You are hereForums / Issues / Military / Breaking News on Iraq

Breaking News on Iraq


I'm a little concerned over Uganda.  President Obama is sending 100 troops to Uganda as "advisors" only. Turns out, there's a lot of oil in Uganda.

I hope it doesn't turn into Iraq, Part Deux.

Maliki himself said in a recent Reuters interview that U.S. troops could only remain in Iraq if they had no immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, an absolute nonstarter with the Pentagon. The hundreds of U.S. troops who will be left behind to guard the mammoth American embassy in Baghdad and its consulates in Erbil and Basra -- and to man an embassy office dedicated to weapons sales to the Iraqis -- will have limited diplomatic immunity. Even so, American civilian officials will primarily be guarded by private security contractors, not U.S. troops. The State Department has talked of hiring as many as 8,000 such guards.

Well, that's all folks!

National Security Network senior adviser, Major General Paul Eaton, retired, released the following statement: “The President made the right choice today in announcing a complete drawdown from Iraq by the end of the year. His decision honors the commitments of the United States:  to a sovereign Iraqi nation, to the brave American troops and diplomats who have served for almost a decade and to the American people. The United States has provided opportunities for Iraqis to ask for an American troop presence beyond the date agreed to by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in 2008. They have not asked for that. It would be inappropriate to keep troops without Iraqi legal immunity for our servicemembers. Hundreds of thousands of dedicated Americans have served our country in Iraq, and nearly four thousand five hundred people have given their lives to support Iraq’s transition to a sovereign democratic nation. Today we thank and honor these men and women and mark a promise kept to Iraqis, to Americans and to the values they serve.”
Romney: “President Obama’s astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women.”

Martin Bashir on MSNBC and his guests ridiculed Romney's statement. Bashir read it and then laughed for a second and said, "What? Is he joking?" And Goldie Taylor said something like, "He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about."

From Politico: The Obama campaign accused Mitt Romney of wanting to "leave American troops" in Iraq for no apparent reason in a statement Friday, hours after the GOP frontrunner called the withdrawal of U.S. forces a "failure" on the part of the president. "The President kept his pledge to the nation to end the war in Iraq in a responsible way, he has promoted our security in Afghanistan and eliminated key Al Qaeda leaders while strengthening American leadership around the world," Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a statement. "Mitt Romney didn't lay out a plan to end the war in Iraq in his foreign policy agenda - he barely even mentioned Iraq - but he is apparently willing to leave American troops there without identifying a new mission." Continue Reading LaBolt's kicker: "Mitt Romney's foreign policy experience is limited to his work as a finance executive shipping American jobs overseas."
For the Republicans being so critical, let's not forget it was Bush who initially negotiated this withdrawal time frame. With the majority of Americans wanting an end to this war (many feeling it was not worth fighting) I would have advised GOP candidates and lawmakers to either say nothing, offer a polite support for the drawdown, or simply say you want to reserve judgement until the transition plays out. Once again, they are on the wrong side of an issue. And on record. President Obama-yes, a Democrat-will "own" foreign policy against Republicans for 2012. What will the GOP do without that advantage, especially since they don't seem to have winning answers to our economic problems?

Well, when Bush negotiated the withdrawl time frame, he didn't really mean it, just like he didn't really mean temporary tax cuts to be "temporary".

So it's blame Obama for actually carrying out someone else's promises which were never meant to be carried out!

Exactly, Tin. I'm sure President Bush was forced to agree to the timeline and hope the next president figured out a way to keep troops there indefinitely. I just don't get why Republicans are so upset we are leaving. Isn't close to a decade of war enough, especially when Bush and Cheney originally predicted this would be quick & we'd be greeted as liberators?

Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook

RSS

 

 

RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for republicansforobama.org. We will never share or sell your email address.