Thursday, August 14, 2014
Obama Left Iraq Voluntarily in 2011, but Now He Says He Was Tossed Out
The Barack Obama quote of the day, August 14, 2014 : "We broke the mountain siege of Sinjar and all Americans should be proud of the military's efforts." Good so far, but it was followed by Obama's statement that the humanitarian effort for the Yazidis on Mt. Sinjar would soon be over and that the US military responsible for the Yazidis' rescue will soon be withdrawn from Iraq. He said that airstrikes would continue in order to protect US personnel and others in northern Iraq. ~~~~~ But USA Today reported the most astonishing of Obama's comments today : "The situation in Iraq has greatly improved," Obama said. One is hard pressed to connect this remark with anything but a presidential withdrawal from reality. What are the "improvements" in Iraq?...50,000 Yazidi refuges in tents on an Iraqi desert where temperatures are topping 100°F daily / renewed fighting in Falluga, the first Iraq city taken by ISIS, with movement apparently toward Baghdad, 40 miles away / Baghdad itself being boarded up by hundreds of thousands of residents who expect an ISIS attack soon / an ISIS advance toward Kirkuk where taking the oil fields would significantly increase ISIS income and begin an onslaught in the Kurdish region / a central Iraqi government with the former prime minister refusing to leave office even though the president has appointed a new one. Oh yes, things are greatly improved in Iraq. ~~~~~ This Obama disconnect with Iraq reality is reminiscent of his confusion about whether it was he who removed all US troops from Iraq or whether he was driven out by the Iraqi govenment. Earlier this year, on June 19, President Obama tossed a surprise at the White House press corps during a news conference - by claiming that the 2011 decision to withdraw all US forces from Iraq, a politically popular move on the eve of his re-election in 2012, was made entirely by Iraq. On June 19, a reporter asked the President, "Do you wish you had left a residual force in Iraq? Any regrets about that decision in 2011?” Obama answered : “Well, keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me. That was a decision made by the Iraqi government." The comment seems to have been his latest effort to quiet critics who say his ill-thought out Iraq retreat led to its violent near-collapse to ISIS. Obama now claims he left reluctantly, forced out by Baghdad. The President was asked the same question again last Saturday on the South Lawn as he was leaving for his vacation. Any "second thoughts" about pulling all ground troops from Iraq? The President shot back, "What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps coming up, as if this was my decision. Let's just be clear, the reason we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were - a majority of Iraqis did not want US troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops. So, Obama was suggesting, any effort to make him responsible for the spiraling violence in Iraq is "bogus" and "wrong." ~~~~~ However, in fact, the record is clear that Obama came into office promising to withdraw all troops within 16 months, a vow that his campaign chief called "rock solid." He didn't pull them out to "protect" them in the absence of a status of forces agreement or for any other imaginary reason, but simply "to end this war" and appease his liberal base. Here is what he said about ending the war. ... "(It would be) a strategic error for us to maintain a long-term occupation in Iraq." That was in the summer of 2010. In December 2008 he said : "I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months. I believe that 16 months is the right time frame." And in October 2011 : "A few hours ago, I spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. We are in full agreement about how to move forward. So today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year." Campaigning in Ohio in September 2012 : “Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq, We did.” ~~~~~ And most notably, in October 2012 during the last presidential debate with GOP candidate Mitt Romney, Obama actually denied wanting a force protection agreement from the Iraqi government. Romney said, "With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should be a status of forces agreement," Obama answered sharply : "That’s not true," Romney responded, “Oh, you didn't want a status of forces agreement?” Obama said : “No. What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.” ~~~~~ Dear readers, it is clear why there is no Obama Iraq policy...or any other Obama foreign policy. He has several policies on any given issue - to fit his immediate needs, whether it's votes or poll results. Now that we see how important those troops in Iraq were, the President refuses to admit that he made a bad decision. Instead, he is making a scapegoat of the beleaguered and struggling Iraqi government, under siege by ISIS because of Obama's premature withdrawal. In that same October 2012 debate, Obama scolded Romney, in one of the most embarrassing presidential displays ever, for failing to state his position in a way voters could understand. “Here’s one thing I’ve learned as commander in chief,” Obama said. “You’ve got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean." Oh my dear Mr. Obama, you condemn yourself with your own words. And it shows just how weak you are as a leader.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Obama is so DELUSIONAL That I worry for our future until he is safely back in Chicago and away from the “Suitcase” and the ability to harm people – really harm people.
ReplyDeleteThe only positive that I see in his remaining days in office is the ammunition that his lies will supply for the GOP to use against the democratic candidate in 2016 and the run up election in 2014 & 2015.
If it weren’t so serious he could try out with Comedy central after he leaves office.
There was once two other senators that had the worst habit of saying things that just was not true in any stretch of the way. One got in deep trouble by claiming things about his military tenure and a few awards/ribbons he falsely received.
ReplyDeleteBut with the forgiveness that the American public has these two gentlemen (used loosely) moved on and up in the political world.
Who are they you ask – our current Vice President and our current Secretary of State! And if you like “4” as a lucky number throw in Hillary Clinton to the mix.
“Birds of a feather, flock together”
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the group (ISIS) poses "a threat to the civilized world," while Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called the Islamic State a "terrorist army" that must be defeated. And yet the President has No hard language towards any of the terrorist’s organizations! Why is that?
ReplyDeleteMaybe Obama thinks it’s not proper for the president of the United States to speak negatively about other political organizations? Maybe he thinks there could be “punitive repercussions” if he did? Maybe it’s just not his way? Or maybe there is an friendliness that we don’t know about?
Obama uses very harsh words about republicans and conservatives. He’s very opinionated about sports. He freely passes out praise for his favorite “fat cats” that donate to his coffers. No he is very specific when he wants to be and has NO concern about hurt feelings or tramping on ones/group toes.
Unfortunately, President Barack Obama has not yet learned a lesson from his leadership failures in Syria. Obama adminsitration still avoids taking any responsibility or holding assertive and decisive position.
DeleteUnlike Russia, Syria, and the Islamic Republic in which hold assertive, conclusive and clear foreign policies when it comes to their power manifestation, balance of power and preserving their interests in the region, Obama’s administration has never articulated a clear foreign policy agenda towards the crisis in Iraq, Syria, or Middle East in general.
The radical (ISIS) Islamist State terrorist group has pushed to establish cells outside Iraq and Syria, including in Europe, even as it seeks to solidify its gains in the Middle East, US. The group’s effort to position operatives in Western countries is considered evidence of the al-Qaeda offshoot’s determination to mount terrorist plots against the United States and its allies. We have seen an expansion of its external terrorism ambitions that parallel its aggressive moves in the Middle East.
DeleteThis has been a bill long overdue in coming to the Obama Administration. They actively set the tone by operating without a strategy since day one of Obama’s time in office. His slow cautious moves, his deliberate effort to not confront, his leadership from behind that stayed behind, his photo-op diplomacy, his well-deserved lack of respect with other players have all lead up to this moment where the “bill has come due” and Obama is without a hint of what to do and has NOONE to turn to for advice. Hagel, Kerry, Susan Rice, Hillary are all also clueless. His inner circle is an utter disaster.
Obama’s lack of a United States and/or a western world plan to confront the spread of radical Islam looms as an epoch-defining failure. The Obama Strategy seems to support the rise of Radical Islam or at very least to let it advance unchallenged. He supports Erdogan in Turkey; He supported Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He supported Iran in Syria. He pressure Israel to stop fighting Hamas. Conclusions are drawn from facts and Obama presents facts leading to this conclusion.
ReplyDeleteDivisions and alliances don't come neatly. There are no risk-free initiatives. Indeed, if this recent period of flying without a flight plan reveals anything, it is that the search for risk-free options may be among the most dangerous paths to choose of all. Because, as we have seen, given America's unique role in the world, our consigning ourselves to the sidelines or sporadic, very limited interventions that exist outside a broader strategy only creates a bigger opening for our enemies, for the spread of fundamental threats, and for the possibility that this will someday be seen as a period of profound strategic failure for the United States in the region and the world.
If there had been only one or two diplomatic flubs by the Obama administration, then one could conclude that his foreign policy has "failed." However, there is a preponderance of evidence that points to establishment of the Islamic Caliphate as the unstated objective of this president (gosh, it pains me to call him "president" on July 4) throughout his tenure. Every decision, from bowing to the Saudi king to leading from behind in Egypt to turning a deaf ear to the revolution in Iran to giving troop withdrawal dates to trading Bergdahl-the-deserter for the elite terrorists to browbeating Israel for thinking of seeking justice for the murders of those three teenaged boys to having nothing to say about the killing of the one with dual Israeli-American citizenship, has brought the world to this dangerous tipping point.
ReplyDeleteI would contend that the evidence clearly shows that Obama's foreign policy objective (whatever they may be) has been an unmitigated success and is in plain sight for the world to see.
As the United States expands its air campaign in northern Iraq -- which included a new round of strikes Wednesday -- the Pentagon will almost certainly need to deploy American forward observers to help guide precision munitions to their targets. Those forces would operate in areas close to ISIS positions, leaving them potentially vulnerable to attack. At that point Obama either runs from Iraq again or stays and puts the needed “boots on the ground”
ReplyDeleteThe Middle East peace that President Barack Obama inherited at his inauguration in 2009 was delicate, at best. But it existed, which is far more than anyone in the Obama administration can claim after five-plus years of foreign policy mishaps and miscalculations.
ReplyDeleteWhat may be worst, Obama has sabotaged relations with America’s traditional Middle East allies. Egypt’s secular leadership fell to Islamist extremists. Israel doesn’t trust or respect the current administration. Jordan has its hands full with refugees while it tries to stave off terrorism within its own borders. Since Obama’s infamous 2009 speech calling for peace between Islam and the United States, the result of his foreign policy has been an unmitigated regional disaster.
The president may not be directly responsible for these deaths and dislocations, but he is nonetheless personally responsible for them. As commander in chief of the world’s most powerful military and leader of the free world, the President of the United States must fight everywhere, always–with words, sanctions, diplomacy, trade, and military force–for freedom. Obama’s foreign policy has harmed millions.
His replacement will have his or her work cut out for them repairing the damage done to the Middle East by this president’s incompetence.