Kerry tells Iraqi leaders sharing power is critical

Oh yeah - - this is what all the American troops who died there gave their lives for . . .! What an unspeakable tragedy !

It reminds me of the unfunny two stooges.

^^^Wow, you guys are just mean.^^^ Sad to say it likely will happen. And it is very sad so many lives were lost and wounded permanently in this war. If not for USA who knows what Iraq would be today. NONE of us know. An aging Saddam, A USA supported Arab Spring. Who knows.

Next......All the Bush Bashing to come. It's ALL GW's fault as all to many like to spin it.

Next......All the Bush Bashing to come. It's ALL GW's fault as all to many like to spin it.

Because the Dems have nothing else to go on. 5 years of bashing Bush and never holding Obama accountable to anything, EVER! Seriously? It's beyond old. Partisan politics at its worst!

The bigger problem is that when Obama not establishing a SOFA agreement, Maliki wanted at least about 15,000 troops to remain in Iraq, Obama offered less than 3,000, plus with that, he wasn't going to give US soldiers any immunity if the soldiers were tried under Iraqi law (which could include losing your head) and Obama wasn't going to go for that, which in turn gave him that much more of an excuse to leave that country, so now Maliki as dumb and incompetent as he is, needs help to keep the country stable and where does he get that from? Iran and now we are hearing from the Ayatollah Sistani that he is less than pleased with Maliki and there is a possibility that he might be on the outs, that also means Iran might start to send troops in to protect the capitol. Now he says he wants to send a force of 300 special forces to secure the embassy and they will not engage any hostiles. People can bash Bush all they want, if you believe he was wrong for going into Iraq or not fully understand the sectarian divide, fine. We got it, but that is past us, can't go back, ONLY forward. NOW, we have a president that gave up on Iraq or more importantly, left it without making sure the country had a strong security presence, until almost 2 years ago and when Obama took office, Iraq was relatively calming down. Also Maliki firing his Sunni generals and many of his Sunni forces left them unemployed and once again, Obama didn't care about this, what do you think these bitter unemployed men will do? They need to make money, they are angry, they want to vent and perhaps join Al Qaeda or ISIS. This was expected and to be fair, it happened under Bush as well in 2004, but they quickly tried to put these men to work rehired and retrained the police force and started to rebuild the military after the fall of Saddam and the slow reconstruction of Iraq which gave these men something to do. So what is Obama going to do and how does he want to handle this? He can't take credit for ending the war in Iraq because that was already set up and the Bush admin. was winding down. Now everything flared up on Obama's watch.

Well that should end all the fighting immediately!

Gawd. Right wingers are shameless. Least anyone forget, none of this would be going on if Bush had not invaded Iraq.

Good thing the American public knows this.

Gawd. Right wingers are shameless. Least anyone forget, none of this would be going on if Bush had not invaded Iraq.

Good thing the American public knows this

Yes, as well as they know that we have a lame duck president, that is screwing up the ME as we speak, oh, I forgot, his mideast policy is soooooo good. LOL

And as usual, in true liberal fashion, gloss over the facts and return back to that you only know. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I hear what you are saying about Obama, but the truth is not important, we have to go back to 2003, I know it won't help anything, but it makes us feel good, because we love Obama so much and blaming him would break our hearts.

You have to ask what is the end game here? the US had 10+ years bombing, blasting and killing terrorists - who only came after the US invasion - and then eventually pulled out. Given that there was no plan when Iraq was first invaded other than to get the very elusive WMD, just what is the plan behind a repeat bombing of Iraq? Do they intend to kill all the ISIS one by one? Do they think if they bomb enough that people will rise up and take control of their country the same way they didn't when Saddam fell? Just what is the plan?

Good job Bush, mission accomplished!

Simon

Next year in August, the US have been in Japan, and South Korea for 70. There is no end game.

And Japan and South Korea are better countries because of it, but now you are comparing apples and oranges and both presidents didn't see that, so neither have Mission Accomplished as Oldman stated, but he just wanted to make it a partisan issue, although it's not, it's both presidents, but now it's Obama that is in the seat, so he is responsible or irresponsible if you really want to be PC.

Obama argued against the damn war, you fool. And now he's cleaning up after Busy. Don't you ever pretend otherwise.

Obama argued against the damn war, you fool. And now he's cleaning up after Bush. Don't you ever pretend otherwise.

Obama argued against the damn war, you fool. And now he's cleaning up after Bush. Don't you ever pretend otherwise.

Sorry, but he hasn't cleaned up anything. Have you been paying attention to the news or are you purposely avoiding the news altogether? Look at Iraq, look at Syria, look at the slaughter. Getting the troops out is one thing, securing the country and the safety of the Iraqis as well as the safety of the US in general is imperative that we maintain a small residual force and he didn't! Him and Maliki are the biggest incompetents ever in politics. I think you libs WANT to pretend that Obama did a noble thing, how is leaving a country in the hands of a violent brutal terrorist group that wants to establish a caliphate and possibly its own terrorist country is something unprecedented to ever happen in the middle east and all that could have been avoided IF Obama would have listened to his generals and advisors, but in typical Obama fashion, he never listens to anyone, but himself. This guy is THE MOST partisan president ever. Him and the Dems will no doubt suffer this November, maybe once they start losing seats in congress and the Senate, they might learn something.

US presence or military action will NEVER "clear up" the problems in the middle East. They are what started them in the first place. Agreed the initial motivation of "liberating" Kuwait was kind of noble, but they should have cleared out after that. The presence in saudi is what got the wahhabi nutjobs all riled up and everything they have done since has just made the Islamists nmore and more anti "our freedoms".

The way iraq is going i wouldn't bet against there being a de facto partition along sectarian and ethnic lines.

Kerry, echoing comments made by Obama last week, said no country — including the U.S. — should try to pick new leadership for Iraq. “That is up to the people of Iraq,” he said.

Kerry or Obama has little understanding the root cause of blood shed and instability in Irag. Changing new leader alone can not make sectarian violence will go away. Cash rich Saudi is the major sponsor of ISIS. ISIS has failed in Syria civil war. Invasion of Irag is easier task for them. They will change the tactic as Irag is their supply base for revolution of Syria. If Irag fall, Syria and Jordan will follow as domino effect.

When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, it decided disastrously that all Sunnis were not to be trusted as they may be loyal to Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime. It was a divide and conquer strategy. It has made the resentment of 37% of Sunni population of Irag.

The US administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, launched a De-Baathification drive as thousands of public servants, soldiers and police were sacked, some losing their pensions. It is all the fault of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield for never ending blood shed and instability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Ba'athification

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/descent-into-darkness/story-e6frg6z6-1226964258689#

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dcae6ef0-f5f8-11e3-a038-00144feabdc0.html#axzz35WekMVt7

Now US of A is helpless for ripping off the ISIS. Military intervention will make Irag has disintegrated as three warring states of Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite.

@semperfi

Oh yeah - - this is what all the American troops who died there gave their lives for . . .! What an unspeakable tragedy !

The US troops should have know when they joined the army they might lose their lives defending US access to other's resources for the sake of the super rich. On the other hand, what about the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis who have been killed in this unprovoked US war of aggression. Do they not count?

Now, after creating a fragmented country, the US leadership is calling for unity. It is all farce while the weapon makers continue to reap profits for destabilization.

Come to think of it, if the Saudi's are in fact bankrolling ISIS (how quickly we change the bogey man - Al Qaeda, Saddam, back to Al Qaeda, Iran and now ISIS) and given that the Saudis supplied the 9/11 crews, aren't they due for a good spanking? They're not democratic, women are second class citizens, not Christian, leaders live in vast palaces, torture is commonplace, they do public executions and floggings and they wear funny clothes. Plus you can't buy a beer there. Surely some carpet bombing is in order here. Saddam got whacked for far less.

Oh, right. I forgot for a moment. That Saudi and Bush families thing. And the oil.

Kerry tells Iraqi leaders sharing power is critical. Just like the congress in the U.S. does.

" U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday the U.S. is prepared to take military action "

So, Mr. Middle East Expert John Kerry, tell us: once you take this "military action" against the Sunni jihadis in Iraq, will you then stop supporting these same guys in Syria, or do you intend to fight them in Iraq while arming them in Syria?

Has anybody asked this clown what his grand idea here is?

So, Mr. Middle East Expert John Kerry, tell us: once you take this "military action" against the Sunni jihadis in Iraq, will you then stop supporting these same guys in Syria, or do you intend to fight them in Iraq while arming them in Syria?

Please, WilliB: Provide any evidence that the US is providing support to the ISIS in Syria.

Oh, right. I forgot for a moment. That Saudi and Bush families thing. And the oil.

We only get 12.9% from the ME. Canada and Mexico are still the biggest countries when it comes to where the US gets their oil from.

Also, you should be happy that we protect the Saudi royal family, has nothing to do with Bush, the US protects that family, because if we left them and that country is overrun by Jihadists, you will have another headache on your head and that's something NO ONE wants.

bass4funk - the US protects that family, because if we left them and that country is overrun by Jihadists, you will have another headache on your head and that's something NO ONE wants.

How about they are overrun by democracy? I mean that's what America goes to war for isn't it? Now someone with as right wing views as you bass must surely agree that undemocratic dictatorships in the ME, like Saudi Arabia, must be removed. Just think of the possibilities - if America went to war in Saudi Arabia, killed a couple of hundred thousand Arabs ( and lost 5,000 American soldiers in the process), well then goodness me women could drive cars. That's got to be worth going to war for. After all the US went to war for WMD that did not exist so going to war for female driving licences is a tangible and achievable goal don't you think? One of the reasons for war in Afghanistan was because women were oppressed. So where's your argument come Saudi?

How about they are overrun by democracy?

What democracy? We are talking about the ME, right?

I mean that's what America goes to war for isn't it? Now someone with as right wing views as you bass must surely agree that undemocratic dictatorships in the ME, like Saudi Arabia, must be removed.

If they pose a threat to our country, Yes!

Just think of the possibilities - if America went to war in Saudi Arabia, killed a couple of hundred thousand Arabs ( and lost 5,000 American soldiers in the process), well then goodness me women could drive cars. That's got to be worth going to war for.

That is a stupid illogical scenario plus a lame argument and I don't want to talk about stupid hypotheticals.

After all the US went to war for WMD that did not exist so going to war for female driving licences is a tangible and achievable goal don't you think?

Have Michelle campaign for that, she likes doing that kind of thing.

One of the reasons for war in Afghanistan was because women were oppressed. So where's your argument come Saudi?

The Saudis low as that family is, they are not systematically killing women on a day to day brutal basis like the Taliban, yes, you have atrocities everywhere in the ME, but you are making a lame argument. The reason for going to Afghanistan in the first place and prime reason was to find OBL and to root out the Taliban. Not even in the same category.

Laguna:

" Please, WilliB: Provide any evidence that the US is providing support to the ISIS in Syria. "

ISIS represents the same Muslim Brotherhood based radical Sunni movement that the "vetted rebels" which Obama is supporting, do. If were unaware of that, I can only recommend to start reading up on the issue.

Fyi, ISIS has been busy erasing the border posts between Iraq and Syria... their Caliphate includes both territories.

bass4funk -The reason for going to Afghanistan in the first place and prime reason was to find OBL

And the US found him - not in Afghanistan BTW but in one of the US partners backyard - Pakistan. So why still in Afghanistan? But the madness of your argument is that the US would pit it's overwhelming military might, destroy a country and stay at war for 12 or 13 years to get one man? And still stay fighting after you got your one man? The fact that the US is still in Afghanistan shows that, like Vietnam, they were never completely sure why they went in the first place. And so confused and muddled by their ever changing rational they do not know how to get out. Best option is to cobble together a "democratic government", call job done and get the hell out. Just like they did in Iraq. And we now see how that is turning out.

Gawd. Right wingers are shameless. Least anyone forget, none of this would be going on if Bush had not invaded Iraq.

So let me get this straight... there is turmoil and revolution in Iraq only because the US threw out Saddam Hussein? So that must also mean that the turmoil and revolution in multiple nations in the region like Syria and Egypt were caused by .... the US invasion of these countries as well? It has long passed that point of simple mindedness to blame Bush as a default explanation for all of the troubles bedeviling the messiah Barack Hussein Obama. He is the president now and he cannot write off his mistakes as that of someone long out of office.

And what about Libya? That nation is now a basket case and who was it that bombed that nation's dictator out of power? Hint: it wasn't George Bush. Do shameless arch Liberals hold Obama responsible for the mess in Libya? I'm guessing they do not; but consistency is not a hallmark of the modern Left.

While the Middle East is erupting, the spectable of US party political hacks trying to turn this into domestic US political party talking points is depressing.

Does nobody take the time to step back, look at the picture, and realize that BOTH political parties get it totally wrong in regard to the Sunni-Shia conflict? Yes, Bush should not have removed Saddams secular Baath regime in Bagdad. But how about Obama doing the same in Syria, and all over the Middle East? It is Obama who is been supporting the Muslim Brotherhood across the board. Yes, Bush's "mission accomplished" makes for a great one-liner. But how about Obamas "Al Quaeda is on the run", or Bidens claim that Obamas unconditional withdrawal from Iraq was "one of his greatest achievements"? Not a "necessary retreat", no, his "greatest achievement".

Both parties have been addressing the whole Middle East mess as some sort of noble fight for democracy and against un-specified "militants", completely ignoring the ideological and tribal nature of the conflict. To continue harping on Bushes invasion of Iraq while completely igoring that Obama tries his best to replace Assad with a Muslim Brotherhood theocracy is so hypocritical, it is astonishing.

Does none of the party hacks ever take the time to read up on the history of the ME?

No, Republican. Both parties do not get it totally wrong. Bush invaded Iraq. Not the Democrats. Bush.

Your party. The same party that brought you the Iraq war on the cheap, with no immanent threat, no WMD, no link with Al Qua'eda, and no plan after "Mission Accomplished." Remember the looting? I do. And we were not greeted as liberators, the oil did not pay for the war (we borrowed it) and the insurgency was not in its last throes.

Republicans have NO CREDIBILITY on national security. Democrats do.

Obama got OBL. Because Democrats govern. We clean up after Republicans crap over everythign and steal as much as possible from the public purse. We take care of the Republican mess:The damn war in Iraq, the unfinished war in Afghanistan, the economy.

Make no mistake: Republicans are the problem. The party is completely broken.

The Republican Party is no longer the flag bearer of any actual political ideology or movement. It represents only a collection of paranoias and conspiracy theories bundled together by grifters, promoted by hucksters. And obsessed over by rubes. It no longer has a functioning philosophy of government any more robust than declaring government itself illegitimate; it is a collection of dullards demanding rebellion for the sake of, well, rebellion.

@JT

No, Republican. Both parties do not get it totally wrong. Bush invaded Iraq. Not the Democrats. Bush.

NO, BOTH PARTIES! Bush for not properly accessing the sectarian divide, but removing Saddam was a good thing, but Obama NOT securing and establishing a full and proper SOFA agreement was a huge problem and now we see the destruction and the disintegration of Iraq before our eyes and for what? The guy had it made, it was relatively peaceful, shops were coming back and things were calming down, then this guy gets into office and completely and carelessly destroys or to put it in better terms, to allow the country to go to hell and a hand basket and that didn't have to be, so there is NO way, he can take credit for ending the war, that book is closed and no historian could write otherwise, if they want to appear as fair and partial.

Your party. The same party that brought you the Iraq war on the cheap, with no immanent threat, no WMD, no link with Al Qua'eda, and no plan after "Mission Accomplished." Remember the looting?

You keep forgetting many of the other countries that had their hand in the intel business, where is your outrage on the faulty intel that these countries provided to the US?

I do. And we were not greeted as liberators,

We were. I have met and interviewed many of the secular Iraqis that actually comprise most of the Iraqi military and police force, many moved to the states CA, NY and others and were extremely happy, sorry, that is complete spin. The only people that were really not so happy were the Sunni extremists. I was there for a few months, don't go there, JT.

the oil did not pay for the war (we borrowed it) and the insurgency was not in its last throes.

We don't have the oil, but ISIL does and the surged worked, despite opposition from the Dems and many Republicans, the surge did win the war, it was calming down when Obama took over, but did he try to work on that fragile peace, NOPE. Just pull out and whatever happens, happens. Well congrats, O' sainted anointed one, your wish came true.

Republicans have NO CREDIBILITY on national security. Democrats do.

That's why Iraq and Syria are falling apart, because Dems are so good at enforcing Red Lines and ultimatums? I'm sure the Mullahs, Assad and Putin think the same. Those Democrats are a tough bunch. ROFLMAO Seriously, dealing with Obama would make and encourage ANY tyrant to take over and invade any country.

Obama got OBL.

With the help and recommendations from Bush, so give a little credit where credit is due. Give me an Amen!

Because Democrats govern. We clean up after Republicans crap over everythign and steal as much as possible from the public purse. We take care of the Republican mess:The damn war in Iraq, the unfinished war in Afghanistan, the economy.

Dems govern????? So who will clean, once you guys are out of office? Dems don't steal? Just the last 2 weeks listening to the news that is ALL you hear about is Democrats lying here and there. Question, are you not outraged at Obama's war in Afghanistan? It must burn you how your president can spend and waste all that money and having more soldiers die in that country under his watch than in other wars. The guy is a war criminal, so you should want him equally impeached or do you just want to be a partisan? Please let me know. Washington is such a mess, it might take a decade to restore integrity to the WH after this guy and the Dems are gone.

Make no mistake: Republicans are the problem. The party is completely broken.

That's why the Dems are going to lose the Senate and the Repubs. will gain seats in the House, because they are so broken up. Lol

The Republican Party is no longer the flag bearer of any actual political ideology or movement.

Dunno buddy, there be a lot of Red States out there, a whole lot of them. Did I mention, the NO flag bearer party will get the Senate?

It represents only a collection of paranoias and conspiracy theories bundled together by grifters, promoted by hucksters.

Losing 2 years of emails and HD is NOT considered to be paranoid? I'm sorry, the dog eating the HD.

And obsessed over by rubes. It no longer has a functioning philosophy of government any more robust than declaring government itself illegitimate; it is a collection of dullards demanding rebellion for the sake of, well, rebellion.

Sir, gotta hand it to you, you just described the Democratic party to a dime! Couldn't have said and summed it better myself!

but Obama NOT securing and establishing a full and proper SOFA agreement was a huge problem

LOL!! This is idiotic. The government of Nouri al-Maliki was dead set against any SOFA agreement with the U.S. Period. End of story. Oh, you should want the U.S. to overthrow the Maliki government? (The government that the previous Bush regime touted as being a victory for democracy?)

Just how is that Obama's fault?

Instability was nothing new in Iraq, but Saddam raised the level of violence used in suppressing uprisings to genocidal intensity. The U.S. spent years during its post-Saddam occupation of the country trying to quell sectarian violence, but the enmity between Iraq’s major ethnic groups is deep-rooted and probably beyond remedy. The simple truth is that Iraq as currently constituted can never be a stable democracy, and thus American warfighters sent there to shore up Maliki’s faltering regime are likely to find themselves defending a dictatorship.

LOL!! This is idiotic. The government of Nouri al-Maliki was dead set against any SOFA agreement with the U.S. Period. End of story.

And why was that? He wanted a guarantee from Obama to have at least 15 to 20,000 troops stationed there as a residual force minimum, but with the condition that the troops can be subjected to Iraqi laws if charged with any possible crime, the conditions were vague to say the least as they weren't all clear and some very questionable, that made it much easier for Obama to withdraw, now Maliki is a scumbag through and through, but Obama should not have given up so easily and just pulled out all the troops, he was advised not to do so by many senior military commanders, which is typical because HE only knows better than everyone, the smartest man in the room.

Oh, you should want the U.S. to overthrow the Maliki government? (The government that the previous Bush regime touted as being a victory for democracy?)

Which it was and could have been, had Obama maintained proper relationships with Maliki. Hey, I am fully aware Maliki is a difficult individual, but still, you don't snub the man that is the buffer between you and the number one terrorist country to the South.

Just how is that Obama's fault?

I just outlined it for you, there's more, but I don't want to bore you, the day wouldn't be long enough to list the accolades.

And why was that? He wanted a guarantee from Obama to have at least 15 to 20,000 troops stationed there as a residual force minimum, but with the condition that the troops can be subjected to Iraqi laws if charged with any possible crime

Right, and leaving U.S. troops subjected to the Iraqi justice system is perfectly acceptable to you, right? If it meant keeping those 20,000-odd troops in place.

but Obama should not have given up so easily and just pulled out all the troops, he was advised not to do so by many senior military commanders,

Were senior military commanders in favor of leaving U.S. troops subject to Iraqi law? Besides, with the American people voting Barack Obama into office with a solid majority, and polls indicating a desire to bring all troops home, Republicans would have attacked Obama for leaving troops there -- just as they attacked him for not closing Guantanamo (another campaign promise).

Hey, I am fully aware Maliki is a difficult individual, but still, you don't snub the man that is the buffer between you and the number one terrorist country to the South.

You certainly do if that man's demands are unreasonable and unacceptable. I will grant that Obama totally neglected iraq diplomatically and that certainly has contributed greatly to the current situation. Overall, I think the American people are quietly relieved not to have thousands of troops in Iraq at the moment. But taking out Saddam in the first place is one of the greatest disasters in the history of U.S. foreign policy.

Right, and leaving U.S. troops subjected to the Iraqi justice system is perfectly acceptable to you, right? If it meant keeping those 20,000-odd troops in place.

No, NOT AT ALL, I wanted Obama to not take the high road and to renegotiate with Maliki to come up with a better proposal, diplomacy is everything and alienating the man that stands between us and the Mullahs, he just brushes it off and bails!

Were senior military commanders in favor of leaving U.S. troops subject to Iraqi law?

That would NEVER have happened.

Besides, with the American people voting Barack Obama into office with a solid majority, and polls indicating a desire to bring all troops home, Republicans would have attacked Obama for leaving troops there -- just as they attacked him for not closing Guantanamo (another campaign promise).

So because the people voted and things went south, what do they know? What does the average citizen know about war, terrorism and the enemy, rules of engagement and the stopping or killing your enemy before he kills you. The answer is, they don't! As president, sometimes you have to make decisions that are in the best interest and safety of the nation and if that means, they need to go back and finish the job, then that is what they must do. Being president is NOT a popularity contest....maybe for Obama it is, but generally speaking, you do the thing that will save lives and or prevent a possible terror attack and Obama would sell his soul to keep his good and sainted image and that of his party, but this time, it is not helping him.

You certainly do if that man's demands are unreasonable and unacceptable.

And because of that, Obama and Maliki made the situation worse, bad call.

I will grant that Obama totally neglected iraq diplomatically and that certainly has contributed greatly to the current situation. Overall, I think the American people are quietly relieved not to have thousands of troops in Iraq at the moment. But taking out Saddam in the first place is one of the greatest disasters in the history of U.S. foreign policy.

I'm not sure if I agree entirely with that last point.

What does the average citizen know about war, terrorism and the enemy, rules of engagement and the stopping or killing your enemy before he kills you. The answer is, they don't!

The American people believed what the Bush administration told them about the costs, the cake-walk aspect, and the amount of commitment -- and thus the "average citizen" eventually came to know they had been sold a bill of goods. One of Barack Obama's main promises was to end our involvement in Iraq -- and he lived up to that promise. There were plenty of ordinary troops who came home and spoke about against continued American involvement.

There is and was no way Obama can win with the people who viscerally hate him. Had he broken his promise and found some accommodation with Iraq to leave U.S. troops there, he would be drawing nothing but scorn and derision from your crowd -- as well as from the supporters he "threw under the bus." At least by keeping his promise, fewer Americans have been killed and maimed in that colossal waste.

People who complain about Obama's actions in Iraq are like someone taking a dump in the middle of the street, then yelling at the person cleaning it up for taking too long to clean it up.

The American people believed what the Bush administration told them about the costs, the cake-walk aspect, and the amount of commitment -- and thus the "average citizen" eventually came to know they had been sold a bill of goods. One of Barack Obama's main promises was to end our involvement in Iraq -- and he lived up to that promise. There were plenty of ordinary troops who came home and spoke about against continued American involvement.

I see, so living up to a promise to the American people, but hosing and lying to our military, the Iraqis and the Afghanis to the point where he wouldn't leave ANY residual forces, turning our backs on many of the people in those countries that risked their lives to help us, get the intel we needed to help these people back on their feet. Also, there are even MORE people that were against withdrawing our forces to early in particular the generals and other military analysts. Obama could have handled this completely different, but short-selling the Iraqi people and the Afghans is complete slap in the face and deserves total condemnation. Is it any wonder why the majority of our military can't stand this guy? This is already coming back to haunt Obama.

There is and was no way Obama can win with the people who viscerally hate him.

I don't hate Obama, I think he is a good family man and father, I just think he got way over his head when he took the job and sadly, he just doesn't know how to properly govern.

Had he broken his promise and found some accommodation with Iraq to leave U.S. troops there, he would be drawing nothing but scorn and derision from your crowd -- as well as from the supporters he "threw under the bus." At least by keeping his promise, fewer Americans have been killed and maimed in that colossal waste.

Not true and also, the soldiers know what's at stake, yes, there might be some that are happy to leave, but the majority would have gladly left once the job was complete, the military properly trained, the police force up and running and a small security presence of our troops, building better relations with the secular Iraqis it would have all come together, when Obama took office, most of Iraq was relatively quiet and once Maliki started firing all of his Sunni top generals and replaced them with his incompetent cronies, these men had no job, no money or income coming in, of course they were getting desperate and angry and you had this hate starting to fester. Here was Obama's chance to come in, pay these people and work with Maliki to get these men back to work and that never happened! He didn't care, pure and simple and now here we are witnessing the fall and destruction of Iraq, thanks to these two imbeciles to put it mildly.

@stranger

People who complain about Obama's actions in Iraq are like someone taking a dump in the middle of the street, then yelling at the person cleaning it up for taking too long to clean it up.

Honestly, that was a terrible analogy, seriously.