Quote:The president who spent years touting the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq suddenly has had to distance himself from that action.

At the White House on Saturday morning — less than 48 hours after authorizing airstrikes against Islamist militants and humanitarian air drops to save the lives of trapped Iraqi civilians — President Obama blamed his predecessor, George W. Bush, for the absence of American troops in Iraq and rejected the assertion that he could have left a small peacekeeping force in the war-torn nation.


He uttered those after three years, and a successful re-election campaign, in which the full removal of U.S. forces from Iraq was cast as this White House’s most significant foreign policy achievement and one Mr. Obama had promised all the way back to the earliest days of his first presidential campaign in 2008.

Now, however, with the terrorist force the Islamic State running roughshod through Iraq, capturing key territory, slaughtering Christians and promising to “raise the flag of Allah at the White House,” Mr. Obama has begun to adjust the narrative.

“What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision. Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government,” Mr. Obama told reporters just before leaving for a two-week vacation on Martha’s Vineyard. “So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis — a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq. So that entire analysis is bogus and is wrong. But it gets frequently peddled around here by folks who oftentimes are trying to defend previous policies that they themselves made.”

Mr. Obama’s new take on the 2011 troop withdrawal quickly came under fire from a number of political pundits who pointed out the irony of a president moving away, at least in part, from his signature foreign policy achievement.

Ron Fournier of the National Journal tweeted that the president is distancing himself from his own record.

“A promise he kept, and he’s running from it?” he said.

James Taranto, a member of The Wall Street Journal editorial board and editor of OpinionJournal.com, said Mr. Obama apparently is no longer claiming credit for the removal of American forces, something that, until now, he frequently boasted about.

“Obama is not only disclaiming responsibility for the troop pullout but blaming it on George W. Bush,” he wrote Monday.

Indeed, Mr. Obama’s most recent description of the 2011 U.S. troop withdrawal differs greatly from how he portrayed it in 2012, when he was running for re-election against Republican Mitt Romney.


Link to more

(08-12-2014 05:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Talk about being dumba.sses

half the cons on this forum pulled the "Obama shouldn't get credit for the withdrawal because the timeline was enacted under Bush" talking point.

yall always want to have it both ways.

(08-12-2014 05:32 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 05:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Talk about being dumba.sses

half the cons on this forum pulled the "Obama shouldn't get credit for the withdrawal because the timeline was enacted under Bush" talking point.

yall always want to have it both ways.

Honestly, while it was originally Bush's timeline (I'll give your that much), but Obama could've easily reevaluated the timeline and make adjustments as needed.

(08-12-2014 05:48 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  Actually he blamed the Iraqi's
Here's the thing with this guy. He ALWAYS acts like he is the victim of circumstances. He never realizes that he actually has quite a bit of power to influence things. Blaming the Iraqi's for no SofA is ridiculous. He rarely if ever called Maliki to assert pressure. He does not think like most Americans. He sees the US as an agent of evil and chaos. By NOT acting he thinks he is doing the world a favor. By striping the Military of its 'middle class' officers he is ensuring that we have reduced capability, read temptation, to act where there are issues.
America is, if not THE world leader, certainly in the top 3. He does not know how to lead and therefore doesn't want America to lead.

(08-12-2014 05:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 05:48 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  Actually he blamed the Iraqi's
Here's the thing with this guy. He ALWAYS acts like he is the victim of circumstances. He never realizes that he actually has quite a bit of power to influence things. Blaming the Iraqi's for no SofA is ridiculous. He rarely if ever called Maliki to assert pressure. He does not think like most Americans. He sees the US as an agent of evil and chaos. By NOT acting he thinks he is doing the world a favor. By striping the Military of its 'middle class' officers he is ensuring that we have reduced capability, read temptation, to act where there are issues.
America is, if not THE world leader, certainly in the top 3. He does not know how to lead and therefore doesn't want America to lead.

say what you want about him, but I think any sane rational person will say that Iraq was given more than enough to combat ISIS. their failures to form an all-inclusive government and getting completely routed with superior forces is their fault not the US.

now granted you can blame obama but that is for not getting involved in syria

(08-12-2014 05:48 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  He does not know how to lead and therefore doesn't want America to lead.

(08-12-2014 04:40 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  This guy is the most ridiculous person we've ever seen in Washington.

(08-12-2014 05:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 05:32 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 05:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Talk about being dumba.sses
half the cons on this forum pulled the "Obama shouldn't get credit for the withdrawal because the timeline was enacted under Bush" talking point.
yall always want to have it both ways.

Honestly, while it was originally Bush's timeline (I'll give your that much), but Obama could've easily reevaluated the timeline and make adjustments as needed.

Yeah and that was my talking point to counter those morons

(08-12-2014 06:01 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 05:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 05:48 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  Actually he blamed the Iraqi's
Here's the thing with this guy. He ALWAYS acts like he is the victim of circumstances. He never realizes that he actually has quite a bit of power to influence things. Blaming the Iraqi's for no SofA is ridiculous. He rarely if ever called Maliki to assert pressure. He does not think like most Americans. He sees the US as an agent of evil and chaos. By NOT acting he thinks he is doing the world a favor. By striping the Military of its 'middle class' officers he is ensuring that we have reduced capability, read temptation, to act where there are issues.
America is, if not THE world leader, certainly in the top 3. He does not know how to lead and therefore doesn't want America to lead.

say what you want about him, but I think any sane rational person will say that Iraq was given more than enough to combat ISIS. their failures to form an all-inclusive government and getting completely routed with superior forces is their fault not the US.

now granted you can blame obama but that is for not getting involved in syria

I'm sane and rational, and disagree. It takes time and there is no all inclusive time table. Iraq was on the way to being stable, but when we just up and left.....any sane rational person could see this coming.

(08-12-2014 06:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 06:01 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 05:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 05:48 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  Actually he blamed the Iraqi's
Here's the thing with this guy. He ALWAYS acts like he is the victim of circumstances. He never realizes that he actually has quite a bit of power to influence things. Blaming the Iraqi's for no SofA is ridiculous. He rarely if ever called Maliki to assert pressure. He does not think like most Americans. He sees the US as an agent of evil and chaos. By NOT acting he thinks he is doing the world a favor. By striping the Military of its 'middle class' officers he is ensuring that we have reduced capability, read temptation, to act where there are issues.
America is, if not THE world leader, certainly in the top 3. He does not know how to lead and therefore doesn't want America to lead.

say what you want about him, but I think any sane rational person will say that Iraq was given more than enough to combat ISIS. their failures to form an all-inclusive government and getting completely routed with superior forces is their fault not the US.

now granted you can blame obama but that is for not getting involved in syria

I'm sane and rational, and disagree. It takes time and there is no all inclusive time table. Iraq was on the way to being stable, but when we just up and left.....any sane rational person could see this coming.

sorry but you are flat out wrong on this one. Nouri al-Maliki was a terrible leader. considering the resources they had to fight ISIS there is zero excuse for them to be routed as bad as they were and the only way that was possible is incompetent leadership and a government that was losing its credibility.

are you completely unaware of the issues regarding Maliki and not making his govt inclusive enough???

(08-12-2014 06:06 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 05:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 05:32 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 05:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Talk about being dumba.sses
half the cons on this forum pulled the "Obama shouldn't get credit for the withdrawal because the timeline was enacted under Bush" talking point.
yall always want to have it both ways.

Honestly, while it was originally Bush's timeline (I'll give your that much), but Obama could've easily reevaluated the timeline and make adjustments as needed.

Yeah and that was my talking point to counter those morons

I'm confused. You seem to be merely the flip side of those you are criticizing, defending both Obama's earlier claim that he was responsible for the troop withdrawal and his current claim that it was Bush's fault. You and Obama both appear to be equally guilty (alongside the conservatives) of wanting to have it both ways.

(08-12-2014 06:16 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 06:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 06:01 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 05:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 05:48 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  Actually he blamed the Iraqi's
Here's the thing with this guy. He ALWAYS acts like he is the victim of circumstances. He never realizes that he actually has quite a bit of power to influence things. Blaming the Iraqi's for no SofA is ridiculous. He rarely if ever called Maliki to assert pressure. He does not think like most Americans. He sees the US as an agent of evil and chaos. By NOT acting he thinks he is doing the world a favor. By striping the Military of its 'middle class' officers he is ensuring that we have reduced capability, read temptation, to act where there are issues.
America is, if not THE world leader, certainly in the top 3. He does not know how to lead and therefore doesn't want America to lead.

say what you want about him, but I think any sane rational person will say that Iraq was given more than enough to combat ISIS. their failures to form an all-inclusive government and getting completely routed with superior forces is their fault not the US.

now granted you can blame obama but that is for not getting involved in syria

I'm sane and rational, and disagree. It takes time and there is no all inclusive time table. Iraq was on the way to being stable, but when we just up and left.....any sane rational person could see this coming.

sorry but you are flat out wrong on this one. Nouri al-Maliki was a terrible leader. considering the resources they had to fight ISIS there is zero excuse for them to be routed as bad as they were and the only way that was possible is incompetent leadership and a government that was losing its credibility.

are you completely unaware of the issues regarding Maliki and not making his govt inclusive enough???

I am completely aware that Maliki replaced all of his commanders when we left because he didn't trust them. I'm aware that we had no one there to reassure him when old suspicions crept in. We had a President who rarely if ever called him to say that America is still with you. I'm also aware that the US people on the ground REALLY wanted the guy who was just appointed PM. But when you have someone as un engaged and incapable of leadership as our President it shouldn't surprise you. We HAD the trust of the 3 main factions in Iraq and they were willing to make a go of it. Then the President just pulled the rug out.
I'm aware of all that, and more

(08-12-2014 06:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 06:06 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 05:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 05:32 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 05:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Talk about being dumba.sses
half the cons on this forum pulled the "Obama shouldn't get credit for the withdrawal because the timeline was enacted under Bush" talking point.
yall always want to have it both ways.

Honestly, while it was originally Bush's timeline (I'll give your that much), but Obama could've easily reevaluated the timeline and make adjustments as needed.

Yeah and that was my talking point to counter those morons

I'm confused. You seem to be merely the flip side of those you are criticizing, defending both Obama's earlier claim that he was responsible for the troop withdrawal and his current claim that it was Bush's fault. You and Obama both appear to be equally guilty (alongside the conservatives) of wanting to have it both ways.

All I said was that the conservatives can't have it both ways. A year ago they were arguing that Obama shouldn't receive credit for bringing the troops home from Iraq because Bush put the plan in action. Now they are blaming Obama for using a talking point that they themselves have used repeatedly in the past.
That's pretty damn hypocritical don't ya thinK?

(08-12-2014 06:37 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 06:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 06:06 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 05:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 05:32 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Honestly, while it was originally Bush's timeline (I'll give your that much), but Obama could've easily reevaluated the timeline and make adjustments as needed.

Yeah and that was my talking point to counter those morons

I'm confused. You seem to be merely the flip side of those you are criticizing, defending both Obama's earlier claim that he was responsible for the troop withdrawal and his current claim that it was Bush's fault. You and Obama both appear to be equally guilty (alongside the conservatives) of wanting to have it both ways.

All I said was that the conservatives can't have it both ways. A year ago they were arguing that Obama shouldn't receive credit for bringing the troops home from Iraq because Bush put the plan in action. Now they are blaming Obama for using a talking point that they themselves have used repeatedly in the past.
That's pretty damn hypocritical don't ya thinK?

So then do you agree that the troop draw down was Obama's responsibility and that by blaming Bush he is being just as hypocritical as the conservatives you are criticizing?

(08-12-2014 05:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Talk about being dumba.sses

half the cons on this forum pulled the "Obama shouldn't get credit for the withdrawal because the timeline was enacted under Bush" talking point.

yall always want to have it both ways.