Obama Rejected Top General's Advise...

Washington Post  

Pity poor Gen. Lloyd Austin, top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East.

Rarely has a U.S. general given his commander in chief better military advice, only to see it repeatedly rejected.

In 2010, Gen. Austin advised President Obama against withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq, recommending that the president instead leave 24,000 U.S. troops (down from 45,000) to secure the military gains made in the surge and prevent a terrorist resurgence. Had Obama listened to Austin’s counsel, the rise of the Islamic State could have been stopped.

But Obama rejected Austin’s advice and enthusiastically withdrew all U.S. all forces from the country, boasting that he was finally bringing an end to the “long war in Iraq”

Now the “long war in Iraq” is back. And because Obama has not learned from his past mistakes, it is likely to get even longer.

This is the General...:



Last week, Obama announced a strategy to re-defeat the terrorists in Iraq

(Ouch!)




.

You just can't stay away from revisionist history. George W Bush signed the Status of Forces agreement which called for the withdrawal of all troops by the end of 2011. Iraq wanted us out and were unwilling to continue immunity for our troops after 2011. ISIS is a descendant of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which didn't exist prior to George W Bush's foolish invasion in 2003.

Mission Accomplished!!!

If you're calling this General "wrong", you're a racist!




.

So, NB, when it's convenient it was Bush you wanted to get us out of the war, not Obama, huh? I love the way you change things...

Speaking of George Bush and revisionist history....

September 16, 2014  |  


In his  New Yorker article, posted on the magazine’s web site last week, Lawrence Wright tells how the Bush administration deleted 28 pages in the 2002 report of the Joint Congressional Inquiry on 911 probably because they describe in detail the Saudi connection to the Al Qaeda attack and Saudi financing of its operatives in the United States—people who knew two of the hijackers, and may well have been used as conduits for Saudi cash. Some of the money may have come from the royal family through a charity.

In removing the 28 pages Bush said the publication of the information would damage American intelligence operations. The Saudis deny all this.

In fact no one would be talking about it now were it not for families of victims of the attack and insurers, who are suing the Saudis.

Wright goes on to report:

   “There’s nothing in it about national security,” Walter Jones, a Republican congressman from North Carolina who has read the missing pages, contends. “It’s about the Bush Administration and its relationship with the Saudis.” Stephen Lynch, a Massachusetts Democrat, told me that the document is “stunning in its clarity,” and that it offers direct evidence of complicity on the part of certain Saudi individuals and entities in Al Qaeda’s attack on America.   “Those twenty-eight pages tell a story that has been completely removed from the 9/11 Report,” Lynch maintains. Another congressman who has read the document said that the evidence of Saudi government support for the 9/11 hijacking is “very disturbing,” and that “the real question is whether it was sanctioned at the royal-family level or beneath that, and whether these leads were followed through.” Now, in a rare example of bipartisanship, Jones and Lynch have co-sponsored a resolution requesting that the Obama Administration declassify the pages.

But there are other questions here, and they involve the story of how the Bush administration sought to suppress evidence that would reveal how much it knew of the attack plot —and didn’t do anything to stop it.

To resume the story briefly:
http://www.alternet.org/how-bush-administration-covered-saudi-connection-911

I hope Obama declassifies those pages. I never thought it was a coincidence that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Nationals, as was Osama bin Laden.

News Hawk wrote:If you're calling this General "wrong", you're a racist!

I never said the General was wrong. All I'm saying is that his advice was 2 years after Bush signed the Status of Forces Agreement. Obama had little choice but to pull the troops out when Iraq wouldn't continue our wartime immunity for our troops, but you don't like history the way it happened. Your finger is always pointed at Obama, no matter what.

News Buzzard wrote: Obama had little choice but to pull the troops out when Iraq wouldn't continue our wartime immunity for our troops, but you don't like history the way it happened. Your finger is always pointed at Obama, no matter what.

You have caught yourself in Obama’s circular web of lies.  

Congratulations.

You are claiming the war in Iraq ended and the troops came home on the specified date based upon the Status of Forces Agreement signed by George W. Bush.

So how exactly does that fit in with Obama’s claim (and yours) that Obama ended the War in Iraq and brought our troops home?



You have been executing mental and verbal contortionism to try to explain away and blame others for Obama’s & Hillary’s lies and mistakes

THat is exactly what I said Outer! I guess NB can have it both ways.

Outerlimits wrote:So how exactly does that fit in with Obama’s claim (and yours) that Obama ended the War in Iraq and brought our troops home?

Because Obama ended the war and brought the troops home in accordance with the Status of Forces Agreement. What's so hard to understand here???

News Buzzard wrote:

Outerlimits wrote:So how exactly does that fit in with Obama’s claim (and yours) that Obama ended the War in Iraq and brought our troops home?

Because Obama ended the war and brought the troops home in accordance with the Status of Forces Agreement. What's so hard to understand here???

It's hard to understand that Obama takes the credit for ending the war, when Bush had it ending at the same time as Obama's claim. (But Clinton always took credit—even when he was formerly against it.)

Liberalism is a mental disorder...





.

Because you have given credit to Obama for "ending" the war and now you are saying Bush had it planned all along. Which he did.

I'm glad we all agree that it was a good thing to end the war in Iraq!! We shouldn't have gone in there in the first place!!

News Buzzard wrote: Because Obama ended the war and brought the troops home in accordance with the Status of Forces Agreement. What's so hard to understand here???

But you just said:

“Obama had little choice but to pull the troops out…”

How can you give him credit for doing something when he had little choice but to do it?

You gave Obama credit for bringing the troops home; something that was agreed to in a SOF agreement BEFORE Obama was President.

Then…

You blame Bush for the mess in Iraq because he didn’t get the Status of Forces Agreement extended AFTER he left office.

Thanks for play playing.

That is the kind of Common Core thinking that got Obama elected …twice.  After the disaster that has been the Obama Administration, I cannot believe the American people will again elect another inappropriate choice for president. There is no doubt as to what kind of woman Hillary is or what she would do to what remains of America by the time Obama goes.

We never should have invaded Iraq in 2003, and Obama did a great job in bringing the war to a successful conclusion in 2011. Obama would have liked to keep some troops in, but the thug who Bush installed as the Prime Minister wanted our troops out and offered no wartime immunity to them if they stayed there. Don't try to spin it, the Iraq war was a complete debacle brought to us by George W Bush!

It's definitely a good thing for Democrats that all you have to cling to is bashing Obama and Hillary, because Hillary is going to wipe the floor with anybody you put up. Personally I'm going to vote for Sanders in the primary if he throws his name in the hat, but I'll definitely vote for Hillary in the general election. She has more brains in her pinky than anyone the Republicans can put up. The whole goal of this elongated Benghazi fishing expedition is to take Hillary out. I love it when you say get to the truth! What a crock!!!

Muhammed Ali Brown agrees with News Buzzard:

Ali Muhammad Brown is a devout Muslim opposed to U.S. intervention overseas, especially in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iran. At this moment, he is being held in Newark, but he may be extradited to Washington State..."
http://www.inquisitr.com/1475732/muslim-murders-new-jersey-teen-says-its-for-vengeance-for-us-military-killings-in-middle-east/

But sometimes, I feel like we are arguing with a 12-year-old Islamist.




.