Obama took psychic possession of Bush and forced him to sign the SOFA. This was right after Obama infiltrated Bear Stearns and began the process of destabilization that ultimately led to the Great Recession. Of course, all of this pales in comparison with Obama’s earlier work in synthesizing AIDS and inventing spousal infidelity.
/Sarcasm.
You (Sexmachine) are claiming that Obama was responsible for the SOFA. Please establish this causal connection with hard evidence. Otherwise, Bush gets to own the document he signed.
The precipitous withdrawal was Bush’s response to massive pressure from defeatists whose champion was Barack Obama…[/quote]
Oh, I see. The current president is to blame for the previous president’s withdrawal of troops from the country which the selfsame previous president went to war with.
So Obama’s name is signed on the SOFA, then?
I thought conservatives were all about personal responsibility.
He whose name appears above the dotted line–he’s the guy who withdrew the troops. All the rest is drivel.
[/quote]
I’m not trying to absolve Bush of anything. He was a blustering buffoon. But the fact remains that the left waged an ideological war of defeatism on the homefront and Obama was elected on the defeatist ticket. He was the white flag waving candidate channeling the spirit of George McGovern.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I anticipate a Herculean onslaught of equivocation, selective evidence, stretching, waffling, and thought-terminating cliche…[/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The precipitous withdrawal was Bush’s response to massive pressure from defeatists whose champion was Barack Obama.[/quote]
[The latter post appeared chronologically before the former, but the timestamps will indicate that I wrote my words before I’d seen Sexmachine’s.]
The precipitous withdrawal was Bush’s response to massive pressure from defeatists whose champion was Barack Obama…[/quote]
Oh, I see. The current president is to blame for the previous president’s withdrawal of troops from the country which the selfsame previous president went to war with.
So Obama’s name is signed on the SOFA, then?
I thought conservatives were all about personal responsibility.
He whose name appears above the dotted line–he’s the guy who withdrew the troops. All the rest is drivel.
[/quote]
I’m not trying to absolve Bush of anything. He was a blustering buffoon. But the fact remains that the left waged an ideological war of defeatism on the homefront and Obama was elected on the defeatist ticket. He was the white flag waving candidate channeling the spirit of George McGovern.
[/quote]
You can couch things in the terms you want to couch them in.
I came in here with a specific, factual criticism of a specific, factual claim, and I proved my criticism correct.
Obama took psychic possession of Bush and forced him to sign the SOFA. This was right after Obama infiltrated Bear Stearns and began the process of destabilization that ultimately led to the Great Recession. Of course, all of this pales in comparison with Obama’s earlier work in synthesizing AIDS and inventing spousal infidelity.
/Sarcasm.
You (Sexmachine) are claiming that Obama was responsible for the SOFA. Please establish this causal connection with hard evidence. Otherwise, Bush gets to own the document he signed.[/quote]
I never said that Obama or anyone else made Bush sign it. I said Bush signed it in response to defeatists on the homefront. And there was pressure from the Iraqis to pull out too. So I don’t absolve Bush. And I don’t absolve the cultural Marxists and their cult leader either.
I never said that Obama or anyone else made Bush sign it. I said Bush signed it in response to defeatists on the homefront. And there was pressure from the Iraqis to pull out too. So I don’t absolve Bush. And I don’t absolve the cultural Marxists and their cult leader either.[/quote]
You agree with me, then, that it is bullshit to say that the withdrawal was Obama’s idea, as if he (Obama) engineered it and signed it into existence?
I am not saying Obama didn’t want to withdraw, mind you. I’m saying that this wasn’t his idea or doing. And you cannot disagree without getting the simple–and I do mean simple–facts wrong.
The precipitous withdrawal was Bush’s response to massive pressure from defeatists whose champion was Barack Obama…[/quote]
Oh, I see. The current president is to blame for the previous president’s withdrawal of troops from the country which the selfsame previous president went to war with.
So Obama’s name is signed on the SOFA, then?
I thought conservatives were all about personal responsibility.
He whose name appears above the dotted line–he’s the guy who withdrew the troops. All the rest is drivel.
[/quote]
No, no, no. It happened on Barack Obama’s watch, therefore it’s his responsibility.
Just like Gerald Ford was responsible for the Fall of Saigon, and Harry Truman singlehandedly won the Second World War.
The precipitous withdrawal was Bush’s response to massive pressure from defeatists whose champion was Barack Obama…[/quote]
Oh, I see. The current president is to blame for the previous president’s withdrawal of troops from the country which the selfsame previous president went to war with.
So Obama’s name is signed on the SOFA, then?
I thought conservatives were all about personal responsibility.
He whose name appears above the dotted line–he’s the guy who withdrew the troops. All the rest is drivel.
[/quote]
No, no, no. It happened on Barack Obama’s watch, therefore it’s his responsibility.
Just like Gerald Ford was responsible for the Fall of Saigon, and Harry Truman singlehandedly won the Second World War.[/quote]
What you’re telling me is, Obama tore my meniscus in the summer of 2010!?
The precipitous withdrawal was Bush’s response to massive pressure from defeatists whose champion was Barack Obama…[/quote]
Oh, I see. The current president is to blame for the previous president’s withdrawal of troops from the country which the selfsame previous president went to war with.
So Obama’s name is signed on the SOFA, then?
I thought conservatives were all about personal responsibility.
He whose name appears above the dotted line–he’s the guy who withdrew the troops. All the rest is drivel.
[/quote]
No, no, no. It happened on Barack Obama’s watch, therefore it’s his responsibility.
Just like Gerald Ford was responsible for the Fall of Saigon, and Harry Truman singlehandedly won the Second World War.[/quote]
Don’t forget the crash that happened while Bush was in office.
But it was Clinton who signed the Gramm-Leachy-Bliley Act that dismantled all the banking regulations.
If we are playing this timeline game, the crash was Democrat made.
The precipitous withdrawal was Bush’s response to massive pressure from defeatists whose champion was Barack Obama…[/quote]
Oh, I see. The current president is to blame for the previous president’s withdrawal of troops from the country which the selfsame previous president went to war with.
So Obama’s name is signed on the SOFA, then?
I thought conservatives were all about personal responsibility.
He whose name appears above the dotted line–he’s the guy who withdrew the troops. All the rest is drivel.
[/quote]
No, no, no. It happened on Barack Obama’s watch, therefore it’s his responsibility.
Just like Gerald Ford was responsible for the Fall of Saigon, and Harry Truman singlehandedly won the Second World War.[/quote]
Don’t forget the crash that happened while Bush was in office.
But it was Clinton who signed the Gramm-Leachy-Bliley Act that dismantled all the banking regulations.
If we are playing this timeline game, the crash was Democrat made. [/quote]
But by the logic of this thread, I can just say “Well, Clinton was under pressure from conservatives and Republicans–they were the ones who pushed it wrote it, sponsored it, and pushed through the legislative branch.” And TA-DAAA, the GOP gets all the blame!
That’s the NYT write-up of the SOFA approval in Iraq. The NYT obviously loves both Obama and military defeatism, so why didn’t they make any connection between Obama and the SOFA beyond an analyst’s speculation that Iran might have been more rigid if Bush’s presidency were going to extend into 2012? Why did they describe Bush Admin. reluctance only within the context of concessions to Maliki?
I’ll answer: Because there was no such connection to make.
That’s the NYT write-up of the SOFA approval in Iraq. The NYT obviously loves both Obama and military defeatism, so why didn’t they make any connection between Obama and the SOFA beyond an analyst’s speculation that Iran might have been more rigid if Bush’s presidency were going to extend into 2012? Why did they describe Bush Admin. reluctance only within the context of concessions to Maliki?
I’ll answer: Because there was no such connection to make.[/quote]
That article highlights two of the points I made: that Bush was reluctant to precipitously withdraw troops. And that some of the pressure to withdraw came from the Iraqis.
That’s the NYT write-up of the SOFA approval in Iraq. The NYT obviously loves both Obama and military defeatism, so why didn’t they make any connection between Obama and the SOFA beyond an analyst’s speculation that Iran might have been more rigid if Bush’s presidency were going to extend into 2012? Why did they describe Bush Admin. reluctance only within the context of concessions to Maliki?
I’ll answer: Because there was no such connection to make.[/quote]
That article highlights two of the points I made: that Bush was reluctant to precipitously withdraw troops. And that some of the pressure to withdraw came from the Iraqis.
[/quote]
I am talking about a causal connection with Obama. Where is that? Hard evidence.
Oh, and from the article you linked in your last post:
[quote]
Bush attempted to negotiate a deal that would have left forces in Iraq, and failed. Obama tried, and failed. The claim that one or the other failed because he didn’t try hard enough is just foolish. [/quote]
Everyone keeps getting stuck in the blame game. Fuck that shit. It just goes to show that the corporations BEHIND whoever was in office at the time wanted to pull out. Fair enough? Jeeeeze - who gives a fuck who signed what when? This is happening NOW!
You guys cling to your juxtaposed positions like greedy children to candy. Everyone wants to prove the other side “wrong”. This didn’t happen in a vacuum. There were men and women on BOTH sides of the aisle who started it and who wanted to get out before stability had taken hold. That’s because we were hemorrhaging troops and treasure. That’s what happens when politicians run a war. We never learned our lessons from earlier conflicts. They NEVER turn out well because politicians fuck it all up. On BOTH sides.
But my ideas are couched as “absurd” or “foolish”. At least my ideas involve WINNING for fucking change. Coming out AHEAD instead of crippling debt. We made European countries pay us war debt when we saved their asses, why is that so absurd now? War should be fought for TWO reasons only: 1) self defense/preemptive strike and 2) to gain wealth, resources, strategic territory, etc… Not because “it’s the right thing to do”, or “we must SAVE them”. LOL Not saying we should never save them, but when the ambulance comes, you gotta pay the bill. But my ideas are foolish and absurd…
There is a peculiar strain of libertarian crusaderism that infected the GoP. A certain idea that if one could cram a dose of liberty and democracy down their throats the local yokels would hug it out, and join the fight on our side. You all remember. The idea was that all that we had to do was kick off the liberty infection. Well, no. Even those who aren’t necessarily keen on sectarian violence might not want our influence, our ideas, infesting other aspects of their culture. If you’re muslim, why the hell would you welcome much of anything about the west? So some day your Muslim descendents have to get out of the wedding cake business, or face “sensitivity training” (reeducation)? Some gray, increasingly barren (think goodness for immigration at least), decadent, slowly sinking under debt, living off credit, nation injects the “democracy/liberation” virus into Iraq, which would then spread throughout the mid-east at tear-jerking speeds as the yoots cast off their fathers’ ways and get down to twerking it. Nah.
That’s the NYT write-up of the SOFA approval in Iraq. The NYT obviously loves both Obama and military defeatism, so why didn’t they make any connection between Obama and the SOFA beyond an analyst’s speculation that Iran might have been more rigid if Bush’s presidency were going to extend into 2012? Why did they describe Bush Admin. reluctance only within the context of concessions to Maliki?
I’ll answer: Because there was no such connection to make.[/quote]
That article highlights two of the points I made: that Bush was reluctant to precipitously withdraw troops. And that some of the pressure to withdraw came from the Iraqis.
[/quote]
Who you’d do what with in order to force our indefinite stay? Overthrow? The government we made sure got elected? Edit: We would’ve become, outright, in the open, under the light of the day, exactly what the Jihadis told everyone we were. Conquerors. Not security partners of a representative Iraqi government, but outright conquerors. The nation would have blown up even earlier had we pulled a stunt like that.