Barack Obama Tried to Stop the Iraq Troop Withdrawal
Everybody remembers Barack Obama’s European victory tour just a short while ago that culminated with him speaking in Germany to 100,000 or 200,000 people. Or whatever the number was. You remember that speech, he claimed that he was a “citizen of the world” and he ripped America while on foreign soil. Well a little story has popped up that I find very interesting.
Before he arrived in Europe you may remember that he went to Iraq to visit the troops because he was shamed into it by John McCain. Well, while in Iraq according to the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Barack Obama tried to persuade Iraq NOT to agree to a timetable for withdrawing United States troops from Iraq.
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.
Barack Obama has stumbled his way through various positions on a timetable for withdrawal. He has claimed that he would begin withdrawing troops immediately upon taking the oath of office, he has said that he would begin troop withdrawals within 16 months of taking the oath, he has had varied dates on when all troops would be home, and he has even stated that he would listen to the commanders on the ground before making ANY decision.
But one thing that has always certain was the fact that Barack Obama WOULD withdraw the troops regardless of whether we were winning or losing thereby insuring defeat. At least that is what he told his far left base. Let us not forget who he is pandering to with his irresponsible calls of troop withdrawal:
So while publicly Barack Obama has said all of the right things to appease the assholes that you see above, privately he knows that he can’t just arbitrarily withdraw the troops. He has no plans to withdraw the troops upon his swearing in. But this game that he is playing is not funny to me. He is playing with the lives of our troops.
Suddenly the man who is supposedly for immediate troop withdrawal when confronted with the opportunity to demand it bemoans the idea of troop withdrawal. Why? For political reasons, of course. Just look at that Obama quote, he asks the Iraqi Foreign Minister to hold off on agreeing with withdrawing troops until after the election. He should be celebrating the fact that we are now at the point where we can responsibly start talking about withdrawing the troops but he knows that he will personally lose if troops start coming home before he becomes president. Suddenly he doesn’t care about bringing home the troops. Bringing home the troops now would make President Bush look good, and he can’t have that.
When push came to shove Barack Obama knew that any sign of victory in Iraq was political disaster for him so he tried to convince Iraqi officials to hold off on agreeing on a “time horizon” on troop withdrawal even though his stated position is for that very same troop withdrawal. He wants to be perceived as the one who was able to start drawing down troops in Iraq. He is putting his political gain above what is best for the troops.
America's Watchtower 
I going to play devil’s advocate here (when have I not?).
Given the timing of the positive announcements concerning the Iraq, I have wonder if the Iraqis are being pressured to rush into a time line by the Bush administration. General Petraeus has stated that the gains made in Iraq are at best fragile and an early withdrawal will undo everything. Then why would the Iraqis be requesting a time line for us to get out?
Given the amount of trust that I have with the Bush administration, I have to wonder if Zebari was asked to make the statements he did about Obama. Zebari’s motivation in accepting would be his knowing that American troops will still stay as long as needed to bolster his fledgling government.
LikeLike
Oh for crying out loud. Democrats: The ConspiracyTheory Party.
LikeLike
Terrant, devil’s advocate? I’m shocked. 🙂
I don’t think that he was pressured to make those comments, but I have wondered about the timing of the troop withdrawal talk. I thought that the Obama campaign or Democrats in general would openly question the timing of the talks in regard to the election but none have. Good news in Iraq has been forthcoming ever since the troop surge, not just since the election kicked into high gear.
When American soldiers are allowed to fight to the best of their ability I don’t think that there is anyone who can beat them, that is what happened with the surge and that is why I believe that the timing of the pullout talks was not politically planned.
By the way Elizabeth, Terrant isn’t a Democrat or a Republican.
LikeLike
Well, I can’t wait ’til the election just because I want to see how many of those liberal democrats vote. I still don’t think there are as many as BHO thinks there are. Maybe he is beginning to realize it now, since he keeps “amending” his own timeline for bringing troops home.
LikeLike
All I can say is that we can all see just how fantastic the US has gone in the last 8 years: A totally unnecessary war ( I have friends fighting in it), One of the worst economic fallouts in US history ( Brought on by Mr Bush’s infamous “ownership society”, and an overall fallout and degradation in terms of international diplomacy.
Incredibly, I gather that some people think that a wash, rinse, and repeat would be fantastic? Amazing. Let me just say something about Mr. Mccain. First of all, he lost the last bid for the Republican nomination. Why? Because he said things to the Christian right like: ” You are agents of intolerance” and so on. He “was”- and might very well still be the most liberal republican in history. Want a good historical analysis? How about George Wallace, the man who fought for cival rights in the 30’s and lost, only to come back and lobby against the same things he was for only to be seen more favorably by the general populace. In my opinion, Mccain is exactly the same. Does he actually believe all the militant, uber-religious, uber-conservative BS that was spewed at the RNC? I don’t think so. I wonder just how many people who are all cuckoo for Palin would vote for her if they knew Mr. Mccain’s past rather un-conservative characteristics.
Unfortunately, I can’t take that chance. I’ll vote for the person who I feel will do the best job of repairing our image around the world. I’ll give you a hint: It isn’t the old white guy.
LikeLike
It interesting that you call people liberals as a bad word, for people who actually want thier leaders to tell the truth…Bush has clearly not past this test. McCain continues this policy by bringing in a gal he clearly does not know, and then recating her as a maverick and reformer who “said No thnaks” even though it is clear that is a lie along with the other fabrications about her..The relality is that she needs a reality show, to document the enire family and high scholls friends in the govs office. Why did McCain pick here…for political reasons of course.
You neocons…Oh I gues its just Cons, since the neo part fell apart after a few thousand dead in IRAQ…are funny. YOu should look at your guys first to make sure they are worthy of your rabid support before jumping right in…it actually kind of embarrising
LikeLike
As is your spelling.
LikeLike
How *about* George Wallace?
“ the man who fought for cival rights in the 30’s and lost, only to come back and lobby against the same things he was for only to be seen more favorably by the general populace.”
This entire statement is a farcical joke.
Wallace was born in August 1919. He was 11 years old in 1930, 16 in 1935, graduated high school in 1937, went straight to college and received his law degree in 1942 at which time he enlisted in the US Army Air Corps. The only thing he fought in the 30’s was whoever his opponent might be in the boxing ring.
In 1945 he was appointed Assistant Attorney General of Alabama and in1946 he won his first election as a member to the Alabama House of Representatives. At the start of his political career he was considered a moderate on racial issues. Moderate means middle of the road or neither here nor there, not on one side or the other but George Wallace is known for his pro-segregation attitudes. Being a pro-segregationist definitely disqualifies a person from being labeled a staunch advocate “fighting” for civil rights.
Starting his first term as Governor when he took the oath of office on 14 January 1963, he used the line for which he is best known:
“In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”
I was born and grew up in Phenix City, Alabama and Wallace and I share the same alma mater, the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa. Although I was too young to have firsthand knowledge of Wallace’s first terms as governor, I know what my parents, their friends and our neighbors thought of him. He was thought of as a flagrantly prejudiced racist big mouth Democrat (I know it’s redundant) who used the “N” word in public speech more times than could be counted.
The turnabout or “come back” you are referring to must be the great change in attitude Wallace had in the late 70s when he became a born-again Christian and apologized to black civil rights leaders for his earlier segregationist views.
You Obama pushers really need to do your research before you make these ridiculous statements. All except the personal info above can be found at Wikipedia’s site as well as in a great many other reference materials.
LikeLike
Hahaha, S. You’re killin’ me. Really, though. Has spelling and grammar just gone completely out the window? Please, Barney, look the words up if you are not sure! You’re only doing yourself a favor. Really.
LikeLike
What does “recating” mean?
Isn’t a neocon just a leftist who has come to his senses?
Isn’t part of the definition of a leftist “the advocating of liberal, socialist, or *communist* political and social change or reform”?
Don’t it make your pink eyes red?
LikeLike
Maybe I am going to have to change my name. 🙂
LikeLike
Deb, he is so filled with rage that he can’t think straight, never mind type.
PS, I think it might have been Barney Frank, what do you think?
LikeLike