Paul Shannon:
Despite what is being spread as a narrative, Al Qaeda is alive and well. The terrorist group has now seized the Iraqi city of Mosul. While there are many arguments between people on why we were there or how long we should have stayed, this is still a sign that the terrorist group that killed Americans on our soil is still strong. Every member of our military that fought to free the city are now having to wonder why they were there, if this is being allowed.
The reports on Mosul
The city was taken over last night. Here, via Bloomberg, is what occurred.
Fighters from a breakaway al-Qaeda group seized Mosul after ousting government forces from the northern Iraqi city, extending their reach over the country as central authority crumbles.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called for parliament to declare a state of emergency and pledged swift measures to retake the city from “terrorists,” in a televised speech. Images on television showed cars burning in the city and citizens fleeing the fighting between the and and Iraqi government forces.
Mosul is Iraq’s second biggest city and its capture follows the fall of in the western to the militant group in January. More than three years after pulled out of Iraq, ISIL’s gains expose Maliki’s failure to heal rifts from the sectarian civil war.
Request from the area government
Prime Minister has issued the following plea, which comes via the Kurdistan Regional Government website.
These al Qaeda fighters have named themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant.
Look up on a map where ”the Levant” is.
It includes all of Israel.
This war is by no means winding down.
All the hard work and sacrifices we made to win that war and to have this happen. I guess the reason why a workable security arrangement was not worked out was because it wasn’t needed due to the “fact” that Al Qaeda was decimated on the path to defeat.
This is what happens when you have a pot smoking, marxist, America hating, pro muslim, worthless scumbag with no useful life experience befoul the oval office.
The left has been calling Iraq a “disaster” from the beginning. Now they have finally made that a self-fulfilling prophesy.
How many Americans died only to have Obama give Mosul back to the Islamists?
@Pete: I sent this to a bunch of the guys from unit. They are livid. One was reminiscing about how after AQ and the insurgents were defeated in Mosul, the GI’s could travel around freely and what a beautiful city it was. It makes me wonder what has happened to the area around Balad where I was and to the good people there who stuck their necks out to be our friends. Now that he has almost lost Iraq (amongst other countries) to AQ and its affiliates, I wonder how Afghanistan is going to go down.
Think about it. Who would want to be friends and side with the U.S. in that region knowing that they will be thrown to the wolves for politically expediency. One of my buddies who did multiple tours in Afghanistan said the Green on Blue attacks were virtually unheard of until Obama announced the pull out a few years back. It became a recruiting tool for the Taliban and AQ.
So who was it that signed off on the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement of 11/17/08, which actually set the timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces?
It wasn’t Obama who did that, was it?
That agreement was part of his inheritance.
@Greg:
MediaMatters, Greggie?
ROTFLMAO You are absolutely the most gullible person on this board.
@retire05, #8:
The fact that the story appears in Media Matters is entirely beside the point.
Are you saying that it wasn’t George W. Bush who set up the timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq?
Because that’s precisely what the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement of 11/17/08 did, and it was George W. Bush, not Barack Obama, who did it.
You don’t like Media Matters because they’re pointing out the right-wing bullshit on the topic. That GWB signed this agreement is undeniable. It’s historical fact.
@Greg: “Because that’s precisely what the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement of 11/17/08 did, and it was George W. Bush, not Barack Obama, who did it.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/21/president-obama-has-ended-war-iraq
Oh, well lookie here. Mr. Obama takes all the credit for ending the war in Iraq. Yes, as I said, Bush had established an exit plan from Iraq for, unlike the anti-American left wing rhetoric, we were not there forever. However, it was established that we would leave on OUR timetable, based on conditions on the ground.
But, like everything else, Obama took a silk purse and turned it into a bag of shit. He lost the confidence of the Iraqis and could not even negotiate a status of forces agreement. He ran out on a political, not military, schedule and that detail has not been lost on any of our friends around the world. We see more and more of our past allies throwing their lot in with the Russians, Iranians and Chinese. While Obama epitomizes weakness, they express strength and determination. Without the US to protect them, our friends will succumb to the aggressors by force, so they make their deals as friends.
Obama is a failure. He lost Iraq and he is losing Afghanistan.
There were conditions for the withdrawal under the Bush/Maliki agreement, Greg.
BUSH:
In other words, under the condition of success only would our troops have withdrawn, Greg.
That’s NOT the condition on the ground now, under Obama.
Not at all.
*At that point in Bush’s remarks a shoe was thrown at him.
@Greg:
No clearer example of the difference between leftists and conservatives exists than the example you present. It wasn’t conservatives calling for the withdrawal of US troops REGARDLESS of conditions on the ground at the time of the political decision on the ground. Had Bush pulled the troops out before the fledgeling Iraqi government was ready to sustain itself, Bush would have been criticized by conservatives, just like he was when he pushed the medicaid prescription expansion and the TARP payments. Conservatives are not like leftists, who defend every boneheaded move by their political idols regardless of the impact of their decisions. Bush did things conservatives openly opposed, but his basic character was never considered dishonest by his conservative opponents.
Obama’s problem is his inherent dishonesty, seasoned with a liberal dose of incompetency. He is not trusted nor respected by other national leaders, and his leftist worldview led to the desire to pull out, rather than work to get a new SOFA that would have enabled US forces to remain in Iraq long enough for the government to stabilize. Contrast how long we have had forces in Germany and Japan after we defeated them compared to how quickly we got out of Iraq.
“Mr. Obama has pointed to the American troop withdrawal last year as proof that he has fulfilled his promise to end the Iraq war. Winding down a conflict, however, entails far more than extracting troops.”
Well, what do you know, Greggie; Obama claims he, and not the Bush agreement, is the cause of the end of the war in Iraq.
“In the case of Iraq, the American goal has been to leave a stable and representative government, avoid a power vacuum that neighboring states and terrorists could exploit and maintain sufficient influence so that Iraq would be a partner or, at a minimum, not an opponent in the Middle East.
But the Obama administration has fallen frustratingly short of some of those objectives.’
Catch that, Greggie? Even the lame stream media said that Obama fell frustratingly short of the objectives laid out by Bush.
The attempt by Mr. Obama and his senior aides to fashion an extraordinary power-sharing arrangement between Mr. Maliki and Mr. Allawi never materialized. Neither did an agreement that would have kept a small American force in Iraq to train the Iraqi military and patrol the country’s skies. A plan to use American civilians to train the Iraqi police has been severely cut back. The result is an Iraq that is less stable domestically and less reliable internationally than the United States had envisioned.
That criticism was two years ago in the New York Times, no less, Greggie. Obama tried to control who was in the leadership position in Iraq and the Iraqis didn’t go along. The Iraqis worked well with President Bush, but all Obama could do is lay major goose eggs in Iraq as he lost the trust of the Iraqi government and the Iraqis, themselves.
Now we see the result of Obama’s feckless foreign policy as Iraq, after the extreme cost in American blood and treasure, is being over run and over taken by AQ.
From Obama’s reckless position on Honduras, to Iraq and now Afghanistan, Obama has shown that he is a loser when it comes to foreign policy.
Yes, it was, Greggie. And because of Obama’s arrogance and narcissism, the Iraqis tore it up and threw it in Obama’s face giving him the clear message he is NOT a leader.
@another vet:
What year was the war won? And how was it subsequently lost? How exactly did Obama lose a war that was already won, a war that had lasted longer than WWII by the time he took office? No disrespect, but your anger seems a bit laser focused on one man. Did you forget all the others who led us to this place?
It is really sad that Iraq has come to this:
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/06/10/Iraq-insurgents-overrun-Mosul-govt-HQ.html
Obviously Maliki knows he is on his own.
The people of Iraq will soon be suffering under the harsher version of Sharia that the Taliban practice.
There are No Conditions bad enough to cause Obama to reverse course.
Obama seems to love the Islamist version of Islam as opposed to the moderate version.
@Nanny G, #11:
I’m more inclined to go by what the S.O.F.A. agreement actually said than by how President Bush described it. Essentially there was no provision that would allow the withdrawal date to be unilaterally set to a later time—only earlier. Obama was left with little or no room to maneuver.
Unofficial Translation of U.S.-Iraq Troop Agreement from the Arabic Text
The timetable is spelled out in Article 24.
Peter W. Galbraith, JD, Senior Diplomatic Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation on Nov. 26, 2008:
Galbraith, a democrat, had fully supported the invasion of Iraq.
From U.S.-Iraq Withdrawal/Status of Forces Agreement: Issues for Congressional Oversight, July 13, 2009, page 10:
In other words, the 2008 agreement ruled out a unilateral decision on the part of the United States to remain beyond the end of 2011.
The Bush Administration could have left the matter open for only 60 days and let the Obama Administration address the issue. Instead, a binding decision was signed before Bush left office.
@Greg: Actually Biden screwed up the Status of Forces agreement.
@another vet: Move on Tom, You were there. You walked the streets with these people. You spent time with various government people who wanted more. They never wanted us to leave. They knew their safety and growth depended upon us.
Stupid people do not under stand that a typical senior enlisted man takes 15-20 years to acquire the experience to lead properly. That also applies to Officers, and members of the police force as well as new government officials. Obama wanted to end the war, and Biden got us out of Iraq. Unfortunately, leaving Iraq and ending the war were not the same. These jack asses can never understand. Save your breath and key board!
HOW MANY DO YOU COUNT IN THE VA HOSPITALS?
HEY?
YOU DID WHAT WAS A GREAT WAR, the name and glory was denied to you all,
but you won the WAR, YOUR WAR,
if MALAKI IS UNABLE TO THINK OF A STRATEGY, OR ANYTHING TO KEEP THE ALQUAEDA AWAY,
it’s no more your WAR, let them die for not fighting their enemy,
you left that IRAK SECURE, that is the end game,
enough for AMERICANS TO DIE OR CRIPLE MISSING LIMBS,
now the war is in trying to deal with the hospitals who abuse the BRAVES, THE UNIONS IS YOUR WAR,
within your beloved AMERICA, THEY are the leader, WANT TO
change the USA into a cheap marxist communist country,
THIS IS YOUR CHALLENGE, AND THE BIGGEST ONE,
YOU TAUGHT OTHER COUNTRIES HOW TO FIGHT, NOW LET THEM SPEND MONEY AND TIME ,
AND COURAGE TO FIGHT THEIR OWN WAR, THEIR SOIL IS RED FROM YOUR BLOOD, YOUR LIMBS, because denied the use
to kill your enemy as a war should do,
THAT IS ENOUGH,
VICTORY IS YOUR,S ALONE NOT THEIR’S YET, THEY MUST EARN IT, AS YOU DID, the hard way,
you had the most up to date weapons and where refuse the use of it, that’s why the VETERAN’S HOSPITALS ARE SO FULL,
AND THEY HAVE THE GALL TO ABUSE them even as they are in need now today, in need of their own money, now, today,
there is your war now,
June 11th, 2014.
Tikrit falls to Islamists.
Only four days after Mosul fell.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant now controls territory in eastern Syria and western and central Iraq
Why is this important?
500,000 new refugees.
Oil. Baiji, an oil refinery town, is now surrounded by these same Islamists. It is in flames.
Obama promised to responsibly end the war in Iraq….did he?
Obama surrendered.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/10/us-military-humvees-fall-al-qaeda-offshoots-hands-/
Military Humvees were stolen by an al Qaeda offshoot as the northern Iraqi city of Mosul fell to Sunni militants on Tuesday.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is now transferring the vehicles to Syria for use in its civil war.
See photo of The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) military leader inspecting one of these and grinning.
Gee.
Does Obama consider these terrorists to be ”moderate” terrorists?
But our own troops are called psychos!
@Greg:
Let’s take a look at what you provided in this, shall we, Greggie?
It was left up to the next administration to “extend and replace with a peacetime SOFA” and Obama, as in all cases, failed the test. His arrogance, and his meddling, turned off the Iraqi government. He was unable to get the cooperation of the Iraqi government, and they told him to pound sand. And although you want to ignore that even the NYTimes reported Obama’s ineptness, the fact remains that when it comes to foreign policy, Obama has a solid lock on failure and with the fall of Tikrit, secured at great expense in American blood, we now see that Obama is the least effective president our nation has ever seen when it comes to foreign policy and American influence.
@Randy: I know. It goes back to a comment I made to Pete on another thread about how the lefties talk down to everyone and assume we are all stupid. As for Iraq, they are too ignorant to realize the strategic geopolitical position Iraq holds. That plot of land has always been significant going all the way back to Roman times if not beyond. It would be in the strategic best interests of this country to have a pro-U.S. government there. Like Bill said in #4, the left always wanted and still wants Iraq to be a failure because it serves their interests.
The terrorists have captured a cache of US military equipment, including vehicles. Expect a huge surge in terror attacks using these to gain entrance into densely populated targets.
Thanks again, Obama. Job well done.
@retire05, #22:
No, it wasn’t left up to the next administration. Read the document excerpts. The agreement Bush signed specifically ruled out any unilateral extension of the withdrawal date. The only the thing United States could have done entirely on it’s own authority was to leave even earlier.
You’ve evidently read that portion of the legal analysis, but you don’t seem to be getting the meaning and implications. What it’s saying is that to keep U.S. troops in Iraq longer the binding agreement would either have to either be revised or replaced entirely with a new agreement—neither of which could be done by one nation on its own. Even if that had been politically possible in the United States, which is highly doubtful, it certainly wouldn’t have been in Iraq. They weren’t exactly begging us to stay at that point. So, for all practical purposes, the withdrawal dates were set in stone once the Status of Forces Agreement was signed by President Bush.
President Bush could have simply refrained from signing the agreement, of course, in which case the Obama administration would have been in a position to negotiate. It would only have been necessary to wait 2 more months. But he didn’t. I guess you’ll have to ask President Bush for an explanation.
@another vet, #23:
How on earth does a failure in Iraq serve the interests of anyone in the United States? Removing Iran’s single biggest local worry and creating a power vacuum in so unstable an area was a serious foreign policy error, in my opinion, but once we’d actually committed ourselves the only good outcome would have been a stable democracy. Unfortunately that was never very likely, owing to the fact that there are serious internal divisions and numerous extremist factions.
@Greg:
Well, duh!! Greggie. If you didn’t suffer from acute spin-itis, you would know that I fully understand that. But the “new” (peace) agreement was up to Obama to negotiate, and he failed miserably. Even according to the NYTimes.
Name one foreign nation, Greggie, where Obama has been successful in his negotiations. Honduras? Iraq? Egypt? Libya? He is a failure, but lemmings like you will continue to spin and obfuscate trying to defend those failures. How sad when you are such a political hack you can’t even admit that Obama has been detrimental to our foreign image. And how’s that whole re-set button going with Russia?
@Greg:
How on earth did a failure in Southeast Asia serve the interests of anyone in the United States, yet your left wing Socialist Democratic Party pushed for that, and got it.
@retire05:
What don’t you grasp about the simple facts that such a negotiation would for all practical purposes have been a political impossibility, both on the U.S. end and in Iraq? You’re totally fixated on the erroneous notion that conditions that would have allowed success actually existed. There were no such conditions at any time after the agreement was finalized. Public opinion in both the United States and Iraq precluded reopening the issue. In signing the Status of Forces Agreement 2 months before Obama’s inauguration, the Bush administration had effectively punched holes in the bottom of that boat after first loading it with bricks.
@retire05, #28:
Getting out of Vietnam served the interests of a few tens of thousand more young Americans who didn’t die because we finally saw the wisdom of abandoning a war that ultimately could never be won. In my opinion, 58,220 dead Americans was more than enough.
IT’s GETTING MORE DANGEROUS FOR THE MILITARY,
IN ANY OF THE MIDDLE EAST, where they are disseminated,
because they can recognise their tanks and humvees and would approch them,
unsuspectely, and get shot by the driver enemy in it.
those will circulate in other place to fool the MILITARY, unaware that they where stolen,
even if for just a few seconds, is long enough to get kill, by an enemy in their own humvees,
even if they where advise of it, there is the lap of time to linger so to make sure of who is in the
use to be frendly equipment on wheels,
@Greg:
And you know that how? Were you there? Did you participate in the talks between the Obama misadministration and the Iraqi government? Your mouth is writing a check your a$$ can’t cover.
Again, you’re making a statement you can’t back up. Unless you were there, or privy to the talks between the Obama misadministration and the Iraqi government, you’re just making statements that are total b/s.
@Greg:
Name any of the battles in Vietnam that we lost. Go ahead, I’m waiting.
And what party was the president that got us involved in South Vietnam? What party was the president that lost most of those 58,000+ soldiers?
We lost because of people like you who support Democrats who are more Communist than American. People like John Kerry who should be sleeping in a brig and not a cushy hotel on the American tax payer’s dime.
OOT, Greggie, and I hear Obama say we don’t leave anyone behind, really? How many were left behind from the Democrat’s Southeast Asia disaster?
@retire05, #32:
What I’m “privy to” is nothing more than general information that other people who were paying attention to current events at the time were also aware of. I suppose certain facts might have been missed if you were completely reliant on right-wing media sources for your news. Then you might have believed the spin George W. Bush put on the agreement rather than what the terms of the agreement actually said in black and white. The Iraqi journalist who responded to his remarks with a thrown shoe suggests how well the spin was received there.
There would never have been a chance of successfully renegotiating a later departure date after the document was signed. There was already strong public opposition in Iraq to the continued U.S. presence two years before the signing of the agreement. One shot at setting dates was all we were ever going to get.
I’ve got nothing more to say about Vietnam. You’re just attempting to digress away from the topic.
@Greg:
So basically you gleaned your opinion from those left wing sites you seem to favor. IOW, you don’t have jack crap, boy.
Here is the bottom line: Obama was in charge of the negotiations with the Iraqi government to extend American presence there. He got rolled by al Maliki.
@Greg: #26 “How on earth does a failure in Iraq serve the interests of anyone in the United States?” Exactly. Excellent question. I wondered, during the Bush term and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, why would the left purposefully attack our efforts, accuse our military men and women of war crimes, accuse the Commander in Chief of war crimes and war profiteering and encouraging war protests while we had troops in the line of fire in the war on terror. Obviously, it was about gaining political power, an effort to make any and all policies of Bush to look ill-conceived and stupid, the implication being they (the left) would do much better.
I don’t think political power is worth accusing our military falsely of war crimes or characterizing our war efforts as illegitimate, illegal, immoral, imperial or aggressive. All that does is add additional danger and tension to the duties of our troops. So, yes, why, indeed, would anyone play that game?
But play it the left did, and it is even more apparent they did when we see how the war protests have vanished, political blunders are excused and swept away, increases in terrorist activity is ignored and prisoners and military deaths are just political props to be utilized to vilify opposition.
Why does the left stoop so low? I thought they learned their lesson during Vietnam.
Obama must have wanted this.
“As the threat from Sunni militants in western Iraq escalated last month, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki secretly asked the Obama administration to consider carrying out airstrikes against extremist staging areas.
….
But Iraq’s appeals for military assistance have so far been rebuffed by the White House.
….”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/world/middleeast/iraq-asked-us-for-airstrikes-on-militants-officials-say.html?
So, why else would Obama refuse to assist Iraq’s legal government when Islamists were threatening it?
Obama is pro-Islamist.
@Nanny G:
What you are watching is the fall of Saigon, Iraqi style.
@retire05, #35:
Actually, the bottom line seems to be that you’re as dumb as a box of rocks. Wasting my time is really my own fault, though. I keep forgetting that you always revert to the tactics of a troll when your position becomes indefensible in the face of simple, straightforward facts. You’ll continue to insist that it was up to Obama to renegotiate a binding agreement that conditions clearly rendered open to no further meaningful negotiations, and continue to ignore the fact that Bush could have simply waited for two months, rather than signing a document that locked his successor into what was for all practical purposes an unalterable timetable. You simply can’t see things otherwise. You lack the capacity to be objective about anything that concerns Obama.
@Greg:
Blaa, blaa, blaa.
Let’s see, Greggie; when Bush was replace by Obama, was Obama bound by the things done in the Bush administration? Not only do you not have any valid argument, you seem to know little about the law. One Congress, one Administration, cannot bind future Congresses and future administrations.
Now we are learning, via the NYTimes no less, that the al Maliki government requested air support from Obama to strike at the ISIS staging areas. Obama (or one of his praetorian henchmen) said “No.” So al Maliki request drone strikes. Again, the answer was no. But never fear, Greggie. Help is on its way to Iraq. By Iran.
If you think that is a foreign policy coup for Obama, you’re obviously smoking crack. We spend precious lives to free Iraq from Saddam, to establish an ally in the heart of the Middle East, and the man that you spend tremendous bandwidth defending, just blew that all to Hell. Obama just gave Iraq to Iran. A real Chamberlain, that man is.
And here’s the really idiotic part of all of this; once the ISIS crosses over in Syria, and is fighting against Assad, they will be the people that Obama supports. Of course, we already know that Obama sympathizes with the Communists and the radical Islamist like he did in Honduras and Egypt. But you will squeeze your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears and say “I can’t hear that. I can’t see that.”
What a pathetic little man you are, Greggie. You would sell your soul to defend the Marxist in the Oval Office.
retire05
yes, you are saying the right words as usual,
Greg
MY FRIEND IS ALWAYS STRAIGHT, AIM AND SHOOT
THAT’S MORE THAN WHAT YOU DO,
@retire05, #40:
That would be an example of the sort of trollish behavior I noted in my last post. Something of the sort can be found in most of your posts here.
By the way, Obama apparently hasn’t ruled out airstrikes. He stated a few hours ago that he hasn’t ruled out anything. We can probably expect U.S. airstrikes against ISIS. Nouri al-Maliki stated this would be acceptable to Iraq. The downside—besides the obvious one of putting more American lives at risk—is that we would be taking on extremist factions that Iran has every reason to have serious security worries about. Once again, Iran would be an indirect beneficiary of our actions. And once again, we could find ourselves quickly drawn into a regional conflict where any sort of permanent success would be extremely hard to describe, let alone achieve.
@Greg:
And your point is? Are there trolls here? yep, and you’re one of them. Your soul purpose is to p!imp for the Misadministration.
Vacillation is his forte. Oh, that, and the inability to make a informed decision. He brought this on. And now he wants to bomb the hell out of the very people he was supporting in Syria? Yeah, Obama’s foreign policy is stellar, NOT!
@Greg: Always good for a laugh….Bush won the war and turned it over to Obama to finalize the victory. Obama did his usual thing with his usual ability and everything has now gone to hell. What a dilbert.
@Greg:
I will admit that with Obozo the chances were basically reduced to zero. Zero for Zippy, right?
@retire05, #44:
You’re totally obsessed with Barack Obama. You can’t seem to think about anything or discuss anything outside the context of that obsession. Vacillation has been more evidenced by the gyrations republicans have occasionally gone through to remain on the opposite side of any issue from the person they’re pathologically fixated on. It would really be the stuff of comedy, if there weren’t so much anger and hatred involved, and if it weren’t rendering the nation so dysfunctional.
The truth is that however Obama responds to events in Iraq, republicans will find fault. Airstrikes? Whether republicans support them or not will depend entirely upon whether Obama orders them or not. Whatever he does, they’ll always be totally convinced that someone of their own choosing could have done better.
@Greg:
He has definitely ruled out doing anything to save Iraq. His objective was to give it to the Islams and he has succeeded.
@Greg:
Sooo, you’re now admitting Obozo is rendering the nation dysfunctional? Took a long time for you to recognize that.
@Greg:
Greggie, here’s what Plugs had to say about Iraq just four years ago:
BIDEN (2/11/2010): I am very optimistic about Iraq. I think it’s gonna be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re gonna see 90,000 troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re gonna see a stable Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government…I’ve been impressed by how they’ve been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.”
If anyone is obsessed with Obama, it is you, Greggie, who continues to defend the indefensible. Obama is the administration that reminds me of the Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight. Every thing he touches turns to crap.
Obama has two choices; he can bomb the hell out of the ISIS and accept the collateral damage that comes with it; he can just let them kill each other and eventually Iraq will be totally radicalized, or he can just obfuscate until it is out of his hands.
Personally, I think he should turn the entire place into a glass factory. But I don’t think he will because whatever decision he makes will not have anything to do with our national security, it will only have to do with him image with the far left crowd. His fecklessness when it comes to Iraq is going to come back to bite us. Big time. So when we have more attacks on our soil, like Fort Hood and the Boston Marathon, will you lay the blame at Obama’s feet or will you stick with the far left mantra of “Bush is responsible” like that brain dead Nancy Pelosi did today?
And pleeeeeze, don’t give me that crap about how we should have never gone into Iraq in the first place. That’s ancient history and no amount of your whining can change that. It is what it is, and Obama is not capable of making things better.