Can this guy get a single thing right when it comes to foreign policy?

Letting Iraq fall into the hands of jihadists (1) is a spit in the face to the people who served there, and (2) opens the door for another sovereign government in cohort with Islamic terrorists, which led directly to 09/11.

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

Iraq is in jeopardy of falling, Afghanistan is a mess. Putin is seizing territory, and our Mexican border is in absolute disarray.

That's effective leadership, boy.

We lost Fallujah once and President Bush ordered the retakeing . Thousands of Al Qaeda were killed but we lost 95 Great American. Obama has wasted those lives. I think at this point we should pull all troops out. We currently have a battle plan of surrender . We have the world's best army at breaking things and killing the enemy . We suck at nationbuilding. If you are not going to pull the gloves off and let our boys fight then bring them all home.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm still waiting for the Rs to have more hearings to determine whether we were told the biggest lie of the 21st. century or if it was the biggest intelligence failure of the 21st century.

I'm still waiting for the Rs to have more hearings to determine whether we were told the biggest lie of the 21st. century or if it was the biggest intelligence failure of the 21st century.

The Rs are probably afraid that Spence will trash them by calling it all old news.

I think at this point we should pull all troops out. We currently have a battle plan of surrender . We have the world's best army at breaking things and killing the enemy . We suck at nationbuilding. If you are not going to pull the gloves off and let our boys fight then bring them all home.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Ummmm, US troops left in 2011 buck.

I love it, blame Obama for a war Bush started.

I don't think Iraq is going to fall. The government needs to regroup. There will be more fighting. If they try and push further north the Kurds will kick their asses.

-spence

Ummmm, US troops left in 2011 buck.

I love it, blame Obama for a war Bush started.

I don't think Iraq is going to fall. The government needs to regroup. There will be more fighting. If they try and push further north the Kurds will kick their asses.

-spence

I meant both places but thanks for assuming I'm not as bright as you buddy .
Blaming Bush for Obama's abysmal foreign-policy isn't right either.
I stand by the rest of my statement .
Al Qaeda surely seems to be on the run .....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm still waiting for the Rs to have more hearings to determine whether we were told the biggest lie of the 21st. century or if it was the biggest intelligence failure of the 21st century.

Well, the Dems controlled Congress during the end of Bush's term, so it stands to reason that if anyone thought anyone lied, they would have been responsible.

If believing that Iraq had WMDs is indicative of lying or failure, I assume that you won't be voting for Hilary Clinton, because she said she was certain they had WMDs, and she voted in favor of the war.

There was an awful lot of evidence that led a lot of liberals to believe they had WMDs. Hindsight it always 20/20, isn't it?

Just because Rush says it's obamas fault doesn't mean it's obamas fault.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ummmm, US troops left in 2011 buck.

I love it, blame Obama for a war Bush started.

I don't think Iraq is going to fall. The government needs to regroup. There will be more fighting. If they try and push further north the Kurds will kick their asses.

-spence

"blame Obama for a war Bush started"

I didn't hear a single person blame Obama for the war. Not one. Can you point to one?

Obama inherited a stabilizing Iraq, thanks to the Surge (which Obama and Hilary both mocked, by the way). Obama implemented the withdrawal which occurred on his watch, and the effects have not been favorable. It's absolutely fair to hold him accountable for that, as he had some choices available.

We do stink at nationbuilding. But if we learn anything from 09/11, we need to learn that it's not in our interests to allow for sovereign govenrments to be friendly with jihadists. That threatens our security. The fact is, we might well be better off right now had we not invaded to begin with. But we did invade, we can't change that, all we can do is manage the afetrmath as best we can, and the guy in charge now, has zero ability to solve these problems. I

raq is a lot less stable today than it was when Obama took office. That's fact. The deterioration is not all his fault. But he deserves some blame.

Obama inherited a stabilizing Iraq, thanks to the Surge (which Obama and Hilary both mocked, by the way). Obama implemented the withdrawal which occurred on his watch, and the effects have not been favorable. It's absolutely fair to hold him accountable for that, as he had some choices available.
Didn't we negotiate with terrorists during the surge?

Iraq wanted us to leave and most Americans wanted us to leave. Given how broken the country was/is I don't see how any US action short of a continued occupation could provide the kind of stability you seem to think is reasonable.

The simple fact is the Iraqi people have to step up and do this themselves. The world can help, but you can't make the horse drink...

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;



The simple fact is the Iraqi people have to step up and do this themselves. The world can help, but you can't make the horse drink...

-spence[/QUOTE]

I totally agree with this and if the wrong people get in power over there, and become a threat to national security we bomb them into the Stone Age again .
It took two weeks to take over Iraq .

Hysterical you bringing up the cost of the war .....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Didn't we negotiate with terrorists during the surge?

Iraq wanted us to leave and most Americans wanted us to leave. Given how broken the country was/is I don't see how any US action short of a continued occupation could provide the kind of stability you seem to think is reasonable.

The simple fact is the Iraqi people have to step up and do this themselves. The world can help, but you can't make the horse drink...

-spence


"most Americans wanted us to leave."

Most Americans would like tax rates of zero. That's why we are a republic, and not a pure democracy, we don't put everything to a referendum.

"I don't see how any US action short of a continued occupation could provide the kind of stability you seem to think is reasonable."

I agree. I supported a long term, small occupying force. And that term, "occupying", is a little offensive to the kids whose boots are on the ground. We weren't there for conquest, or I'd have an oil well with my name on it.

"stability you seem to think is reasonable"

Spence, you tell me, is the stability I envision not a worthwhile goal? Given what happened on 09/11, do you disagree when I say we can't allow the jihadists to control a nation? I cannot wait to hear your response. You're OK with the jihadists taking over Iraq, or with the kooks in Iran taking over Iraq?

I got 20 emails yesterday from citizens I be-friended when I was there. None of them understands why we left, and sure as hell, it puts those who helped us, at great risk now that we aren't there to protect them. When the jihadists take control Spence, what do you suppose happens to the Iraq citizens who helped us?

That seems to be a pattern with your hero, ask the Pakistani doctor who helped us catch Bin laden. Oh that's right, you can't ask him, we let the Pakistanis throw him in prison instead of bringing him here and giving him the $25 million reward he earned...and then continue to give them foreign aid.

Kudos to you and Obama, Spence. Kudos.

It's an absolute joke.

Well, the Dems controlled Congress during the end of Bush's term, so it stands to reason that if anyone thought anyone lied, they would have been responsible.

If believing that Iraq had WMDs is indicative of lying or failure, I assume that you won't be voting for Hilary Clinton, because she said she was certain they had WMDs, and she voted in favor of the war.

There was an awful lot of evidence that led a lot of liberals to believe they had WMDs. Hindsight it always 20/20, isn't it?

I always laugh at the line that people who voted in favor of war (based on either a huge lie or a huge failure) should be held to that vote.

So what was it - a huge intelligence failure or a huge lie?

It was a huge joke
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I always laugh at the line that people who voted in favor of war (based on either a huge lie or a huge failure) should be held to that vote.

So what was it - a huge intelligence failure or a huge lie?

Hilary (and many other Dems) saw the same evidence that Bush and his staff did, and came to the same conclusion. Now, if Bush manufactured evidence to pursuade the Senate Democrats, she should not be held accountable (and he would have been impeached and prosecuted). If what she saw was an honest presentation of available evidence, then she reached the same wrong conclusion that Bush did.

It was an intelligence failure. Hilary, in particular, had said that she (and he hubby) were certain that Iraq had WMDs.

Hilary took it further and told Gen Petreus (when he told the senate the benefits he though tthe surge could bring) that to believe what the general was saying, "requires the willful suspension of disbelief." In other words, she told Petreus he was lying about what h ethought the Surge could do.

Once again, Hilary was absolutely wrong, because the Surge worked beautifully. Unlike being wrong about WMDs, she was in a minority of people who denied the Surge could work. And she's qualified to be POTUS?

Ok, so it was the biggest intelligence failure of the 21st century. Their colossal incompetence lead to how many soldiers (4,500??) deatlhs and 000s of billions of $ wasted.


Clinton saw only what was given to her. The admin. ignored any evidence that didn't conform to what they wanted it to show (curveball). The admin. even planted a story w/the NY Times about the alum. tubes then had Powell/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield go on the Sunday morning talk shows and they used that Times story to make the arguement that Iraq was using them for nuclear weapons.

Is planting a story then using that story to justify something an intellegence failure or a deliberate act and does that then rise to a level for impeachment?

Our own Nation needs rebuilding too and should take total precedence
over a nation that HATES everything AMERICAN.

Consider it gone!

Iraqi security forces are dropping their arms, shedding their uniforms and running. If their own army doesn't feel it's worth dying for, why should we send Americans there and ask them to make the Iraqi cause worth dying for? The militants are looking for pilots to fly US helicopters that were deserted by the Iraq army in Mosul - so they can shoot at American soldiers in the coming months?

As long as the oil keeps flowing we won't go in there again. As soon as those wells get shut down, it's On... Watch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ok, so it was the biggest intelligence failure of the 21st century. Their colossal incompetence lead to how many soldiers (4,500??) deatlhs and 000s of billions of $ wasted.


Clinton saw only what was given to her. The admin. ignored any evidence that didn't conform to what they wanted it to show (curveball). The admin. even planted a story w/the NY Times about the alum. tubes then had Powell/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield go on the Sunday morning talk shows and they used that Times story to make the arguement that Iraq was using them for nuclear weapons.

Is planting a story then using that story to justify something an intellegence failure or a deliberate act and does that then rise to a level for impeachment?
I believe it's around 6-8 Trillion after debt service.

I've never said Bush lied and I doubt you could prove it if you tried. But when it comes to deception on a gross scale it's almost hard to comprehend.

-spence

Consider it gone!

x2

I'm still waiting for the Rs to have more hearings to determine whether we were told the biggest lie of the 21st. century or if it was the biggest intelligence failure of the 21st century.

Why have those hearings when Joe Biden said to Larry King in 2010 that Iraq could be one of the Obama administration's greatest achievements:

"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."

I guess Obama decided to turn his back on his great achievement.

Ok, so it was the biggest intelligence failure of the 21st century. Their colossal incompetence lead to how many soldiers (4,500??) deatlhs and 000s of billions of $ wasted.


Clinton saw only what was given to her. The admin. ignored any evidence that didn't conform to what they wanted it to show (curveball). The admin. even planted a story w/the NY Times about the alum. tubes then had Powell/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield go on the Sunday morning talk shows and they used that Times story to make the arguement that Iraq was using them for nuclear weapons.

Is planting a story then using that story to justify something an intellegence failure or a deliberate act and does that then rise to a level for impeachment?

Paul, it's easy to say, after the fact, that it was incompetent to conclude they had WMDs. But did you witness a presentation of the available evidence? I did. Based on the available evidence, it was amazing to me that anyone could conclude there weren't WMDs.

Saddam signed a treaty, ending the first Gulf War, to give weapons inspectors complete access. He repeatedly kicked them out. That alone, is pretty compelling evidence that he's hiding something.

If based on that evidence, Bush concluded there were no WMDs, and it turned out there were? I bet we'd all be a lot more critical.

Intelligence, unfortunately, is not an exact science. You can't always find something the size of a refrigerator in a place the size of California.

Anyway, if it shows "colossal incompetence" to conclude there were WMDs, that applies to everyone who reached that conclusion, including Hilary. So can we all assume you wouldn't vote for her, since according to you she's a colossal incompetent? I'd love to hear the answer to that...

Detbuch - if he said that then he was wrong. I'm not here to defend him.

Jim - I watched on tv the same things you did and thought there were WMDs. I also thought Blitz (??) should have been given the more time he wanted to continue looking. The point it that the adm. seemed to have ignored or down played every bit of evidence that was contrary to their view that they had WMDs. Look what they did with the tubes, Libby planted the story then they used that story to justify the invasion. Seems like there are more hearings on what happened the first few days in Bengazi than what happened then.

Iraqi security forces are dropping their arms, shedding their uniforms and running. If their own army doesn't feel it's worth dying for, why should we send Americans there and ask them to make the Iraqi cause worth dying for? The militants are looking for pilots to fly US helicopters that were deserted by the Iraq army in Mosul - so they can shoot at American soldiers in the coming months?
The big dynamic here is that the security forces running are Shiite who were in charge of Sunni areas. That's why they have no loyalty...

-sence

Our own Nation needs rebuilding too and should take total precedence
over a nation that HATES everything AMERICAN.

"a nation that HATES everything AMERICAN"

The thing is, it's not remotely true to say the nation hates everything about us. When I was there, we were treated klike heroes in many places, the locals could not contain there affection towards us. It's the monsters that run things that hate us.

Should we risk American lives to help people that live in Iraq? That is a deep, profound, important question. I would say yes, but reasnable people can disagree. We can't save everybody, and I wouldn't want to be the one to decide which lives we save and which we don't.

The US military did incalculable good there. A few years ago, they had free, stable elections in that country, and no one elected the Islamic militants to any position that mattered. It looked very, very promising.

Poof.

The question of whether or not we risk American lives is a difficult question. What is easy, is the decisikon to ensure that AFTER we lost thousands of lives to make thinngs better, that we honor the fallen (and their families) by ensuring that the progress doesn't vanish. That's what appears to be happening.

Many Americans are OK with the notion of putting themselves at risk to bring freedom to those who don't have it. No one should be OK with watching that hard-earned freedom vanish before our eyes, because that means it was all for nothing.

I don't get how anyone can say they think Obama is the least bit competent at anything, unless they are on the dole. I just don't get it. I don't think he could be doing more long-term damage than he is doing.

Detbuch - if he said that then he was wrong. I'm not here to defend him.

Jim - I watched on tv the same things you did and thought there were WMDs. I also thought Blitz (??) should have been given the more time he wanted to continue looking. The point it that the adm. seemed to have ignored or down played every bit of evidence that was contrary to their view that they had WMDs. Look what they did with the tubes, Libby planted the story then they used that story to justify the invasion. Seems like there are more hearings on what happened the first few days in Bengazi than what happened then.

Of course, you have a point.

But I keep coming back to this...Bush gave Saddam plenty of chances to avoid war by letting the inspectors do their job (which he was obligated to do). If Bush was hell-bent on war, he wouldn't have gived Saddam a dozen chances to avoid war by simply complying with international law. To say that Bush had made up his mind to invade and wasn't going to be dissuaded, is refuted by that simple fact.

Lots of people were wrong. If you want to call that a sign of some degree of incompetence on the part of everyone who was wrong, that's got some validity to it I guess. I'd call it an honest mistake, not something that was a calculated deception.

But I keep coming back to this...Bush gave Saddam plenty of chances to avoid war by letting the inspectors do their job (which he was obligated to do). If Bush was hell-bent on war, he wouldn't have gived Saddam a dozen chances to avoid war by simply complying with international law. To say that Bush had made up his mind to invade and wasn't going to be dissuaded, is refuted by that simple fact.
Much of Bush's inner circle didn't want him to even go to the UN because they feared it would stop the process. They did it only for legitimacy, and abandoned it when it became clear that Hans Blix was heading towards a call of no WMD.

There certainly is debate if the US complied with international law by moving forward with the invasion.

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;

There certainly is debate if the US complied with international law by moving forward with the invasion.

-spence[/QUOTE]

???? Did this just happen???
I bet even your blinders have Obama stickers on them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim - if I remember correctly Sadam was starting to give the inspectors a lot more cooperation near the end once it was obvious we were heading down the road to invasion. I don't think a little more time would have hurt anything.

I don't know if it was a honest mistake or deception but the admin. did have blinders on.

Much of Bush's inner circle didn't want him to even go to the UN because they feared it would stop the process. They did it only for legitimacy, and abandoned it when it became clear that Hans Blix was heading towards a call of no WMD.

There certainly is debate if the US complied with international law by moving forward with the invasion.

-spence

(1) then a lot of other countries violated international law with us, because we were not the only ones there.

(2) if you are a stickler for sticking to international law, why do you suppose your hero rolled over like a dog when Putin seized Crimea?

Have fun with that.

Jim - if I remember correctly Sadam was starting to give the inspectors a lot more cooperation near the end once it was obvious we were heading down the road to invasion. I don't think a little more time would have hurt anything.

I don't know if it was a honest mistake or deception but the admin. did have blinders on.

"if I remember correctly Sadam was starting to give the inspectors a lot more cooperation near the end "

Maybe. But he was still defiant, right up to the end. He was not giving the inspectors everything they asked for. And that was what he was required to do, under his surrender terms from the first Gulf War.

"admin. did have blinders on"

I think the administration (and a LOT of Democrats in the Senate) concluded he had WMDs. But Bush was not hell-bent on invasion, he gave Saddam too many chances to avoid it.

It wasn't deception, someone would have blown the whistle.

(1) then a lot of other countries violated international law with us, because we were not the only ones there.

(2) if you are a stickler for sticking to international law, why do you suppose your hero rolled over like a dog when Putin seized Crimea?

Have fun with that.
Why do you say "have fun with that" like you've made some brilliant point?

We weren't alone in 2003 but the list is pretty short.

As for Crimea, yes Russia likely broke international law. With everything, there's only so much you can do. Was Obama supposed to bomb the covert Russian troops?

-spence

Jim - if I remember correctly Sadam was starting to give the inspectors a lot more cooperation near the end once it was obvious we were heading down the road to invasion. I don't think a little more time would have hurt anything.
Blix certainly did say that they were getting enough access to do their job...that's why he was demonized by the Right, shoot the messenger.

-spence

No need to worry. Obama is forming a commission to see what action can be taken. Great forward planning knowing this scenario could or would happen.
Another typical leading from behind move. A day late and a dollar short.

the people that are humble and good will either flee or be murdered

it's the "other's" that will overtake the country with pure evil and violence
that i was directing my comment towards... the terrorists...

i see your point tho....i'm just a stupid American with limited perspective

however.... our Government doesn't ask our citizen's permission or ask their opinions when they SPEND our TAX Dollars when out democratizing these
foreign countries ....

and granted i lean towards ISOLATIONISM completely

but it's time for change.... AMERICANS have paid their dues in blood.

i remember a Statement from one of them that said "Our sands will be littered with your arms and legs" and that has come to pass....

it all pisses me off to NO END....the tribes have been fighting one another for a thousand years and we should NOT intervene... at our own risk

Why do you say "have fun with that" like you've made some brilliant point?

We weren't alone in 2003 but the list is pretty short.

As for Crimea, yes Russia likely broke international law. With everything, there's only so much you can do. Was Obama supposed to bomb the covert Russian troops?

-spence

"We weren't alone in 2003 but the list is pretty short."

Before you blindly and thoughtlessly defend your side every time, try getting some facts first. From one site, a list of 21 countries that had troops in Iraq with us. I knew of 14 off the top of my head...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

"Was Obama supposed to bomb the covert Russian troops? "

I didn't hear many people at all support that. But it projects weakness when he stands there like a eunuch.

Here is what he was "supposed to do". When he campaigned, I kept hearing that because Obama (unlike Bush) was an intellectual instead of a cowboy, and because he was such a cosmopolitan and enlightened Nobel laureate, because he was pot-partisan and even post-racial (he's above such mundane things, you see) he was going to repair all the damage done by Bush and bring everyone in the world together in a collective hug. He would solve problems by making everyone love us...

OBAMA the HYPOCRITE of ALL TIME

"We weren't alone in 2003 but the list is pretty short."

Before you blindly and thoughtlessly defend your side every time, try getting some facts first. From one site, a list of 21 countries that had troops in Iraq with us. I knew of 14 off the top of my head...

httqp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm
I said in 2003 not 2006. I believe the invading coalition was only 5 countries not including the Kurds...

You jumpeth too fast.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Coalition of the willing".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Coalition of the willing".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Original phrase credited to President Clinton

Bush's....
May 14, 2004 – December 31, 2009
Country
United States (2004-2009)
United Kingdom (2004-2009)
Australia (2004-2009)
Poland (2004-2008)
Ukraine (2004-2008)
Georgia (2004-2008)
Bulgaria (2004-2008)
Denmark (2003-2007)
Italy (2004-2006)

Netherlands (2004-2005)
Spain (2003-2004)
Thailand (2003-2004)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device