You said that Obama called the Iraq War a success and then failed to provide a direct quote that he ever said that. Instead you deliberately misinterpret what he did say because the truth doesn't fit your intellectually dishonest right wing narrative.And misinterpreted it.
You said that Obama called the Iraq War a success and then failed to provide a direct quote that he ever said that. Instead you deliberately misinterpret what he did say because the truth doesn't fit your intellectually dishonest right wing narrative.
:shrug: having looked at the problem set professionally on the military side, I can tell you he is mostly correct.
I say "mostly" because Words Mean Things, and I wouldn't apply the term "completely" to "neutralized". "Massively" or possibly "Overwhelmingly", perhaps.
He called it a success. Deny all you want.
You can quibble, lie, deny, deflect or whatever, but "a moment of success" does not translate into "Iraq War was a success."
You're not getting the entire picture but, even if what you say were true, and considering the murderous aftermath of the troop withdrawal in Iraq, do you still consider this 'withdrawal' a 'success'?Except that headline is misleading because Obama didn't declare the Iraq War was a success.
Again, from the Gaurdian article....."We knew this day would come. We've known it for some time. But still there is something profound about the end of a war that has lasted so long," said Obama. "It's harder to end a war than begin one. Everything that American troops have done in Iraq - all the fighting, all the dying, the bleeding and the building and the training and the partnering, all of it has landed to this moment of success."And what was that "moment of success"? It was troop withdrawal.
You're not getting the entire picture but, even if what you say were true, and considering the murderous aftermath of the troop withdrawal in Iraq, do you still consider this 'withdrawal' a 'success'?
That is clearly unprovable and a foolishly wild speculation. The fact is that the real problems began once the troops were removed and that is not debatable..If what she says is true, that isn't the question. But understand this was coming no matter when we withdrew. It was destined the second we recklessly invaded Iraq.
You're not getting the entire picture but, even if what you say were true, and considering the murderous aftermath of the troop withdrawal in Iraq, do you still consider this 'withdrawal' a 'success'?
What bloody aftermath? While still too high, there were less deaths after US combat troop withdrawal in 2009, than before....
Except that headline is misleading because Obama didn't declare the Iraq War was a success.
Again, from the Gaurdian article.....
"We knew this day would come. We've known it for some time. But still there is something profound about the end of a war that has lasted so long," said Obama. "It's harder to end a war than begin one. Everything that American troops have done in Iraq - all the fighting, all the dying, the bleeding and the building and the training and the partnering, all of it has landed to this moment of success."
And what was that "moment of success"? It was troop withdrawal.
What bloody aftermath???https://www.google.ca/search?q=isis...=X&ei=p8gDVdK2DMzxoATvkYAo&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQsAQ
And the troops were pulled in 2011.
You only have to read the first paragraph. FLASHBACKCombat troops were pulled out in 2009.....with an extension of 10 months.....
On 27 February 2009, at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, President Barack Obama announced his revision to the original date of withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq. The revision was to extend the original date of 30 June 2009 for an additional 10 months, to 31 August 2010.
On 19 August 2010 the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division was the last American combat brigade to withdraw from Iraq.
Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You only have to read the first paragraph. FLASHBACK
Are you aware now of the 'bloody aftermath'? Do you know that there were terrorists murdering innocent Iraqis when the troops were there and that by removing the troops the situation could only get worse?
All you had to do was look at the body count chart to see that the after math of troop withdrawal wasn't nearly as bloody as it was before. Sorry but I don't really consider the CNS a credible source.
Are you aware that there weren't any terrorists in Iraq before the invasion....but because of the war now there are? Bush still gets the credit for the invasion that opened the can of worms we now call ISIS.
Wrong, Saddam literally had terrorist conventions.
Then why can't you prove it with unbiased credible factual evidence?
"Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents."
http://lauren.vortex.com/dod-iraq-aq.pdf
This ought to be big news. Throughout the early and mid-1990s, Saddam Hussein actively supported an influential terrorist group headed by the man who is now al Qaeda's second-in-command, according to an exhaustive study issued last week by the Pentagon. "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives." According to the Pentagon study, Egyptian Islamic Jihad was one of many jihadist groups that Iraq's former dictator funded, trained, equipped, and armed.
The study was commissioned by the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia, and produced by analysts at the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally funded military think tank. It is entitled "Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents." The study is based on a review of some 600,000 documents captured in postwar Iraq. Those "documents" include letters, memos, computer files, audiotapes, and videotapes produced by Saddam Hussein's regime, especially his intelligence services. The analysis section of the study covers 59 pages. The appendices, which include copies of some of the captured documents and translations, put the entire study at approximately 1,600 pages.
An abstract that describes the study reads, in part:
Saddam's Dangerous Friends | The Weekly Standard
What is that supposed to mean?
Sorry but I'm not going to read a pdf that I have to save to my hard drive from a source I'm not familiar with.
lauren.vortex.com on reddit.com
You should be careful, too.
Except that headline is misleading because Obama didn't declare the Iraq War was a success.
Again, from the Gaurdian article.....
"We knew this day would come. We've known it for some time. But still there is something profound about the end of a war that has lasted so long," said Obama. "It's harder to end a war than begin one. Everything that American troops have done in Iraq - all the fighting, all the dying, the bleeding and the building and the training and the partnering, all of it has landed to this moment of success."
And what was that "moment of success"? It was troop withdrawal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?