Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will Bam lose Iraq?
NY Post ^ | August 3, 2010 | Ralph Peters

Posted on 08/03/2010 2:26:39 AM PDT by Scanian

One president gave his pre mature "Mission Accomplished" speech about Iraq on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Now another has given his own version as part of a Chicago-ward-politics sales pitch to disabled veterans.

The difference is that the first guy was sincere.

President Obama's pork-barrel speech to the Disabled Veterans of America yesterday (if you want to help our vets, shut up and do it) would have drawn a blush from those Soviet propagandists who cropped purged Politburo members from Stalin-era photographs.

Ignoring his own opposition to the liberation of Iraq, supporting our troops and the surge, Obama spoke as if all's well in Baghdad -- thanks to him.

As part of his weird victory lap, the president rightfully praised the way "our troops adapted and adjusted" to the insurgency in Iraq, then stressed that 90,000 service members have come home during his administration.

He preened that we'll meet his Aug. 31 deadline to transition "from combat to supporting and training Iraqi security forces" and reaffirmed that we'll remove the last of our troops in 2012. But the portion of yesterday's speech that focused on Iraq left out . . . Iraq.

While that country has passed its military crisis, it's now in political turmoil -- from which our government has utterly disengaged. We won that war, but we still can lose the peace. Obama shunned the fact that, almost half a year after its last national election, Iraq doesn't have a new government. Determined to abandon "Bush's war," Obama's been AWOL in Baghdad.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: disabledveterans; iraqielections; obama; troopwithdrawal
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

1 posted on 08/03/2010 2:26:42 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Scanian

Iraq was never conquered, so it can’t be lost.


2 posted on 08/03/2010 2:40:49 AM PDT by Jim Noble (If the answer is "Republican", it must be a stupid question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

I don’t think we’ve fought to win since WWII.


3 posted on 08/03/2010 3:31:43 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

4 posted on 08/03/2010 4:13:20 AM PDT by Jim Noble (If the answer is "Republican", it must be a stupid question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
Sure, some on the left would delight in a belated disaster in Iraq to spite the long-gone bogeyman, George W. Bush. I do not believe President Obama is among them.

Obama absolutely wanted a disaster in Iraq and voted against the surge in order to get one-on Bush's watch. But Bush left Iraq in pretty good shape for him and he knows that people know it.

5 posted on 08/03/2010 4:25:42 AM PDT by libertylover (The problem with Obama is not that his skin is too black, it's that his ideas are too RED.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

That was rather “insensitive” of Halsey. I’ll be he didn’t even get a medal for courageous restraint.


6 posted on 08/03/2010 4:27:59 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
He preened that we'll meet his Aug. 31 deadline to transition "from combat to supporting and training Iraqi security forces" and reaffirmed that we'll remove the last of our troops in 2012.

According to the SOFA agreement (signed by the Bush Admin on 17 Nov 2008) the last troops will be out of the country by 31 Dec 2011, not 2012.

SOFA Agreement.pdf

7 posted on 08/03/2010 4:30:17 AM PDT by Sarajevo (You're jealous because the voices only talk to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

The Iraq War was a mistake. The Iraqi Sunnis, under Saddam, had the Shiites pinned down and the Iranians boxed in (somewhat). And we had the Sunnis pinned down under our sanctions and overflights.

Now the Iranians are unleased, the Shiites are running wild and America has fallen to a communist regime... all as a result of a misguided decision to launch this war.


8 posted on 08/03/2010 4:31:26 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

Anything Obama says is diametrically opposed to what he has done and is going to do. It seems he has a total disconnect from reality.


9 posted on 08/03/2010 4:32:31 AM PDT by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I believe it was also Admiral Halsey who said that when we’re finished, the only place they’ll be speaking Japanese is in hell.


10 posted on 08/03/2010 4:34:00 AM PDT by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

We did under McArthur... but then a friggin’ dim president ****ed that up too.

LLS


11 posted on 08/03/2010 4:41:30 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (WOLVERINES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
One president gave his pre mature "Mission Accomplished" speech about Iraq on the deck of an aircraft carrier.

A lie is a lie, no matter how many times it gets repeated. Shame on you Ralph.

12 posted on 08/03/2010 4:46:34 AM PDT by anita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

He just thinks the public is too dumb to notice the contradictions and the media is too corrupt to point them out.


13 posted on 08/03/2010 5:04:45 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: anita

True.

In addition, a mission is not a war.


14 posted on 08/03/2010 5:15:00 AM PDT by CPOSharky (They ain't "illegals." They are just unregistered democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

Excellent analysis.

The enemy nations are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.


15 posted on 08/03/2010 5:16:10 AM PDT by Jim Noble (If the answer is "Republican", it must be a stupid question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
I have long expected that under Obama US forces will be bugging out of Iraq with desperate Iraqi's clinging to the helicopter skids as Iranian tanks roll into Baghdad in a repeat of the “evacuation” of Saigon in 1974.
16 posted on 08/03/2010 5:16:16 AM PDT by The Great RJ (The Bill of Rights: Another bill members of Congress haven't read.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
He preened that we'll meet his Aug. 31 deadline to transition "from combat to supporting and training Iraqi security forces"...

That's a meaningless claim of fulfilling a promise. You can always stop patrolling, stop military action. It's called surrender. hussein is going to surrender Iraq back to the forces of mayhem. We lost in Iraq the moment hussein was elected.

17 posted on 08/03/2010 5:23:24 AM PDT by ThunderSleeps (obama out now! I'll keep my money, my guns, and my freedom - you can keep the change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ

General Giap said, “this is where I came in.”


18 posted on 08/03/2010 5:55:51 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Impeachment !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
Now the Iranians are unleased, the Shiites are running wild and America has fallen to a communist regime... all as a result of a misguided decision to launch this war.

Ditto.

Our country is run by fools.

The key to understanding Iraq is the simple and quite obvious observation is that Iraq doesn't really exist - it is a purely jury-rigged political construct cobbled together by the British imperialists after WWI for the express purpose of creating a disharmonious state that would be easier to dominate. Iraq represents no national identity. There is no such thing as an "Iraqi." There are Sunnis, and Shiites, and Kurds and Turkomens and Chaldeans.

But there are no Iraqis.

Only a drooling idiot could have ever thought otherwise.

We can't build a new "Iraq." We might as well try to make a decent country out of, say, Afghanistan, which is made up of warring Pashtuns and Tajiks and Uzbeks and so forth.

Oh, sorry, I forgot. We are trying to build a new Afghanistan. Hahahahaha!!! Silly me. I seem to have a hard time accepting that our country is run by morons.

19 posted on 08/03/2010 6:16:13 AM PDT by Erskine Childers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

losing wars is what buys you Street Cred within the modern Democrat Party


20 posted on 08/03/2010 6:21:14 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson