Iraq was won. It took Obama to lose it.

Heck of a job in Iraq BHO. Now how does he blame this on Bush?

@john:

Bush was told to stay away from the GOP convention in 2008 AND 2012 because Americans hated him and his ill advised wars so much.

Like most LIVs, you don’t have a clue. Bush was invited to both conventions, but unlike former Democrat presidents, who think they are still running the country, he declined. Unfortunately, the only way that former Democrat presidents go away is when dirt is shoveled over their faces (i.e. Jimmie Carter who continues to think he is relevant)

I suggest you research the SoFA, and what was left to Obama. I also suggest you do a little research in what can, and cannot, bind future administrations.

Going thru life uninformed and stupid is not the way to go, john.

“There are dangers of fierce sectarian violence in Iraq”

Dangers? Really? Has he seen the photos of the behead on the roads of Iraq?

This clown is clueless.

Osama bin Laden is dead, GM is alive and Al Qaeda is on the run.

Just though y’all should know that.

This is no civil war. There are no rebels. They are terrorists, bent on carrying out their evil. With him hanging Iraq out to dry, he’s hung us out to dry as well. There will be no military action of any kind over there. And, he will not take military action of any kind if the terrorists were to come to America. We’re all on our own.

200 U.S. contractors surrounded by jihadists in Iraq

No help from military as escape routes cut off

Benghzi II?

About 200 Americans under contract with the Department of Defense at Balad Air Force Base in Iraq are trapped by the al-Qaida-inspired jihadists who have seized control of two cities and are now threatening Baghdad, according to WND sources.

The sources, private contractors who have recently returned to the U.S. from Iraq, said Friday their former colleagues effectively have been abandoned by the U.S. military and are fighting for their lives against an army of jihadists surrounding the base who belong to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.

The U.S. contractors are at Balad to help the Pentagon prepare the facilities for the delivery of the F-16 aircraft the Obama administration has agreed to provide the Iraqi government.

The surrounded Americans said they currently are under ISIS fire from small arms, AK47s, and rocket propelled grenades, or RPGs.

The contractors so far have been able to hold the base, but those on the scene reported it was only a matter of time before the ISIS terrorists succeeded in breaking through the perimeter. The sources confirmed the contractors were still under siege, despite an Associated Press report Thursday, citing U.S. officials, that three planeloads of Americans were being evacuated from Balad.

Meanwhile Obama leads from behind with his head firmly inserted up his own.

ISIS isn’t al Qaeda. ISIS is so extreme that even al Qaeda wouldn’t have them.

An alternative view on Obama “losing” the war:

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jay-bookman/2014/jun/13/john-mccains-all-sound-and-fury-signifying-nothing/

By Jay Bookman

Sen. John McCain, the man who once claimed that “only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity” of the war in Iraq, the man who said that he could envision U.S. troops remaining in Iraq for 100 years or longer, is now claiming that by 2009 the United States had achieved victory, and that the Obama administration threw that victory away.

“With the surge, we basically had the country pacified,” McCain claimed today on “Morning Joe”. “We had a stable government in Baghdad and we had the conflict basically, for all intents and purposes, won… Anybody who was there will tell you that we had the conflict won.”

No. They would not. Few U.S. military leaders, then or now, would be foolish enough to claim that we had the war basically won. Unlike McCain, whose learning curve flat-lined some 30 years ago, they had learned the hard way that such proclamations of victory or “mission accomplished” had no place in a brutal civil war that was being fought not between militaries but between citizens. The very notion that American troops could “win” such a struggle in a traditional Arab country betrays a total misunderstanding of the nature of the conflict.

Of course, hearing such counter-factual nonsense from McCain isn’t new; it does, however, bring back bad, bad memories. And the memory that is most vivid, the one that reflects most directly on his current credibility, dates back to April 2007, at a time when the Arizona senator was bragging that the surge had been so successful that there “are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through.”

Most people thought the claim was nuts. So to prove his contention to a dubious world, McCain traveled to Iraq and arranged a secret tour of Baghdad’s al Shorja outdoor market, in a delegation that included Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, now governor of Indiana.

After the tour, in comments to the press, McCain basked in what he depicted as a peaceful stroll through the marketplace. “Never have I been able to go out into the city as I was today,” McCain said, chiding the press for not reporting all the good things that were happening in Iraq.

Pence too exulted in his ability to “mix and mingle unfettered among ordinary Iraqis,” and to bargain with shopowners. It was “like a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summer time,” he reported to journalists, who had been barred from accompanying the delegation and thus had no other description to rely upon.

With a little digging, however, it was revealed that Pence, Graham, McCain, Gen. David Petreaus and others on the tour had worn armored vests throughout their visit. They had also been surrounded by a security phalanx of more than 100 heavily armed American troops, who had denied ordinary Iraqis access to the market.

In addition, U.S. snipers had been posted on rooftops before the jaunt began, ensuring that they had clear lines of fire over the entire concourse. And three Blackhawk helicopters and two Apache gunships had hovered overhead for the entire 30 minutes that the delegation was outside their armored Humvees.

Just like “a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summer time”.

It should also be noted that elsewhere in Baghdad that day, six U.S. soldiers were killed by roadside bombs. The day after McCain’s visit, 21 Shi’ites employed at the market were kidnapped by Sunni extremists and killed on their way to work, no doubt as symbolic retribution for the stunt. The week before, some 150 Shi’ites had been killed in a bombing at another marketplace, and 50 Sunnis were killed afterward in reprisals.

That’s how McCain defined success.

In his comments today, McCain argued that a residual American force could have been left in Iraq, just as residual forces had been left in Germany and Japan after World War II. “These people would not have been in danger, either, because we would have had a stable situation,” McCain said. “So you ignore history of what we’ve done after conflicts, which is leave a stabilizing force behind.”

That too is mind-boggling for its willful ignorance:

— Any attempt to compare the security situation in Iraq in 2009, after six years of U.S. occupation, with that in West Germany and Japan in 1951, after six years of occupation, is historically grotesque. Between 2008 — “after the surge had succeeded,” by McCain’s account — and our final withdrawal in 2011, more than 550 U.S. soldiers lost their lives.

— The Iraqis did not want us to stay. They wanted us to leave. In negotiations with President George W. Bush, they had refused to accept an American military presence beyond Dec. 31, 2011, and in the last days of his presidency, Bush reluctantly signed a treaty agreeing to that withdrawal date.**

Upon taking office, President Obama attempted to renegotiate that pact, but the Iraqis still refused. No Iraqi politician could publicly agree to a continued American presence and stay in power; even staying alive might have been hoping for too much, because it was seen as an act of submission to the invader.

— In the current situation in Iraq, exactly what role would this “residual force” be playing today that would not expose them to any danger, as McCain claims. If they were not there to fight, if they would not engage in combat, as he promises, why would they be there at all?

— U.S. military forces were in Iraq for almost nine years. They have been in Afghanistan for more than a dozen years. Those years have taken a huge toll on those who serve in the American military; they have taken a huge toll on the American taxpayer. Any strategy whose success depends on decades-long, open-ended commitment of U.S. forces in a hostile environment is not a strategy at all. It is doomed.

And that’s really the bottom line. John McCain, like many others, wanted this war. He pushed for it, he thirsted for it. In comments on the Senate floor, he predicted that “when the people of Iraq are liberated, we will again have written another chapter in the glorious history of the United States of America.” He predicted that “we will remove a threat to America’s national security because we will find there are still massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”

In other comments, he predicted that the war “will be brief,” and that “it’s going to send the message throughout the Middle East that democracy can take hold in the Middle East.” We would “absolutely, absolutely” be greeted as liberators. None of it was true.

What’s happening today in Iraq is McCain’s legacy. It is the inevitable consequence of decisions that he and too many others advocated and pushed, and the only thing that could make that legacy more shameful would be to try to evade that responsibility and to try to push it onto those struggling to manage the mess that he created.

Which is precisely what he is doing.

What’s happening today in Iraq is McCain’s legacy

Never mind the heavy hitters that voted for H.J.R. 114.

Hillary Clinton (D)
John Kerry (D)
Dianne Feinstein (D)
Chuck Schumer (D)
Joe Biden (D)
Harry Reid (D)

H.J.R. 114 would have not passed had it not been for the Democrats that voted for it. But now, a far left op-ed hack from a far left publication, has decided to place all the blame on John McCain. That way, he doesn’t have to admit that the administration he supports is a loser.

Straight from the horse’s mouth. This is part of Obama’s December 14, 2011 welcome home speech to Soldiers at Ft. Bragg. He either lied about Iraq being stable and self-reliant at that time or it has deteriorated on his watch. To the best of my knowledge, he has been the only President between then and now so blaming Bush amounts to BDS.

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. And we are ending a war not with a final battle, but with a final march toward home.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/12/14/president-obama-fort-bragg-welcome-home

What has happened in Iraq isn’t isolated to that country. It is a broader failure in strategy beginning with the belief that GWOT is over with. If it is, someone forgot to tell AQ, ISIS, and the rest of them. There is a domino effect going on and it was only a matter of time before Iraq became the next target/victim. Anyone with half a brain could have predicted that Syria was going to spill over into Iraq. Rather than give help and protect our ally, we turned our backs. We didn’t need to re-invade or occupy Iraq’s cities again. Securing its western border would have probably sufficed. The only bright spot so far is that the Kurds have stepped up to the plate. They are excellent fighters and have already taken back part of the country from the ISIS.

@Greg: From your own link:

Zawahiri, although a deadly adversary of the U.S., appears to have followed the logic of his mentor Bin Laden, who concluded in his final years that al-Qaeda in Iraq and its leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had grown so toxic with their wanton killing of Muslims (especially Iraqi Shiites) that it had lost its appeal for many Muslims.
The al-Qaeda name had become tarnished enough that bin Laden’s inner circle debated whether the group rebrand itself with a different name that didn’t have such violent connotations.
“Zawahiri has learned the lessons that bin Laden tried to impart,” says the senior administration official, and in that sense is seen as less extremist than some of the offshoots.
ISIS and other ultra-violent splinter groups have not tempered their attacks.
They follow Zarqawi’s super-militant path.
They still see violent attacks, especially on the U.S., as their best recruiting card — which pressures Zawahiri to keep pace.

Mohammad founded Islam on the idea that you must be more peaceable when war would get you killed, but you MUST be violent when you can win.
Osama, Zarqawi, Zawahiri and now the head of ISIS have all followed that principle.
In the USA CAIR uses ”lawfare” because we are just too well armed to start a ground battle with us…..and they usually win, too.
Remember, if you ever read the Koran, there is No Such Thing as permanent Peace as long as there are non-Muslims free on earth. Worldwide Caliphate is the goal. As such lulls exist only for pragmatic reasons, such as taking time to re-arm.
Obama telling Al Qaeda and ISIS that we would be gone by date certain was an invitation to war….near or after that date.

I have the collection called, ”The Al Qaeda Reader.”
It includes the letters between Zawahiri and Zarqawi.
The issue was NOT the violence.
It was the timing!
That was NOT the right time to start murdering fellow Muslims (of different sects).
They BOTH agreed those ”apostates” should be murdered, but, just not then.
ISIS ran ahead by starting murdering Shias before the USA was completely gone.
Had ISIS waited they would have had to also fight al Qaeda!
Because BOTH groups would have loved to own Iraq.

If there are 200 government contractors trapped in Iraq, them that will give BHO all the reason he needs to clean out Gitmo. God save the USA from this fool.

The error was to have gone into Iraq in the first place. We went there after being convinced of the reality of one fantasy, and were sold another fantasy concerning what Iraq would become once Saddam Hussein was removed.

Now the people who were largely responsible are attempting to cover their own sorry butts by pitching yet another fantasy: That Barack Obama is somehow responsible for the entire debacle.

@retire05: I read that the Bamster is in Palm Springs playing Army golf as usual. Left, right, left , right.

Now, to be serious, any air support available, will have to evade hundreds of stinger missiles on the roads to Baghdad. Are these the missing stingers from Libya? Does anybody want to place a bet?

Hi Another Vet (#26):

Ah, health care reform. I’ve written tons about it on this blog and elsewhere. You gave your anecdote; I’ll give mine:

Two close (first degree relatives). Both previously uninsured, because they had to buy plans on the individual market and were uninsurable, because (1) severe pre-existing osteoporosis and (2) prior history of (cured) Hodgkin’s Disease. ObamaCare comes; they can now purchase insurance. Since then (#1) suffered a wrist fracture which required 3 1/2 hours of surgery and (#2) broke his leg (tibia). They’d call themselves “winners.” Overall, the ranks of the uninsured have declined markedly (and they’d have gone down even more, had all those GOP governors done everything they could to block it). Health insurance rates were going up pre-ObamaCare and companies were re-writing policy terms beforehand.

Anyway, the following is brand new, as of today:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/826681

Health care rationing … not by ObamaCare, but by private health insurance.

The following is really under the radar; to my knowledge hasn’t been picked up by any notable media as yet, but it has profound implications.

Basically, Wellpoint Blue Cross is going to pay doctors (in this case, oncologists) bonuses for prescribing what are typically the cheapest minimally acceptable drugs. No, this isn’t part of ObamaCare. This is purely private sector medicine. If the government ever tried to do this, with, for example, Medicare, there would be a huge uproar — loudest of all from people who write on blogs like this.

It’s actually a form of coerced rationing … very devious, and, I’d argue, even evil. One would hope that one’s cancer doctor would prescribe the cancer treatment which, in the judgement of the oncologist, had the best chance of working for the individual patient. But to give doctors financial incentives to use what are, in effect, the cheapest minimally acceptable treatments really turns medical ethics on its head.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal):

While you brag how you support Obamacare (in spite of most doctors who still belong to the AMA) you fail to acknowledge one thing; THE VA. That is pure government run health care and is a forewarning of what is to come under socialized medicine.

Never mind that the AMA’s latest Health Care Report Card, the very thing that determines what health care insurance companies are doing when it comes to totally denying claims, not just recommending cheaper drugs, states that Medicare has the highest rate of denials of any health insurer.

Go away. You were not missed.

JUST A BIT, to show how we miss THE PRESIDENT BUSH,
and more as time goes by,

@James Raider:

The ISIS has reported, on the internet no less, that they slaughtered 1,700 Shias in one act of mass murder. These are the same people that Obama would have backed (along with the addled brained McCain) in Syria. But you see, according to Obama, if they are in Syria fighting Assad they are the good guys.

What our brain dead press, and their faithful followers, don’t understand is that Al Qaeda is exactly what it said it was, The Base. From there all other radical jihadi Islamist groups are formed. Some not so bad, some, like the ISIS, worse. But the beliefs are the same, they only differ in degree of barbarism.

@James Raider:

Shias, al Maliki’s people, are being slaughtered by the ISIS. It is clear that the Man Who Would Be A Golf Pro has no interest in helping Iraq as the ISIS is now less than 50 miles from Baghdad. So it seems reasonable to me that al Maliki (who I partly blame for this mess) will turn to what ever nation can save his a$$. Al Maliki understands that Obama is a Chamberlain, not a Churchill.

Unfortunately the fall out from this will extend well beyond Iraq. Rest assured, all eyes were watching how Obama was going to respond to a major threat to one of our allies, one that made enormous sacrifices during the “former” GWOT. From Putin to China to AQ to the Taliban to our other allies, they were all watching and taking notes. It is quite evident that those running this country are not committed to our cause. They are clueless. Their leftist drones came here touting numbers to “prove” how “successful” this administration has been. Remember being told how Obama killed ‘X’ number of AQ compared to Bush like this is some sort of a video game or sporting event instead of a war against terror? When you look at how much more of an area of influence AQ and their offshoots have, it has grown much, much larger. They have clearly seized the initiative. And before the left gets too far in blaming this on the Iraq War, remember the sequence of events: Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Iraq. History doesn’t support their revisionist claim because if it did, Iraq would have been the first to go. Hopefully between the Kurds, the Shiites, and whatever Sunnis step up, they can turn the tide and retake their country.

Add to all of this the scandals, the flagrant disregard for our laws and Constitution, and the little economic indicators that point to an economy that isn’t what it’s cracked up to be that everyone wants to ignore and this country is in a world of hurt.

@Randy: That’s okay. As long as when they go to vote they pull the lever for the person with the ‘D’ next to their name everything will be just fine.

I knew this was all coming the minute Obama was elected.

George Wells
where have you been, so long,
i just comment on the other post name : NOBODY PREDICTED,……
that 1700 PEOPLE WHERE KILLED IN IRAK, JUST CAME OUT ON FOX,
THEY ARE A KILLING MACHINE, AND THEY TOOK PICTURE ,
OF HUMAN DOWN,
BYE

Of course Obama is either using drones in Iraq or considering it.
But here’s a great case for doing nothing:
Let Them Kill Each Other By Mike Konrad

Lots of good reasons…..
Good for our oil producers here.
They can’t/won’t maintain their weapons.
Iraq was set up with a Sharia-compliant constitution….which flavor Sharia is irrelevant to us.

When Muslims fall out, civilization prospers. Take a hint from Scripture. God is telling us something. They found the Philistines in total confusion, striking each other with their swords. – 1 Samuel 14:20

Nothing makes Muslim group A angrier at you than knowing that you have helped Muslim group B.
We can now bargain with both Jordan and the Saudis to trade our help protecting them for 3 things:
1) Start naturalizing Palestinians

2) Set up truly secular states

3) Protect their women

We all win.
And all Obama would have to do is golf!

@bees #45:

Nobody predicted????
Not true.
There are so many people who like to make predictions, some of them are always right.
What makes this situation confounding is that the predictions of what is actually happening came from people who’s job it was to understand Islam. Their advice was ignored.

I’ve been busy, and my favorite topic (marriage equality) has been abandoned by opponents who believe that their side cannot win – a view reinforced by a unanimous string of court victories by the advocates of my position.
Once gay marriage has been legalized in all 50 states, the question will turn to what sort of exemptions to anti-discrimination laws should apply to religious organizations or to the people who have religious objections to homosexuality. This question will garner some fresh commentary, I suspect, and you’ll probably hear from me then.