Obama's War just keeps getting better

[AZGrizFan]

My position changed when Iraq no longer wanted us there. Period. Has nothing to do with who is president.

Obviously it didn't since you still supported our presence in Iraq in October of 2008... AFTER Maliki said he wanted us gone.

Keep trying to convince yourself otherwise, though.

Once again...can you link to that post? I fully admit I supported our presence FROM A STABILIZATION standpoint, but when Maliki went public with this:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/26/world/fg-iraq26" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

August 28, 2008: Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki said Monday that an agreement on the future of U.S. forces in Iraq must include a firm withdrawal date and that Iraq wants them out of the country by the end of 2011.

It was the first time Maliki explicitly demanded a fixed deadline for the departure of all U.S. troops from Iraq. His words appeared to rule out the presence of any U.S. military advisors, special forces and air support after the withdrawal date.

Within 6 weeks I'd changed my position. I can't help it if it happened around a U.S. presidential election.

[Skjellyfetti]

Why not in 2007 when the Iraqi parliament told us to get the fuck out? Had to back your boy Bush?

A majority of Iraq's parliament has signed a proposed bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels, a sign of a growing division between Iraqi legislators and the prime minister that mirrors the widening gulf between the Bush administration and its critics in Congress.

The draft bill would create a timeline for a gradual departure, much like what some Democrats in the United States have demanded, and require the Iraqi government to secure parliament's approval before any further extensions of the U.N. mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, which expires at the end of 2007.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-05-11/n ... -al-maliki" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[citdog]

Why not in 2007 when the Iraqi parliament told us to get the fuck out? Had to back your boy Bush?

A majority of Iraq's parliament has signed a proposed bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels, a sign of a growing division between Iraqi legislators and the prime minister that mirrors the widening gulf between the Bush administration and its critics in Congress.

The draft bill would create a timeline for a gradual departure, much like what some Democrats in the United States have demanded, and require the Iraqi government to secure parliament's approval before any further extensions of the U.N. mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, which expires at the end of 2007.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-05-11/n ... -al-maliki" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

sorry prisionmanlovejelly but your boy owns these wars of empire now.

[AZGrizFan]

Why not in 2007 when the Iraqi parliament told us to get the fuck out? Had to back your boy Bush?

A majority of Iraq's parliament has signed a proposed bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels, a sign of a growing division between Iraqi legislators and the prime minister that mirrors the widening gulf between the Bush administration and its critics in Congress.

The draft bill would create a timeline for a gradual departure, much like what some Democrats in the United States have demanded, and require the Iraqi government to secure parliament's approval before any further extensions of the U.N. mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, which expires at the end of 2007.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-05-11/n ... -al-maliki" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's a big difference between "setting a timetable for a withdrawal" and a "gradual departure" and what Maliki said. Get over it.

[houndawg]

And as far as Iraq goes, it's become increasingly clear (and this has little to do with Obama and more to do with politics in general) that our original mission (Get Bin Laden) has been compromised and it's become nothing more than another Viet Nam...fighting for and then giving up the same territory over and over and over again. As I said in the "Restrepo" thread, it's obvious we learned nothing in Viet Nam and, given that, we should immediately pack up and get the troops home. Soldiers and Marines are dying at a record pace, with no end in sight, we have no clear mission, and what does pass as a "mission" is fatally flawed.

Our primary mission in Iraq was "Get Bin Laden"? You're really still drinking the 9/11 Iraq connection bullshit from Bush and Rumsfeld aren't you?

I think they actually did try to sell Iraq as being about bin Laden at one point when we had 150K troops in Iraq and 10K in Afghanistan. Could be wrong, they were floating a new excuse to invade every other day at the time....

[AZGrizFan]

And as far as Iraq goes, it's become increasingly clear (and this has little to do with Obama and more to do with politics in general) that our original mission (Get Bin Laden) has been compromised and it's become nothing more than another Viet Nam...fighting for and then giving up the same territory over and over and over again. As I said in the "Restrepo" thread, it's obvious we learned nothing in Viet Nam and, given that, we should immediately pack up and get the troops home. Soldiers and Marines are dying at a record pace, with no end in sight, we have no clear mission, and what does pass as a "mission" is fatally flawed.

Our primary mission in Iraq was "Get Bin Laden"? You're really still drinking the 9/11 Iraq connection bullshit from Bush and Rumsfeld aren't you?

Hey, nutsack....reread my entire post and (taking your partisan hack political hat off) realize that I started out discussing Iraq, and then stated "as far as Iraq goes" and then proceeded to discuss my philosophy on Afghanistan. One tiny little mistake....

You truly ARE anal jelly, aren't you?