- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 31,645
- Reaction score
- 7,598
- Location
- Canada, Costa Rica
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I doubt that as Bill Clinton was no longer in power and speaking after the fact, just when many other Democrats turned their coats. You can't see the politics in his responses???I was referring to president Clinton. But to play along, at one time eighty percent or better of Americans supported the Iraq war, but in the course of time, they'd like to put that genie back into the bottle.
He is a Democrat first and always. Of course he is going to say that!!Really! He never bombed Baghdad? At any rate, he thinks the premature invasion was a mistake and that the weapons inspectors should have been allowed to finish their job, and being there were no WMD's, they would have concluded such and the impetus for war would have been non existent.
:lol: what a cop-out that guy is.
June 23 2004: Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq
Hillary Mann Leverett, at the time the White House director of Persian Gulf affairs, said that Rice and Elliott Abrams, then National Security Council senior director for Near East and North African affairs, met with Clinton several times in the months before the March 2003 invasion to answer any questions he might have. She said she was "shocked" and "astonished" by Clinton's remarks this week, made to voters in Iowa, because she has distinct memories of Abrams "coming back from those meetings literally glowing and boasting that 'we have Clinton's support.' "
That is clearly wrong now and was clearly wrong at the time.
Maliki was was a fool and is saying this as bombs dropped around him. Did Obama really take this guys words that Iraq would remain secure?? Who is more naive? Obama or Maliki?
He is a Democrat first and always. Of course he is going to say that!!
You were referring to Hillary and now come up with a silly 60 minutes interview. Why not just stop.
I wonder what Obama has in store in terms of payback for Panetta ?
You make my point by posting.Malaki didn't need residuals.
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Thursday he believed Iraqi forces would be ready by June 2007 to take full control of security in Iraq, an issue on which he pressed President Bush during their meeting in Amman, Jordan.
In making the argument that his military and police could handle security in the country, al-Maliki has routinely said the force could do the job within six months.
"I can say that Iraqi forces will be ready, fully ready to receive this command and to command its own forces, and I can tell you that by next June our forces will be ready," al-Maliki said in an interview with ABC News.
How's that? AQI was formed by al Zarqawi in Iraq in 2004!
Really! He never bombed Baghdad? At any rate, he thinks the premature invasion was a mistake and that the weapons inspectors should have been allowed to finish their job, and being there were no WMD's, they would have concluded such and the impetus for war would have been non existent.
Really! He never bombed Baghdad? At any rate, he thinks the premature invasion was a mistake and that the weapons inspectors should have been allowed to finish their job, and being there were no WMD's, they would have concluded such and the impetus for war would have been non existent.
Obama and Panetta are all good. This is classic politics, Obama's lame duck, he can't be hurt, Hillary needs help distancing herself from Obama like the 2008 GOP. Candidates had to distance themselves from Bush. It's all bull hockey dude.
The same criticism can be made of all politicians, republican and democrat alike. There is no source of Hillary criticizing the Iraq war, I was quoting president Clinton and provided a link as such. If you don't like that, you know what to do.
He was merely before it before he was against it - a fine and longstanding Democrat tradition
Did you know that all those Democrats who were for the war, the Clintons included, were later against the war? Did you even read your link? You still have no idea what's going on except to parrot that everything is America's fault.The same criticism can be made of all politicians, republican and democrat alike. There is no source of Hillary criticizing the Iraq war, I was quoting president Clinton and provided a link as such. If you don't like that, you know what to do.
I wonder what Obama has in store in terms of payback for Panetta ?
There was a broad sunni-shia-kurd center coalition building after the elections before the ones we just had. We put Joe Biden in charge of sheperding it, and apparently he managed to dick it up bad enough that the other two groups walked, and Maliki was left with no one to build a majority with but the Sadrists. Iraq had the most federal system of any Arab State.
Did you know that all those Democrats who were for the war, the Clintons included, were later against the war? Did you even read your link? You still have no idea what's going on except to parrot that everything is America's fault.
According to Panetta the US had the needed leverage to renegotiate the a SOFA agreement with the Iraqi's.
The White House even coordinated the negotiations.
But Obama wanted out period.
So I'm trying to figure out if his motives were purely Political or if he was just frustrated and wanted nothing more to do with Iraq.
Granted, neither one of those reasons justify what he did
It's pretty simple when examined through a political filter. The Nobel Laureate president wanted to portray an image of peacemaker in the middle east, he apologized, led a 'limited war' in Libya and was planning on running on a platform of "I killed Osama, l-Qaeda is on the run, and "I got our troops out of Iraq".
The date was arbitrary as Obama wanted those troops home in time for the election and even said "they will be able to have Thanksgiving with their families".
He wanted out, no matter what, even rejected a token 10,000 man force to stay behind and help co-ordinate the Iraqi military.
I have yet to see any decision from this White House that was NOT based purely on political positioning, usually after the **** up.
Exactly
Seems. Like he would have learned his lesson by now.
He chose to play Politics with one of the most unstable regions in the world and it backfired.
Iraq never had any experiences with democracy, Saddam Hussein kept the country together by brute force. As soon as he was gone the Kurds more or less became independent. Paul Bremer made things worse by removing the Sunnis from power and Maliki kept only Shiites and his cronies as part of his government, thats why many Sunnis joined ISIS. Iraq can have all the democratic laws it wants but the fact is its a failed state and it isnt working because each faction doesnt want it to work.
The buck stops elsewhere? Where would that be? You may forget a great many things but one thing you should remember is that the Fundraiser-in Chief has been making seriously bad decisions for six years now, to the point where many are asking just whose side this guy is on.There's a fair share of republicans that would like to put that genie back in the bottle too. And I forgot, everything's Obama's fault.
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?