Obama admits what Bush couldn't and Blair won't

[Infinite Chaos]

Wrong. President Bush did negotiate an agreement with the interim Iraq government that did expire shortly after he left office. But to claim that President Obama was simply abiding by a temporary agreement and not renegotiating a new one or simply extending the old one is just ignorant. You think new President have no responsibility to renew agreements that expire under their term of office? That's just nonsense~

You have that backwards - if a leader makes an international agreement with another country, a new leader (in a democratic country) is usually obliged to follow that agreement.

Anyhow, here's Bush's archive page with the agreement: could you point out the bit that states it was "temporary?"

 

[Absentglare]

Wrong. President Bush did negotiate an agreement with the interim Iraq government that did expire shortly after he left office. But to claim that President Obama was simply abiding by a temporary agreement and not renegotiating a new one or simply extending the old one is just ignorant. You think new President have no responsibility to renew agreements that expire under their term of office? That's just nonsense.

Fact remains, unlike in virtually every other situation where the US has defeated an enemy and then governed that country after the war was over, this time the US had a President who thought more about what was best for himself, politically, then what was best for his country. The results of that decision are seen all across the Middle East.

What ?

You're seriously complaining that he upheld President Bush 2's commitment ...?

Explain this expiration- we had negotiated and committed to an extraction of forces. If there was some formal expiration, i am not aware of it.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

~ President Bush 2's commitment ...? ~

Should add that Security Council UN mandate authorising foreign forces was set to expire at the end of 2008 which forced the previous administration to leave Iraq so there was no legal basis for Obama to not follow Bush's commitment. Resolution 1511.

There's a pretty accurate record with all relevant factors our friend is ignoring here. Nothing temporary about this agreement, nothing free choice about Obama following up with Bush's commitment to withdraw American forces.

 

[Wiggen]

The postings by the various right wing foreign policy experts in this thread have once more confirmed for me what everybody apparently knows, and that is the following:

EVERYTHING BAD THAT HAPPENS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD IS OBAMA'S FAULT!

Thanks a lot, Obama!

 

[Slyfox696]

Shame you can't follow the argument. Perhaps if you went back and read the content of the discussion, it might dawn on you presuming you, yourself, take off your partisan shades.

I followed it just fine (don't blame me for the ridiculousness of your post) and facts aren't partisan, only partisans ignore facts. I see that, when caught in the absurdity of your position, you cannot even begin to defend it.

It's really simple. You claimed Bush prevented Ghaddaffi from doing whatever he wanted in his country because Bush was a strong leader and Ghaddafi was afraid Bush would oust him from power. You then said Ghaddaffi didn't believe Obama would oust him because he thought Obama was weak. But Ghaddafi is gone and the United States under Obama was one of the principle players in that. I followed just fine, how about you actually respond to my point instead of ducking it because you know how ridiculous it is?

So, again, I'll ask again: "So what exactly are you talking about? How can you present Bush as a strong leader who would have taken Ghaddafi out and Obama as an "all talk liberal with no backbone" and then ignore the fact Ghaddafi was taken out under Obama's watch?"

Do try and answer the question, and don't take the coward's way out. Let's see you put the partisanship to rest. Thanks!

 

[CanadaJohn]

I followed it just fine (don't blame me for the ridiculousness of your post) and facts aren't partisan, only partisans ignore facts. I see that, when caught in the absurdity of your position, you cannot even begin to defend it.

It's really simple. You claimed Bush prevented Ghaddaffi from doing whatever he wanted in his country because Bush was a strong leader and Ghaddafi was afraid Bush would oust him from power. You then said Ghaddaffi didn't believe Obama would oust him because he thought Obama was weak. But Ghaddafi is gone and the United States under Obama was one of the principle players in that. I followed just fine, how about you actually respond to my point instead of ducking it because you know how ridiculous it is?

So, again, I'll ask again: "So what exactly are you talking about? How can you present Bush as a strong leader who would have taken Ghaddafi out and Obama as an "all talk liberal with no backbone" and then ignore the fact Ghaddafi was taken out under Obama's watch?"

Do try and answer the question, and don't take the coward's way out. Let's see you put the partisanship to rest. Thanks!

Sorry, but you don't get to reform my narrative and you don't get to rewrite history as it relates to Libya.

Firstly, I said Ghaddafi was in check because Bush told him to give up his weapons and terrorism programs and he saw what happened in Afghanistan and the lead up to Iraq and he thought it was better to survive than to be killed. The comparison I made was to Assad in Syria who had Obama set a red line that Assad crossed and Obama turtled and went to the golf course.

As for Ghaddafi, Obama fought any involvement of NATO in going after Libya but was shamed into participation when France took the lead in NATO and started attacking Libya without the US. The US under Obama was not a principal or as you say "principle" player in that regard. Obama lacks "principles" other than political expediency, so it's pretty rich to give him credit for taking out Ghaddafi.

Only a partisan fool believes that President Obama is/was a strong leader as opposed to President Bush, particularly as it relates to foreign policy initiatives. Nobody in the Middle East ignored President Bush while they all laugh at and ridicule all talk President Obama.

 

[American]

The problem here is that Obama never had a foreign policy, he never cared enough about it to develop one. What Obama did was jump from crisis to crisis as needed. I would have been more impressed if Obama had admitted the obvious, which is that we never should have entered the civil war without doing so being in Americans interest. He still cant bring himself to say that American comes first when using US military assets, and he still cant bring himself to say that entering the civil war was a mistake, and he still cant bring himself to say that he is sorry that he allowed Hillary and Samantha Power to talk him into it.

You know who else could have cared less about foreign policy? Bill Clinton, he didn't have much of one either. "It's the Economy, stupid!"

 

[Fenton]

Obama's mistake was letting the Europeans handle the aftermath. He thought they were going to step up given the location of Libya. He thought wrong. The minute the **** hit the fan they backed out.. I'm not so sure it was really the wrong decision for us not to step in unilaterally, there were really no good options short of another long term Iraqi type occupation and the resulting insurgency. That is difference with Korea, the S. Koreans actually wanted us to stay there and there was no insurgency.

No Obama's mistakes started when he strangely decided to back the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

That went well... :roll:

He then went on to brag about Iraq's " stability, sovereignty and democracy " in 2011, and then decided to destabilize it by pulling out American assets

Talk about a lack of prepation. Problem is he did NOTHING as ISIS road roughshod accross Iraq killing women men and children and gaining weapons, land, money and influence

Obama's Foreign policy decisions were never about stabilizing the ME, or fighting ISIS.

They were simply short sighted Politically motivated actions that fell short by design. He needed narratives, empty " victories " to feed to his base.

Had Bush done what Obama did to the ME and Europe people like you would be calling him a War criminal, not blaming it on our allies

 

[Fenton]

Taking out Saddam, and especially doing so without any thought for what would happen if you disband the Iraqi army, ignore it and ignore the police force, and then leave infrastructure unguarded, was the real set-up.

Obama seemed rather impressed with Bush's handling of post war Iraq

He said Iraq was " stable, sovereign and democratic " in 2011 and then he destabilize it

 

[Fenton]

The postings by the various right wing foreign policy experts in this thread have once more confirmed for me what everybody apparently knows, and that is the following:

EVERYTHING BAD THAT HAPPENS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD IS OBAMA'S FAULT!

Thanks a lot, Obama!

Well, who else would be responsible for Foreign policy decisions made from 2008-2016 ??

Bush ?? " Thanks allot Bush !! "

 

[Eric7216]

Obama simply is talking about one of his mistakes. Has nothing to do with Blair or Bush. I guess their mistake was not understanding how someone with no foreign policy experience would somehow get elected.
Surprised that Obama admitted to a mistake. Normally he lacks introspection.

 

[Slyfox696]

Sorry, but you don't get to reform my narrative

I literally paraphrased what you said. I didn't reform anything. Again, don't blame me for the silly content of your post.

and you don't get to rewrite history as it relates to Libya.

How is noting that Ghaddafi is dead, in large part because of the USA under Obama, rewriting history?

Firstly, I said Ghaddafi was in check because Bush told him to give up his weapons and terrorism programs and he saw what happened in Afghanistan and the lead up to Iraq and he thought it was better to survive than to be killed.

And then you said, "When he saw Obama take over, an all talk liberal with no backbone, he went back to his old ways."

You were CLEARLY drawing a comparison between the perceived strength of Bush and the perceived strength of Obama in such a way that you were criticizing Obama. But Obama actually did what you claim Ghaddafi thought Bush would do, yet you never once acknowledged the fact Obama did what you claimed would have been a strength of Bush. Like a partisan.

The comparison I made was to Assad in Syria who had Obama set a red line that Assad crossed and Obama turtled and went to the golf course.

And this is where the ridiculous nature of your post reflected genuine partisanship, in the fact you don't recognize the fact that Syria and Libya are different situations. You seemingly praised the toughness of Bush for something he might have done, while trying to minimize the fact Obama actually did it by comparing apples to oranges. That is partisanship 101.

As for Ghaddafi, Obama fought any involvement of NATO in going after Libya but was shamed into participation when France took the lead in NATO and started attacking Libya without the US. The US under Obama was not a principal or as you say "principle" player in that regard. Obama lacks "principles" other than political expediency, so it's pretty rich to give him credit for taking out Ghaddafi.

:lamo

Now who is rewriting history?

After the situation in Libya further deteriorated, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973 on 17 March 2011. The resolution condemned the “gross and systematic violation of human rights, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture and summary executions.” It also introduced active measures, including a no-fly zone, and authorized member states, acting as appropriate through regional organizations, to use “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians and civilian populated areas.
With the adoption of UNSCR 1973, several UN member states took immediate military action to protect civilians under Operation Odyssey Dawn. This operation, which was not under the command and control of NATO, was conducted by a multinational coalition led by the United States.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_71652.htm#

Even the official website of NATO disagrees with you.

Only a partisan fool believes that President Obama is/was a strong leader as opposed to President Bush

:lamo

Only a partisan fool would believe that being a strong leader means stupidly invading other countries for the hell of it. "Strength" isn't always about puffing your chest.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Only a partisan fool would believe that being a strong leader means stupidly invading other countries for the hell of it. "Strength" isn't always about puffing your chest.

Only a partisan fool would believe that a US President threatening invasion of a country, such as President Obama did with Syria and Assad, and then turtling when his bluff is called is considered strong leadership. The only arms President Obama is comfortable with are irons and woods, so he shouldn't go around puffing out his chest when he should know that leaders around the world don't believe he has the backbone to follow through on his threats. The "Junior Varsity" squad in Syria/Iraq is a prime example of a group that knows Obama is all hot air.

 

[Slyfox696]

Only a partisan fool would believe that a US President threatening invasion of a country, such as President Obama did with Syria and Assad, and then turtling when his bluff is called is considered strong leadership. The only arms President Obama is comfortable with are irons and woods, so he shouldn't go around puffing out his chest when he should know that leaders around the world don't believe he has the backbone to follow through on his threats. The "Junior Varsity" squad in Syria/Iraq is a prime example of a group that knows Obama is all hot air.

Once more, the ridiculousness of your post was proven and all you do is deflect. NATO's website showed the lead taken by the US under Obama and they accomplished what you claimed would have been a strength of Bush. Instead of simply admitting to it, now you're once more moving the goalposts because you apparently think the United States involving itself in another costly pointless war indicates strength, much like a simpleton bully thinks the one way to be strong is to pick on children weaker than themselves.

The fact you then resort, again, to talking about golf shows how completely uninterested you are in discussing this objectively. Over and over again you prove you do not want to discuss objectively, you just want to engage in partisan nonsense. I'll ask one final time..."So what exactly are you talking about? How can you present Bush as a strong leader who would have taken Ghaddafi out and Obama as an "all talk liberal with no backbone" and then ignore the fact Ghaddafi was taken out under Obama's watch?"

Are you prepared to stop deflecting and simply acknowledge the reality of the situation? Or are you simply going to engage in more partisan wordplay? I hope for the former, I suspect the latter.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Once more, the ridiculousness of your post was proven and all you do is deflect. NATO's website showed the lead taken by the US under Obama and they accomplished what you claimed would have been a strength of Bush. Instead of simply admitting to it, now you're once more moving the goalposts because you apparently think the United States involving itself in another costly pointless war indicates strength, much like a simpleton bully thinks the one way to be strong is to pick on children weaker than themselves.

The fact you then resort, again, to talking about golf shows how completely uninterested you are in discussing this objectively. Over and over again you prove you do not want to discuss objectively, you just want to engage in partisan nonsense. I'll ask one final time..."So what exactly are you talking about? How can you present Bush as a strong leader who would have taken Ghaddafi out and Obama as an "all talk liberal with no backbone" and then ignore the fact Ghaddafi was taken out under Obama's watch?"

Are you prepared to stop deflecting and simply acknowledge the reality of the situation? Or are you simply going to engage in more partisan wordplay? I hope for the former, I suspect the latter.

Did or did not President Obama threaten to attack Syria if the Syrian regime used chemical weapons against the insurgents? Did or did not the Syrian regime use chemical weapons against the insurgents after President Obama issued his red line threat? Did or did not President Obama walk away from that threat after Assad used chemical weapons? Do you or do you not think it's wise for a US President to make such threats if he hasn't the intestinal fortitude to follow up on them?

 

[TheGoverness]

Did or did not President Obama threaten to attack Syria if the Syrian regime used chemical weapons against the insurgents? Did or did not the Syrian regime use chemical weapons against the insurgents after President Obama issued his red line threat? Did or did not President Obama walk away from that threat after Assad used chemical weapons? Do you or do you not think it's wise for a US President to make such threats if he hasn't the intestinal fortitude to follow up on them?

President Obama backed down on that decision because he had no support in the UN.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'll ask one final time..."So what exactly are you talking about? How can you present Bush as a strong leader who would have taken Ghaddafi out and Obama as an "all talk liberal with no backbone" and then ignore the fact Ghaddafi was taken out under Obama's watch?"

Are you prepared to stop deflecting and simply acknowledge the reality of the situation? Or are you simply going to engage in more partisan wordplay? I hope for the former, I suspect the latter.

Did or did not President Obama threaten to attack Syria if the Syrian regime used chemical weapons against the insurgents?

Just as I suspected. I hoped you would do the right thing but you simply cannot bring yourself to admit your comment was ridiculous and you are now trying to deflect from it by invoking a completely different situation. As I said before, that's nothing more than obvious partisanship.

I'll make you a deal. You answer my question, which I have asked multiple times, and I'll answer yours. The ball is in your court, let's see if you can answer honestly and not with politics.

 

[CanadaJohn]

President Obama backed down on that decision because he had no support in the UN.

Doesn't matter why - the point is, strong leaders don't make threats they can't keep. If he felt he needed UN approval to follow up on his threat, he shouldn't have bloviated in the first place. The minute a US President is caught bluffing, every bad actor in the world gets new courage, just as what has happened over the past few years.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Just as I suspected. I hoped you would do the right thing but you simply cannot bring yourself to admit your comment was ridiculous and you are now trying to deflect from it by invoking a completely different situation. As I said before, that's nothing more than obvious partisanship.

I'll make you a deal. You answer my question, which I have asked multiple times, and I'll answer yours. The ball is in your court, let's see if you can answer honestly and not with politics.

I answered your question several times - you just don't like or accept the answer. To repeat, when President Bush made a threat, he followed up on it - when President Obama made a threat, he turtled and went golfing. One was a leader who stood by his word, the other is a politician who only acts as a President.

Whether or not you answer my questions is immaterial to me. I neither expect you're required to answer them nor that you'll want to.

 

[Slyfox696]

I answered your question several times

No, you didn't. The closest you came was making a statement directly refuted by the official NATO website. We were talking about Libya, so answer the question about Libya and quit deflecting.

- you just don't like or accept the answer.

I don't accept it because it was incorrect. Once you were presented with the inaccuracy of your statement, you've never even attempted to address the situation again.

Whether or not you answer my questions is immaterial to me.

No, I suspect you feel the quicker you can remove yourself from having to engage in obvious deflection to uphold your obviously partisan posting in this thread, the better.

I neither expect you're required to answer them nor that you'll want to.

I have no problem answering your question. I'm not the one presenting myself as blatantly partisan in this thread. You, however, made a statement which was devoid of logic, you tried to explain it by making a statement refuted by an official source and are now trying to deflect by talking about something which has nothing to do with the original statement.

Unless you are simply incapable of distinguishing between Syria and Libya (which I doubt), you are obviously trying to deflect from the fact your initial statement was ridiculous. I'm just waiting to see if you'll ever hold yourself accountable for giving credit to Bush for something he didn't do while trying to ignore the fact Obama actually did for what you are giving Bush credit.

 

[Wiggen]

Well, who else would be responsible for Foreign policy decisions made from 2008-2016 ??

Bush ?? " Thanks allot Bush !! "

The fact that any foreign policy mistakes that happened from 2008 on were the direct result of disastrous decisions made by Obama's predecessors seems to have escaped you. Now Why doesn't that surprise me?

 

[Fenton]

The fact that any foreign policy mistakes that happened from 2008 on were the direct result of disastrous decisions made by Obama's predecessors seems to have escaped you. Now Why doesn't that surprise me?

Really?

Obama seemed pretty impressed with Bush's Iraq Post war sucesss

He even bragged about it in 2011. Remember? He said Iraq was " stable , democratic and sovereign "

And then he destabilize it. He pulled all American Military stabilizing assets and then did nothing as ISIS took over once liberated Iraq towns killing Women men and children.

He did nothing as ISIS gained prominence, weapons, money and influence.

And Lybia is just as bad. No the ME is a basket case today because every Foreign policy decision he made was predicated on how it would play Politically.

What's obvious is there was never any thought on the Long term consequences of his Policies.

 

[Wiggen]

What's obvious is there was never any thought on the Long term consequences of his Policies.

Exactly my point regarding George Bush.

 

[Fenton]

Exactly my point regarding George Bush.

Its Bush's fault that Obama chose to ignore ISIS running roughshod accross Iraq ?

Lol.....wow. Not having the maturity to comprehend the concept of personal responsibility must be a requisite to being a Liberal

 

[Wiggen]

Its Bush's fault that Obama chose to ignore ISIS running roughshod accross Iraq ?

Lol.....wow. Not having the maturity to comprehend the concept of personal responsibility must be a requisite to being a Liberal

Yes, just like ignoring history that is inconvenient to the Far Right view of the world seems to be required of Conservatives.