Obama: Pulling All U.S. Troops Out of Iraq Was Not ‘My Decision'

Technically maybe not Obama's "decision" as the "agreement" to pull out of Iraq was made under Bush.

But Obama did take "credit" before current events seem to have changed the interpretations.

When he was running for re-election in 2012, President Barack Obama repeatedly took credit for ending the war in Iraq and bringing all U.S. troops home from that country. At the White House on Saturday, however, when talking about his decision to use military force against the al-Qaida-related ISIS terrorist group in Iraq, Obama said removing all U.S. troops from Iraq was not “my decision.”

“You know I say what I mean and I mean what I say,” Obama said in Hollywood, Florida on Nov. 4, 2012. “I said I'd end the war in Iraq. I ended it.”

On Dec. 14, 2011, President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama delivered speeches at Fort Bragg, North Carolina that the White House posted under the headline: “Remarks by the President and First Lady on the End of the War in Iraq.”

“Now, Iraq is not a perfect place, Obama said. “It has many challenges ahead. But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people. We’re building a new partnership between our nations. And we are ending a war not with a final battle, but with a final march toward home.

“This is an extraordinary achievement, nearly nine years in the making,” said Obama.

Obama: Pulling All U.S. Troops Out of Iraq Was Not ‘My Decision'



What's the big issues in Iraq and Syria anyway ?

Religions ? ... Natural Gas Pipelines ? ... Both?

Who does Obama "back" now ?

I believe it's been said multiple times that the US would only stay in Iraq with the provision of certain conditions. Those conditions were not met.

Obama doesn't control anything. He simply plays out his part to the letter/motion. The world is currently run like a theater with politicians and people of "importance" acting out roles. With citizens and resources as props.

originally posted by: angeldoll
I believe it's been said multiple times that the US would only stay in Iraq with the provision of certain conditions. Those conditions were not met.

Can you post those "conditions" ?

Might be some relevance.

He could easily have violated Iraq's sovereignty and kept troops there, it's not like the US has never done that before.

Is this the "help" that Israel asked for?

It was the first thing I thought of, given that the whole thing seems so contrived and the White House is scrambling to try and convince people that this has been on the agenda for some time and not due to some new developments.

It's called back tracking

Obviously, this isn't going to end without putting Boots on the ground again because of IS

The legitimate govts of the region don't want this... that Includes Iran, The Ayatollah wont stay in Power of the Sunni Storm crosses his border, they have threatened Mecca of all places... That leaves the Saudis wanting us back too... If we have to let Iran handle this that's just bad news for America, if we let turkey handle it screw our friends the Kurds... The Egyptians are under threat from the Muslim brotherhood... and then there are again like before all the smaller oil states like Kuwait... Even the Russians wont say boo because of Syria...

Obama isn't the only one who will be back tracking in regards to American occupation now...

Every Nation on Earth will

a reply to: xuenchen

I see nowhere a potential solution...

All I see is a hammering of our current POTUS...


How does that help fix what's wrong?


Let's stop this blame game... realize our gov't is broke, and fix it...


The blame game is OLD.....

a reply to: xuenchen

No one expects any form of honesty from obamma-not even his worshippers.

someone here do a thread/poll.... is Obama the POTUS

Or is he the EOS ----- Enemy of the State




this is in reply to:

originally posted by: JacKatMtn
a reply to: xuenchen

I see nowhere a potential solution...

All I see is a hammering of our current POTUS...





Let's stop this blame game... realize our gov't is broke, and fix it...

Come on guys and gals, we all know it really was not his decision.
Valerie Jarrett, thinks for him, every one knows that.

If such is not obvious by now, it should be.

He's right.

He has no control whatsoever.

Puppets...

Peace

Make up your mind america, you complained cause obamer was taking is time with taking tropps out of iraq, now its they left too early, which one is it.

Obama hasn't done any worst than Bush did, however the next president will have to deal with Iraq because of Bush, he is why we were there.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
Obama doesn't control anything. He simply plays out his part to the letter/motion. The world is currently run like a theater with politicians and people of "importance" acting out roles. With citizens and resources as props.

Some sympathy with that, however the word, 'currently' is not so current..it's called history, and each must play a part.

a reply to: xuenchen

But Obama did take "credit" before current events seem to have changed the interpretations

Obama's ego barely fits in the White House, it's only out done by his apathy for world affairs. He is going to do the bare minimum as far as intervention is concerned. The world thought they got an enlightened leader of a super power and what they got was a European style isolationist, maybe comparable to Frances last socialist leader. It's what Europe SAID they always wanted, the US to stay out of things, be more of a pro UN type - basically ineffectual.

Obama think he is a great leader, but he is really simply an absent one. It's like he is coasting, I think he is going to do a # load of executive orders before he leaves. Really enact some crazy left wing stuff because he knows whats best, he just is stymied by those pesky Republicans.


V

a reply to: xuenchen

I don't know the detail of the conditions, but as I understand it if the troops had remained in Iraq they would have been subject to Iraqi civil/criminal law, same as any other citizen of the state. In other words, our troops could have been jailed for any violations of the law. This would never work for combat soldiers in an active state of war. The Iraqi government insisted upon this as a condition if the troops remained.

If you were Commander in Chief, would you allow your soldiers to remain there?

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Make up your mind america, you complained cause obamer was taking is time with taking tropps out of iraq, now its they left too early, which one is it.

It's the American people

we don't want a world war, we don't want escalation, we don't want a draft, through this whole thing that last one has hovered ominously over our children's heads, we aren't as stupid as people think, all of us knows that if we are fighting on two fronts and some jack off like LIL Kim in NK wants to send things over the edge our kids would be called up... knocking our male population into war isn't exactly good when we are falling behind in math and science in the communication age...

war weary... the people are war weary Obama told us what we wanted to hear for votes and made good on it...

we ALL said Frack Iraq... "who cares what happens"

now we are saying... "oh, Islamic caliphate across the region beheading everyone and overthrowing what relatively stable nation states they are hell bent on destroying the west... that's what happens...ooops"

a reply to: smurfy

And it's both scary and sad that it keeps happening. Despite how advanced and intelligent we are we're still all caught in the same game throughout the centuries. Yikes.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: angeldoll
I believe it's been said multiple times that the US would only stay in Iraq with the provision of certain conditions. Those conditions were not met.

Can you post those "conditions" ?

Might be some relevance.

Did you read your article cause the reasoning is in there.
He says the the Iraqi gov would not assure that the troops would be free from prosecution of the Iraqi gov

“Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government,” Obama said. “In order for us to maintain troops in Iraq, we needed the invitation of the Iraqi government and we needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a firefight with Iraqis, that they wouldn’t be hauled before an Iraqi judicial system. “And the Iraqi government, based on its political considerations, in part because Iraqis were tired of a U.S. occupation, declined to provide us those assurances,” Obama said. “And on that basis, we left. We had offered to leave additional troops. So when you hear people say, do you regret, Mr. President, not leaving more troops, that presupposes that I would have overridden this sovereign government that we had turned the keys back over to and said, you know what, you’re democratic, you’re sovereign, except if I decide that it’s good for you to keep 10,000 or 15,000 or 25,000 Marines in your country, you don’t have a choice, which would have kind of run contrary to the entire argument we were making about turning over the country back to Iraqis, an argument not just made by me, but made by the previous administration. “So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were--a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq,” said Obama.