On key parts he did. Though you are ignoring facts on this. I showed you the facts to prove that the draw-down was decided before Obama even stepped in the door. Bush had some good policies and some terrible ones. Like all presidents.
You won't get away with rewriting history here, chief. Bush's policy was "Stay the course". The withdrawal from Bush's folly was Obama's. It was a major policy change. Bush placated Pakistan and asked permission to strike Al Qaeda. Obama stepped it up by a factor of ten and ignore Pakistan's objections. He played hardball with Pakistan at great political risk and got results. You can't rewrite history. You would have been the first to bitch if he had cut and run before stabilizing the situation with the Petraeus surge and refocusing on Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban instead of the local insurgents. No, Obama did it right, the way that the generals wanted it. A bigger stimulus would never have gotten past the Republicans. Obama saved GM and the US auto industry which is growing and selling cars. Bullshit. Obama did NOT take Bush policies and run with them. More rewriting history to suit yourself. Only a overt political stooge blames the President for everything that is bad but credits someone else when things are good. The bucks stops with Obama or it doesn't. More Bullshit. More political stoogery. Obama ran and won office on Heath Care, promoted it relentlessly, and got it passed. WHY DO YOU THINK THEY CALL IT OBAMACARE ??? Your credibility is shrinking rapidly.
e agreement provides American troops and Defense Department officials with authorizations and protections to continue supporting Iraq's democracy once the U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year. This agreement respects the sovereignty and the authority of Iraq's democracy. The agreement lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq—a withdrawal that is possible because of the success of the surge. Bush noted that U.S. forces were in Iraq “at the request of the Iraqi government. It's an elected government.” The agreement called for U.S. withdrawal by the end of 2011. On Friday, with that deadline approaching, President Obama announced: "A few hours ago I spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. I reaffirmed that the United States keeps its commitments. He spoke of the determination of the Iraqi people to forge their own future. We are in full agreement about how to move forward. So today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year." Actually, as Josh Rogin reports in Foreign Policy, U.S. officials wanted to leave thousands of troops beyond the deadline. But negotiations with Iraq stalled over the U.S. demand that the remaining troops receive immunity from Iraqi courts. … As recently as August, Maliki's office was discussing allowing 8,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops to remain until next year, Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaida'iesaid in an interview with The Cable. He told us that there was widespread support in Iraq for such an extension, but the Obama administration was demanding that immunity for U.S. troops be endorsed by the Iraqi Council of Representatives, which was never really possible. The New York Times says U.S. officials asked Iraqi leaders to take a stand on the question of immunity for troops … But they misread Iraqi politics and the Iraqi public. Still burdened by the traumas of this and previous wars, and having watched the revolutions sweeping their region, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept anything that infringed on their sovereignty. Acutely aware of that sentiment, the Iraqi leadership quickly said publicly that they would not support legal protections for any American troops. In short, Iraq’s government, driven by public concern about national sovereignty, refused to let us keep troops there with legislatively guaranteed immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law. You can argue about what led to this refusal or whether it’s negotiable, but the refusal itself clearly irks some Republican presidential candidates. “When they refuse to sign an agreement protecting American forces from Iraqi law … we have lost influence,” Newt Gingrich complained Saturday. The next morning on Face the Nation, Bob Schieffertold Rick Santorum: “The Iraqis seem to be saying, ‘We don't want you there anymore.’ Why would we keep troops there when they say, ‘We don't want you’?” Santorum replied: “That's because we've lost the battle in Iraq with the Iraqi government. We've lost this sphere of influence that we had.” Protecting American forces from Iraqi law. We’ve lost the battle with the Iraq government. That’s quite a turn from the battle we originally claimed to be waging. But Gingrich’s and Santorum’s gripes are nothing compared to Michele Bachmann’s rage. On Face the Nation,she fumed: We've put a lot of deposit into this situation with Iraq. And to think that we are so disrespected and they have so little fear of the United States that there would be nothing that we would gain from this … We are there as the nation that liberated these people. And that's the thanks that the United States is getting after 4,400 lives were expended and over $800 billion? And so on the way out, we're being kicked out of the country? I think this is absolutely outrageous. Deposit. Disrespected. Kicked out. No gain. No fear of the United States. So much for all that talk of sovereignty, democracy, and the rule of law. For Bachmann, our military presence in Iraq isn’t about liberation. It’s about empire. She even demanded that Iraq "reimburse the United States fully for the amount of money that we have spent to liberate these people." On Fox News Sunday, Bachmann dismissed Iraq’s government as Iran’s puppet. The U.S. troop withdrawal, she argued, was forced by “the insistence of Iraq. They did not want an American presence. And it's clear to all why they don't want an American presence: because Iran doesn't want an American presence.” She also said “it was wrong for the United States to go in[to] Libya” because “there was no clearly identifiable American vital interest” and we “don't know who the next regime will be that will be taking over Libya. We knew who the devil was that was running [Libya]. we don't know the next one.”
thast the fucking samething I said about Obama. he has made good and bad decisions, are you a parrot.
and I showed you Bush was forced into that draw down by the newly elected Iraqi government that his war put in place. He couldnt stay there forever because of the causation effect. Im sure Winston doesnt understand this, hopefully you do.
Yet Obama stands firm on taking full credit. He also stands firm on making sure people know never to blame him.. Not the sign of a good leader.
You showed nothing. Bush finalized the draw down. Its a fact man. All Obama had to do was not fuck it up...
prove it. Obama has taken blame for a lot. Biden and Obama even said during the election, that the unemployment rate was on them, not anyone else. Vice President Joe Biden told a South Florida radio station this morning that he and President Obama take responsibility for the state of the U.S. economy, knowing full well that the 2012 election appears to be a referendum on the issue. “There’s a lot of people in Florida that have good reason to be upset because they’ve lost jobs. Even though 50 some percent of the American people think the economy tanked because of the last administration, that’s not relevant,” Biden told WLRN’s Phil Latzman. “What’s relevant is, we’re in charge. And right now, we are the ones in charge, and it’s gotten better but it hasn’t gotten good enough. And in states like Florida it’s even been more stagnant because of the real estate market. I don’t blame them for being mad. We’re in charge, and they’re angry.”
