politics.
granpa.usthai June 17th, 2014 at 00:33
I think by the end of June, during July, and all the way up to voting day in November the GOP’s will be showing voters a portrait of ‘his excellency’ as Democrat’s optical vision of what “AMERICA’s MORAL VALUES” really look like to the rest of the world, and will do so with each and every election thereafter. Politically it’ll be worth it’s weight a lot more than verbal/written near past (that will melt away as decades pass) history, until the majority of Americans view America’s mess in the mid east as solely belong to POTUS Obama and the Democrats. Much like they do Vietnam with Johnson, not really caring that much that actual US on the ground involvement started a long time, and by the other political party’s ‘AMERICAN MORAL VALUES’, before.
Don’t believe anyone in the current Democrat Party, POTUS included, was willfully stupid enough to re-engage, especially knowing that ‘his excellency’ has now been made the picture of ‘AMERICAN MORAL VALUES’ worth shedding blood for, (why you see my references to $$$).
granpa.usthai June 17th, 2014 at 00:16
you got it, William, and now that they’ve finally succeeded in selling their used car ‘AS IS’ they’ll definitely be pointing out who the car belongs to!
fancypants June 16th, 2014 at 18:42
maybe if the Iraq soldiers didn’t wear their street clothes under their uniforms Iraq wouldn’t be crawling with terrorists ? Now we are confronted once again by the doorknob gop who is blaming Obama for the moron behavior of the Iraq troops.
try and read more then the comics
arc99 June 16th, 2014 at 18:53
here is the portion of the article that the right wing noise machine conveniently omits. The Iraqis were unwilling to provide legal immunities to American personnel.
Any American solider accused of a crime, even if the act is criminal only under Sharia law would be subject to prosecution. The President insisted on immunity.
You can imagine the howls of indignation from right wingers if we had agreed to this arrangement and an American soldier ended up being tried in an Islamic court.
Bob, you right wingers are hypocrites of the highest order. You condemn the President for not agreeing to have American personnel subject to local Islamic laws. As always, the President is damned no matter what he does. If you folks are so gung-ho, then grab the Cliven Bundy brigade and head to Baghdad, you deserve each other.
The NPR interview is not an expose on the President losing Iraq. It is an expose of the the gutless hypocrisy of chickenhawk right wingers who want to spend endless hundreds of billions of dollars trying to paint a happy face on a catastrophe that they are responsible for. .
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/04/28/140428fa_fact_filkins?currentPage=all
==========================================================
And I think in late 2011, President Obama made a telephone call to Prime Minister Maliki and said, OK, how’s 5,000 American troops, non-combat? We keep them to train people, to do intelligence, and that sort of thing. How’s that? And it didn’t happen, basically. It fell apart. There was almost a deal but essentially the sticking point was whether American soldiers would have immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts.
Which Americans have always insisted on pretty much everywhere where they’ve stationed troops, and which they had. They had that immunity throughout the Iraq War. And Maliki basically said, look, I can’t sell that in parliament. So if you need that, then we can’t do it. And it basically fell apart over that, over that question.
Not whether they wanted American troops in the country, because I think it’s fair to say they did. Maliki denies it publicly but I think it’s pretty clear that he wanted several thousand Americans to stay inside Iraq.
=====================================================
granpa.usthai June 17th, 2014 at 00:13
Bob’s RWNJ’s are indeed hypocrites of the highest order, arc, and have been since 1980 and to some extent before, but politically (as in holding political offices with power) SUCCESSFUL hypocrites of the highest order.
Good luck on selling your history lessons to the American voters. My experience is – usually they pay more attention to ‘CURRENT AFFAIRS’ when placing their votes.
May want to encourage the Political Party that now looks more each passing day to the past to play some of the ‘oldie goldie’ musical hits of the GOPs:
Bomb,Bomb,Bomb
Bomb, Bomb Iran
would be a good musical backdrop in some of the political ads.
I got a feeling more and more GOPs will have a portrait of “his excellency’ in their backdrops as a visual reminder of the Democrat’s new ‘AMERICAN MORAL VALUES’.
granpa.usthai June 16th, 2014 at 19:15
finally the ‘Democrats” have handed POTUS Obama over to the GOPs on a silver platter, Bob? – you may be right, so – now what?
those who view this ‘re-entanglement’ in the internal affairs of Iraq so that we might weave US into the position of being eternal enemies of the Sunni sect, and give world the notice that we will continue our foreign policy of backing brutal despots for our financial gains (no matter the initial cost) has once again been permanently and irrevocably established are correct in viewing it as insanity.
It truly is insane to believe that we can walk the exact same pathway to oblivion and accomplish in 2 years with 10,000 troops what we failed to do in 10 years with 120,000 troops?!?
The political problem I see for Clinton or any other Democrat is the continuing questions that have now resurfaced as a cutting blade on the throat of their political party’s now perilous existence (ie: how well they will be able to hide/BS their way around Despot Maliki) – why should Americans vote for you when you will do what the GOPs tell you to do anyway?
The ONLY possible thing that I know of that causes such insanity in human beings is … M O N E Y! – and as one who has supported this POTUS (who in my opinion made one hell of a ‘Hail Mary’ that came ever so close to the espoused ideals of Lady Liberty, I bear you no grudge or ill will Mr. President, and in knowing something of how the political game is played, will only hope that you and your team got their’s. $$$
Bob Waas June 16th, 2014 at 20:33
No boots on the ground! Use air support and drone’s to push them back. The oil fields need to be protected as any disruption in the flow of oil will affect the entire global economy. Is that the $$$ you’re talking about?
granpa.usthai June 16th, 2014 at 23:43
air support to move them back from the towns they’re already entrenched in? You really believe we’ll be able to convince the Sunni’s whose families become crispy fries -AGAIN, that the US is coming back -AGAIN, as ‘THEIR” Liberators this time -AGAIN, and will ask Maliki to be a bit more inclusive and treat them nicer this time is why we’re there to INSURE he stays the absolute ruler of Iraq with ABSOLUTE power, right?
$$$ as in, how much will it take to sell out the Democrat party with the American people.
Bob Waas June 17th, 2014 at 07:25
We provide air support so the Iraqi soldiers can do the boots on the ground.
craig7120 June 17th, 2014 at 09:54
“Obama losing support”
It has to be so foreign to you, like staring at the Chinese alphabet, but I’m telling you, liberals will criticize bad decisions even if it means it’s someone in their own party.
That’s why, while every single member of the gop, their supporters (you) were waving flags and cheering for war, liberals and some dems were saying stop and think about the consequences. The 5 we exchanged for our soldier looks small compared to the army we created of the orphaned in that happy dance you called the Iraq war.
arc99 June 16th, 2014 at 18:57
QUESTION OF THE DAY:
Bob Waas June 16th, 2014 at 20:28
You mean people like Kerry? Hillary Clinton?
Here is an excerpt of a letter sent to President Clinton, October 9, 1998 regarding the threat from Saddam’s WMD.
…In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D’Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski.
Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.
arc99 June 16th, 2014 at 20:55
No I am referring to right wingers who told us that we would be welcomed as liberators and the whole thing would cost no more than $50billion.
You can deflect from now until the cows come home trying to insult everyone’s intelligence with revisionist history that makes absolutely no mention of the responsibility conservatives bear for the disaster in Iraq.
So dredge up any pathetic excuse you want. The bottom line is that a REPUBLICAN President, and a near unanimous caucus of the REPUBLICAN party took us into a war that was opposed by a solid majority of DEMOCRATS.
granpa.usthai June 17th, 2014 at 00:00
-and now DEMOCRATS whose visible picture of ‘MORAL VALUES’ will be the picture of Nouri al-Maliki forever more will be taking US back into the war that their solid majority opposed, arc.
While POTUS Obama may be able to placate those of US who firmly supported him by saying “I promised I’d get the US out of Iraq, but never said I wouldn’t send US back in when the price is right”,- but I just can’t see the voters in 2016 buying that from the party that’s responsible for US in Iraq N O W..
You’ve indicated it many times yourself, arc:
Gops have no conscience
they will lie, distort and happily sell the Democrats an ‘as is’ vehicle any time they’re insane enough to buy.
This coming election (2014)
the election in 2016
every election is always affected by ‘CURRENT EVENTS’
even the elections of 2008, 2010, and 2012.
Will the elections of 2000 to 2008 have as much of an impact?
granpa.usthai June 17th, 2014 at 14:15
I think arc was making reference to the ‘cake walkers’ who were going to protect US from the immediate annihilation by WMD’s, Bob. You know, the reason we HAD to jump in with both feet without stopping to think about it? -after all, a 6 week campaign to protect US from immediate annihilation is kinda like walking around 1 less chairs until the music stops, right?
and – due to the great success of Maliki being selected in 2006 and retaining power by brute force until now, shows how successful the Iraq campaign to remove a ruthless despot was until Obama’s team ‘blew it’.!
Which is why, even though Obama was wrong for refusing to place US Military personnel under the foot of Maliki and has created this horrendous situation that requires jumping back in with both feet and no though, will be a great success when Obama is replaced by a ‘competent’ GOPer who, though the sacrifice will be greater, will be completely successful? After all, the ‘reel’ military experts are all on the GOP’s side, right? – you know, the obedient ones who will not question the orders or decisions of great military leaders such as Donald Rumsfeld – Dick Cheney – Pat Robertson – John Hagee ….?
‘MISSION ACCOMPLISHED’ !
despot Maliki has replaced despot Hussein through brute US military force.
arc99 June 16th, 2014 at 18:57
QUESTION OF THE DAY:
why the hell are we paying the slightest bit of attention to people who were 100% wrong about the war to begin with?
Bob Waas June 16th, 2014 at 20:28
You mean people like Kerry? Hillary Clinton?
Here is an excerpt of a letter sent to President Clinton, October 9, 1998 regarding the threat from Saddam’s WMD.
…In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D’Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski.
Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.
arc99 June 16th, 2014 at 20:55
No I am referring to right wingers who told us that we would be welcomed as liberators and the whole thing would cost no more than $50billion.
You can deflect from now until the cows come home trying to insult everyone’s intelligence with revisionist history that makes absolutely no mention of the responsibility conservatives bear for the disaster in Iraq.
So dredge up any pathetic excuse you want. The bottom line is that a REPUBLICAN President, and a near unanimous caucus of the REPUBLICAN party took us into a war that was opposed by a solid majority of DEMOCRATS.
granpa.usthai June 17th, 2014 at 00:00
-and now DEMOCRATS whose visible picture of ‘MORAL VALUES’ will be the picture of Nouri al-Maliki forever more will be taking US back into the war that their solid majority opposed, arc.
While POTUS Obama may be able to placate those of US who firmly supported him by saying “I promised I’d get the US out of Iraq, but never said I wouldn’t send US back in when the price is right”,- but I just can’t see the voters in 2016 buying that from the party that’s responsible for US in Iraq N O W..
You’ve indicated it many times yourself, arc:
Gops have no conscience
they will lie, distort and happily sell the Democrats an ‘as is’ vehicle any time they’re insane enough to buy.
This coming election (2014)
the election in 2016
every election is always affected by ‘CURRENT EVENTS’
even the elections of 2008, 2010, and 2012.
Will the elections of 2000 to 2008 have as much of an impact?
granpa.usthai June 17th, 2014 at 14:15
I think arc was making reference to the ‘cake walkers’ who were going to protect US from the immediate annihilation by WMD’s, Bob. You know, the reason we HAD to jump in with both feet without stopping to think about it? -after all, a 6 week campaign to protect US from immediate annihilation is kinda like walking around 1 less chairs until the music stops, right?
and – due to the great success of Maliki being selected in 2006 and retaining power by brute force until now, shows how successful the Iraq campaign to remove a ruthless despot was until Obama’s team ‘blew it’.!
Which is why, even though Obama was wrong for refusing to place US Military personnel under the foot of Maliki and has created this horrendous situation that requires jumping back in with both feet and no though, will be a great success when Obama is replaced by a ‘competent’ GOPer who, though the sacrifice will be greater, will be completely successful? After all, the ‘reel’ military experts are all on the GOP’s side, right? – you know, the obedient ones who will not question the orders or decisions of great military leaders such as Donald Rumsfeld – Dick Cheney – Pat Robertson – John Hagee ….?
‘MISSION ACCOMPLISHED’ !
despot Maliki has replaced despot Hussein through brute US military force.
granpa.usthai June 17th, 2014 at 13:57
anyone get the feeling that if any of these 10,000 trainers meets with an unfortunate end (say a suicide bomber – or perhaps a deadly mosquito virus) – that it won’t be POTUS Obama’s fault? Clearly had he continued on GW’s successful deposits in offshore bank accounts, the only thing wrong he would have done would have been everything and/or anything.
granpa.usthai June 17th, 2014 at 13:57
anyone get the feeling that if any of these 10,000 trainers meets with an unfortunate end (say a suicide bomber – or perhaps a deadly mosquito virus) – that it won’t be POTUS Obama’s fault? Clearly had he continued on GW’s successful deposits in offshore bank accounts, the only thing wrong he would have done would have been everything and/or anything.