Posted on 04/27/2015 7:35:18 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Edited on 04/27/2015 10:05:42 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Interesting, not because it’s a surprise that Ron Paul’s son feels this way — remember this? — but because this is a subject that every Republican in the field, Rand included, would probably prefer to avoid during the primaries.
Or am I wrong about that? Could this be a smart play for Paul, especially given how it’ll make Jeb Bush squirm?
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
The first military move GHWB made after Iraq invaded Kuwait was to place US forces in Saudi Arabia to block any chance that Sadddam could invade SA. One of the main rationales for GW I was to prevent Saddam from gaining control of Saudi Oil.
There has always been the odd Bush affinity for the Saudis, and there was no way either would have made any aggressive moves towards them. (And the story of how W helped many Saudis leave the US immediately after 9/11.)
Oh, baloney. You just keep recycling and peddling the liberal talking points - word for word - and it was no more true then as it is now. This nonsense was long ago thoroughly debunked. There are no facts to be found in your argument. There is no doubt that the Bush administration, or even a McCain administration, would have been able to negotiate such an agreement vs. the completely half-hearted efforts by the Obama administration more interesting in saying they had “ended the war” rather than putting together a cohesive policy and serious diplomatic effort, so keeping the more substantial residual force that Maliki wanted was never in the cards and everything fell apart. They handled it as incompetently and corruptly as they have handled every other policy they have put forth. We are now living with the consequences.
You are not wrong. The agreement signed by Bush was for the full combat role to be drawn down and then the long term role to be negotiated later. You are remembering correctly the actual facts, not just liberal talking points circulated by Obama and his allies in the press after the ISIS fiasco exposed the folly of the policy he pursued.
Yes.
See Article 24 (Withdrawal of American Forces from Iraq) of the agreement below:
There are two things in that agreement that are beyond dispute (assuming the translation from Arabic to English is correct):
1. The agreement was signed in Baghdad on November 17, 2008.
2. The agreement clearly stated that "U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011."
He’s an idiot and I’m being kind.
Bravo Sierra. Obama pulled the troops out way too soon. Whiskey Fox Trot, we still have troops and military bases in Germany, Japan and the Korean Peninsula. Idiots like Rand Paul, Obama and people who agree with him make me sick. He, Obama and others did not learn from history, and therefore, will repeat the events over and over again. Under Bush we had a chance to change direction. Yes, it would take decades but no, jerks like Obama, Rand and those who agree with them had to destroy the only chance the Mid East had.
Did you mean Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
With all due respect, there is more to the story.
During the 2008 election, an extension of the above status of forces agreement was being negotiated.
And, while campaigning for the presidency, Barack Obama took it upon himself to make a trip to Iraq and meet with the Prime Minister. Nobody knows for sure what the content of their discussion was but, from that point forward, Iraq's negotiators for the status of forces agreement became totally uncooperative.
The assumption is that Obama promised he'd give Malaki what he wanted -- and couldn't get from Bush.
Consequently, I wouldn't be so quick to blame the lapse of the status of forces agreement and the early exit on Bush.
Totally agree with you. At this point, after this administration has nullified the purpose for which Americans gave their lives in Iraq, it seems like a retrospective mistake. Had we built on what we achieved, however, it was not a mistake.
IHMO, what we were faced with after 9/11 was a situation that required a broad-based response. Had we invaded Afghanistan only, the jihadists would have popped up elsewhere. We needed to deny them safe haven. We were partially successful, until we decided to announce a pull-out of Iraq, and thus tell the Jihadis that they just needed to be patient and would be handed an opportunity to establish a new beachhead.
Me too. It was a stupid idea that had nothing to do with punishing jihadi Islam. It grew out of the crackpot utopian idea that democracy is a cure-all for every ill in the world and can be easily implanted in cultures that haven’t got any of the civil society that makes democracy work in the West.
Well said.
Purple fingers don’t work in places like Iraq.
I thought our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq were to prepare to liberate Iran. How sadly wrong I was.
The fact of the matter is that Bush waited until after Obama had won the 2008 election to sign that agreement -- for whatever that's worth. If what you've said is true, then why would Bush negotiate an agreement at all?
Sorry.
I agree. I think we should have gone after Iran. But that’s just me.
He once described democracy in the Middle East like a bus ride, where those who promote it only take the ride until they get to their own stop, then get off the bus.
It's hard to believe the citizens of a country as great as ours were so gullible to believe the kind of nation-building crap they've been fed for the last 25 years.
Well, George Bush didn’t do a damned thing to prevent an avowed America hater and enemy from becoming the sorriest president ever. Bush had all the goods on the sorry SOB and could have done things behind the scenes to prevent the SOB from becoming president.
I agree that we should have had a sufficient Force in Place but Bush never spoke up when the POS was pulling them out.
We could go on and on but I’m not going to participate.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/11/18/56116/unofficial-translation-of-us-iraq.html#storylink=cpy
He’s an idiot and I’m being kind.
I agree. But even idiots are right on a few things.
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.