Hiliary says Jeb! is wrong on Iraq and wonders why...

Post Reply New Topic

Today Hilliary Clinton fired back against Jeb's claim that she and Obama ruined Iraq, giving up and prematurely leaving the country paving the way for ISIS to happen in 2011.

Hilliary responded with:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33948176

Does Hilliary have it right or is she trying to cover for Obama?

Will Iraq be the main election issue in 2016?

I did hear something this afternoon that H.W. told W. that dragging the U.S. into a war under false pretenses would be a total disaster. Unfortunately, W. was too stubborn, too stupid, or both to listen. As a matter of fact, The Sick Willie administration even told the W. administration that 9/11 was about to happen, when W. took office .Again, W. refused to listen, and caused more harm to the nation, individually and corporately, than good. Why should we trust Jeb! (or even Billary, for that matter) about Iraq?

Jeb's brother had disrupted the whole Middle East with his adventurism based on his need to finish what he perceived as what his father wasn't able to accomplish. If Jeb had any integrity, or any sense for that matter, he would have conceded the war and it's anarchic outcome was only the fault of bro' W.

^George Bush senior was under a lot of pressure from the right wing to take out Saddam back during Desert Storm but declined to do so for fear of what the aftermath might bring, much of what we have seen for over a decade now. I wonder if the Iraqi people are enjoying the Democracy that G.W. brought to them.

Obama may not have done such a great job after he inherited this mess in Iraq but, in my opinion, G.W. had plenty of time (close to 6 years) to get Iraq's army back in shape to protect it's own territory and failed to do so. Obama shouldn't have had to inherit G.W.'s mess in the first place.

Most are grateful according to several polls. The lunatic fringe is the only demographic group showing general signs of discontent. It's a relatively large group, but they have no influence.

As that lunatic fringe consists of ISIS and Al Qaeda, I'd say that they have plenty of influence by means of terror.

Terror is a way to overcompensate for lack of influence. They will eventually be exterminated like cockroaches.

Possibly so; but in the meantime, they have - and will continue - to cause untold suffering and loss of life.

Either he says something like this, or he admits that
Dubya's whole Iraq adventure was a ^&*%$!? catastrophe
for everybody. In particular, neo-conservatives found that
they did not have the country all to themselves to be their social
engineering lab (Ayatollah al-Sistani set them straight on
that topic). To make matters worse, the story has it that
several top generals in the old Iraqi Army who were cashiered
by L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer (Dubya's governor-general in
US-occupied Iraq) are now leaders in the Islamic State
movement.
However, I don't see the Iraq issue gaining much traction.
Controversies over Obamacare, doubts about whether the
Republican Party can generate anyone who can stand against
Hilary Clinton (or almost any other Democratic Party candidate),
and other stuff like that there are more germane to any campaign
right now.

Yep! Iraq is miles away, and we're right here. It all comes down to who ends up screwing us over after the election.