Former President George Bush in 2007 predicted terror, death and chaos of Iraq pullout

Former President George Bush in 2007 predicted terror, death and chaos of Iraq pullout



Due to his total inexperience and naiveté, semi-retired President Barack Hussein Obama FAILED to begin negotiating early and hard enough to get an immunity agreement for our troops.

We STILL do not have one so our troops could be tried in Iraqi courts!

Way to go President Obama!

Wow, my Progressive good friends skipped trying to bail out and defend the indefensible and went straight to childish insults and their derogatory ways.

This must really be tough for the little guys.

The predictions alluded to here by Boy George in 2007 did not require much wisdom . . . . it is clear that once we broke it we owned it . . . . . America cannot occupy these shit holes all over the world ad infinitum et al al nauseum.

The GOP narrative throughout all of this...


Before pulling out of Iraq: "We can't pull out now! Are you crazy?!?! This is incredibly reckless!!! We must stay and fight into perpetuity!! We must stay here indefinitely with no real objective in sight!!"


As we are pulling out of Iraq: "Ha! This was all Bush's idea! This was all Bush's idea! Obama isn't really pulling out! Bush is! This was all set in place under Bush!!! Obama is not responsible for this!"


The war in Iraq is over: "Pulling out was a disaster!!!! All blame lies with Obama!!!1 Obama should not have pulled out!!! Obama is to blame for ISIS!!!!"

“It’s harder to end a war than begin one. Indeed, everything that American troops have done in Iraq -– all the fighting and all the dying, the bleeding and the building, and the training and the partnering -– all of it has led to this moment of success. Now, Iraq is not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people. We’re building a new partnership between our nations.”

“We remember the surge and we remember the Awakening -– when the abyss of chaos turned toward the promise of reconciliation. By battling and building block by block in Baghdad, by bringing tribes into the fold and partnering with the Iraqi army and police, you helped turn the tide toward peace.”

“And we remember the end of our combat mission and the emergence of a new dawn -– the precision of our efforts against al Qaeda in Iraq, the professionalism of the training of Iraqi security forces, and the steady drawdown of our forces. In handing over responsibility to the Iraqis, you preserved the gains of the last four years and made this day possible.”

“Because of you, in Afghanistan we’ve broken the momentum of the Taliban. Because of you, we’ve begun a transition to the Afghans that will allow us to bring our troops home from there. And around the globe, as we draw down in Iraq, we have gone after al Qaeda so that terrorists who threaten America will have no safe haven, and Osama bin Laden will never again walk the face of this Earth.”

“So here’s what I want you to know, and here’s what I want all our men and women in uniform to know: Because of you, we are ending these wars in a way that will make America stronger and the world more secure. Because of you.”

Obama 12/2011

knothead wrote:The predictions alluded to here by Boy George in 2007 did not require much wisdom . . . . it is clear that once we broke it we owned it . . . . . America cannot occupy these shit holes all over the world ad infinitum et al al nauseum.

Worked well in Germany, Japan and South Korea.

There is a world economy now, you probably did not notice. Just because we do not get oil from the Middle East does not mean our friends and allies do not. We have an obligation to defend them too.

Markle wrote:

knothead wrote:The predictions alluded to here by Boy George in 2007 did not require much wisdom . . . . it is clear that once we broke it we owned it . . . . . America cannot occupy these shit holes all over the world ad infinitum et al al nauseum.

Worked well in Germany, Japan and South Korea.

There is a world economy now, you probably did not notice. Just because we do not get oil from the Middle East does not mean our friends and allies do not. We have an obligation to defend them too.

You sound just like samantha power... how does it feel being in lock step with the progressive "responsibility to protect"?

Markle wrote:

knothead wrote:The predictions alluded to here by Boy George in 2007 did not require much wisdom . . . . it is clear that once we broke it we owned it . . . . . America cannot occupy these shit holes all over the world ad infinitum et al al nauseum.

Worked well in Germany, Japan and South Korea.

There is a world economy now, you probably did not notice.  Just because we do not get oil from the Middle East does not mean our friends and allies do not.  We have an obligation to defend them too.

Within limits . . . . . .

boards of FL wrote:The GOP narrative throughout all of this...


Before pulling out of Iraq:  "We can't pull out now!  Are you crazy?!?! This is incredibly reckless!!!  We must stay and fight into perpetuity!!  We must stay here indefinitely with no real objective in sight!!"


As we are pulling out of Iraq :  "Ha!  This was all Bush's idea!   This was all Bush's idea!  Obama isn't really pulling out!  Bush is!  This was all set in place under Bush!!!  Obama is not responsible for this!"


The war in Iraq is over: "Pulling out was a disaster!!!!  All blame lies with Obama!!!1  Obama should not have pulled out!!!  Obama is to blame for ISIS!!!!"

Cute try.  Republicans and Conservatives said from day one that pulling all the troops out would lead to a catastrophe.

You just can't admit that our semi-retired President really screwed the pooch ALL BY HIMSELF.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/opinion/27sat1.html?_r=0

EDITORIAL
The Bait-and-Switch White House

Published: January 27, 2007


We often wonder whether there is a limit to the Bush administration’s obsession with secrecy, its assault on the rule of law, its disdain for the powers of Congress, its willingness to con the public and its refusal to heed expert advice or recognize facts on the ground. Events of the past week suggest the answer is no.

In his State of the Union speech, Mr. Bush stuck to his ill-conceived plans for Iraq, but at least admitted the situation was dire. He said he wanted to work with Congress and announced a bipartisan council on national security.

That lasted a day. By Wednesday evening, Vice President Dick Cheney was on CNN contradicting most of what Mr. Bush had said. We were left asking, once again, Who exactly is running this White House?

While Mr. Bush has been a bit more forthright lately about how badly things have gone in Iraq, Mr. Cheney spoke of “enormous successes” there and refused to pay even curled-lip service to consulting Congress. Whatever votes Congress takes on Iraq, Mr. Cheney said, “it won’t stop us.”

Whenever the vice president does this sort of thing, and it’s pretty often, Americans are faced with an unpleasant choice: Are Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney running a bait-and-switch operation, or does the vice president simply feel free to cut the ground out from under Mr. Bush?

All of that was distressing enough. But in Friday’s Times, Adam Liptak gave an account of the way the administration — after grandly announcing that it was finally going to obey the law on wiretapping — is trying to quash lawsuits over Mr. Bush’s outlaw eavesdropping operations by imposing outrageous secrecy and control over the courts.

Justice Department lawyers are withholding evidence from plaintiffs and even restricting the access of judges to documents in cases involving Mr. Bush’s decision to authorize the warrantless interception of e-mail and phone calls. In one suit, Justice Department lawyers tried to seize computers from the plaintiffs’ lawyers to remove a document central to their case against the government.

In response to these and other serious concerns, the Justice Department offered only the most twisted excuses, which a federal judge rightly compared to “Alice in Wonderland.”

When government lawyers tried to take back a document that has circulated around the world, the judge asked a Justice Department lawyer, “Who is it secret from?” The answer: “Anyone who has not seen it.”

These are not isolated events. The government has made the same Orwellian claims of secrecy in a lawsuit over the president’s decision to create secret C.I.A. prisons for terrorism suspects. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales routinely stonewalls legitimate Congressional requests for documents and information on a wide range of issues. He negotiated a secret agreement to give supposed judicial oversight to Mr. Bush’s wiretapping program, with a court that does not permit anyone into its hearings to argue against the government.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney claim that they are protecting the powers of the presidency. At least that’s the bait they use to explain their trampling on civil liberties and the constitutional balance of power. But by abusing the government’s legitimate right to claim secrecy in court hearings, they will make it harder for other presidents to do that when it is actually justified. And with that switch, they have done grievous harm to the credibility of the Oval Office and the country.

******************

For all those with selective memory.

Mr. Markle : "Due to his total inexperience and naiveté, semi-retired President Barack Hussein Obama FAILED to begin negotiating early and hard enough to get an immunity agreement for our troops.

We STILL do not have one so our troops could be tried in Iraqi courts!

Way to go President Obama!".



Due to his total inexperience and naiveté, Pres. George W. Bush, FAILED to begin negotiating early and hard enough to get an immunity agreement for our troops.

We STILL do not have one so our troops could be tried in Iraqi courts!

Way to go Mr. Bush!".

What difference does it make whether Bush or Obama or both brought about the mess we're confronted with today in the Mideast?

What matters now is what we do NOW. No Mideastern country thus far (other than Iran) has proposed to offer troops with which to confront ISIS.

So if we're going to fight ISIS, we'll be the ones in the air and on the ground, and we'll have to pay for it.

And still unsolved, is if you fight ISIS, how do you convince a Sunni that we're not choosing to support the Shias again in their 1400 year-old conflict?

Maybe Herr Markle can provide a solution ....

Funny- blaming bush for no SOFA agreement . It wasnt. The job of Bush to negotiate for that renewal. It was up to the Muslim to negotiate with his cousins over that item. BHo used it politically as a way to cut and run. Being a POTUS means you do things that are Presidential. You do what it takes to take to and convince others.
Of course, even in his own country when he had both houses of Congress he couldn't even get his own party to pass a budget. Then when he couldn't get what he wanted on healthcare he rammed that
Through with a process called reconciliation. Once America got fed up with that bS and still couldn't be Presidential with his own people still,
He got the rules to the Senate changed to prevent filibusters.......

..... And he still can't get legislation passed. So, I am sure there are those in the Muslim world watching and they just do th same .... Blow him off because they can and nothing negative happens......

http://cjonline.com/blog-post/lucinda/2012-10-15/obama-has-never-had-control-over-senate-%E2%80%93-not-once

TOPEKA CAPITAL-JOURNAL
Lucinda's Blog

Mon, 10/15/2012 - 10:26pm


"Obama has NEVER had control over the Senate – not once!

Can we, once and for all, put that lie to rest?

People I actually like and respect keep repeating this malarkey (my latest fun word). I don’t care if you heard it in Sunday School (and in Kansas… you may have) – it’s a lie.

Before I accuse anybody of being unbelievably forgetful, I will admit that I can’t remember what I had for breakfast today. Being forgetful is not a crime. Lying is sometimes a crime, but when you lie on internet political blogs, that’s not a crime. However, it should tug at your conscience a bit.

Let’s take a trip back to 2008.

And let’s brush up on some basics. First, did you forget that the President needed 60 votes to pass legislation? The healthcare bill is a good example of that. There were NOT 60 Democrats in the Senate. Remember that? So there had to be reconciliation.

What about the Stimulus? Again, there was NOT 60 Democratic votes to pass it. Reconciliation did not work. It was blocked by the Republicans, and Obama traded job-creating for tax cuts. Remember those tax cuts he let go on? Yep, traded for job creation - which it did accomplish as much as the baby stimulus that he was able to get would allow.

Is it all coming back to you now? How about this: It was Obama’s inaugural dinner. Senator Kennedy suffered a seizure. It’s kind of hard to work when you’ve had a seizure. He went back to Massachusetts.

Old news is so much fun to go back and read about. Here’s one I had forgotten, too. Al Franken had not yet been seated because the previous senator had challenged the election. Mein Gott, that went on forever with no way for him to vote in the Senate.

With Kennedy in Massachusetts and Franken in purgatory, awaiting his chance in the hell that is Congress, that left just 58 votes in the Senate. Memory Refresher: It took 60 votes to pass a bill in the Senate. The Republicans were already playing dirty politics and would not work across the aisle with the Democrats.

By the way, that was 56 Democrats and 2 Democratically-minded Independents. Not 58 Democrats.

Then, in April 2009 – good news. Republican Arlen Specter switched to Democrat. That gave the Democrats 60 seats with which to discourage a Republican filibuster (their most prized procedure at the time). But… oh no… we forgot, Al Franken was still in Purgatory out there in election recount turmoil. So… back to 59 votes. And guess what… Specter said he could not be counted on by the Democrats to help overcome a filibuster. He was a DINO. He had only left the Republican Party because they had become the Tea Party.

We can pause here to lovingly remember the filibuster I just mentioned. Republicans made history during that time by using it more than any time ever before. Reminder (because this can get confusing): It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. The Democrats only had 59 at this point… technically. One of those votes was the very ill, Senator Kennedy. He did cast one vote during that time. And Specter was not reliable in filibusters.

Then, Senator Byrd was admitted to the hospital.

Then Al Franken was sworn in but Byrd was still in the hospital and Kennedy was too sick to ever vote again.

Senator Byrd finally returned, but Kennedy did not.

It wasn’t until September 24, 2009 that Senator Kirk was appointed to Kennedy’s seat, and finally they had the 60 votes. But alas, they could not count on Specter. Therefore, Obama did NOT have control of the Senate even yet.

That (hopefully) filibuster-proof 60 votes lasted exactly 4 months – Not 2 years. Not 1 year.

Just 4 months – from September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010 - when Scott Brown was sworn in.

But here’s a fact that nobody can deny:

Republicans had the presidency, the House, and the Senate from 2001 – 2007.

For six years, Republicans had control over everything.

And how did that work out in the final analysis?

It doesn’t bear repeating. You know the answer to that as well as I do. Six years to screw up the whole country – nay, the entire damned world!

And you whine because Obama could not fix it all in four months – especially since he did not control the Senate? He had at least one man who said, “You can’t count on me in a filibuster.” That man was Arlen Specter.

Alright, I expect you to whine. But from this point on there is no excuse for lying. Not now that you know the truth..."

ZVUGKTUBM wrote: ...It was up to the Muslim to negotiate with his cousins over that item...

And with that statement, PaceDog's credibility just shrank another inch or so...... Or, maybe it was a foot.....

Credibility? What credibility? It's as low as it can get . . . .