Liar In Chief Now Claiming Pulling US Troops Out of Iraq Not His Idea

Obama is now claiming that pulling our forces out of Iraq wasn’t his idea, even though he spent nearly every waking hour pushing a pull out during the years he first ran for president not to mention all his actions and public speeches on the issue he made after he won.

This weekend he said that the fact that we have no American troops in Iraq that can help defeat the Islamist ISIS terrorists is not his fault. In fact, he doesn’t know why everyone keeps blaming him for the lack of troops.

Attempting to avoid blame once again, Obama said with his best, bald faced, faux shocked face, “This issue keeps on coming up as if this was my decision.”

So, why did we pull out troops out? “The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because 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,” he said.

Like most of what this fraud says, this is an outright lie.

This cretin we have in the White House is the most brazen liar we’ve ever had sitting there. Worse, he thinks that you, me and every other American are so stupid that none of us will realize he’s lying right to our faces.

We all know that this prevaricator ran for three years claiming that the war in Iraq was “the wrong war.” He said we should never have gone into Iraq, claimed that Bush’s troop surge was ill advised, said that he wouldn’t have ordered the surge, and wanted to stop it.

Here is what he said in 2007 when asked how we could pull out US troops from Iraq:

“Look, I opposed this war from the start. Because I anticipated that we would be creating the kind of sectarian violence that we’ve seen and that it would distract us from the war on terror. At this point, I think we can be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. But we have to send a clear message to the Iraqi government as well as to the surrounding neighbors that there is no military solution to the problems that we face in Iraq. So we have to begin a phased withdrawal; have our combat troops out by March 31st of next year; and initiate the kind of diplomatic surge that is necessary in these surrounding regions to make sure that everybody is carrying their weight. And that is what I will do on day one, as president of the United States, if we have not done it in the intervening months.”

He was 100 percent in favor of a pull out of US troops… before he was against it, apparently.

Then in 2009 after he became President and began his draw down of troops, Obama celebrated his move on no less than the White House’s own website.

He also celebrated via a press release, where Obama then said, “After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011. So today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year.”

The fact is, Obama just goes out there and lies through his teeth and imagines you are all too stupid to “get” that he is just a liar. He is the single most brazen liar who has ever attained the office of president.

Robin Williams: A Simple Reminder For Us All
Brand/Hannity Brouhaha
  • jim_m

    He was warned that the result of his policies in Iraq could be genocide. Now that there is a genocide happening he wants to blame his policies on someone else. Too bad that even the dems know that he owns this one.

    • Commander_Chico

      Bush was also warned that the result of his policies could be genocide. However you cut it, the cause is traced back to the 2003 invasion.

      Saddam would be ruling with an iron hand, killing his opponents, but nothing like the bloodbath Bush unleashed.

      • jim_m

        And yet those warnings were not proven correct as they have been in this case.

        • Commander_Chico

          They’ve been proved right since 2003 with regard to Christians in Iraq.

          For all of his faults, Saddam did not attack Christians. They’ve been under attack since he was removed.

          • jim_m

            NO. They have not. Since the genocidal events have only happened recently, you cannot blame Bush for policies he could not continue or implement.

            It is the height of dishhonesty to blame someone who has been out of office and unable to address anything in Iraq for the failure of the policies that were implemented subsequent to his departure.

            WHy am I not surprised that you stoop to this new low?

          • Commander_Chico

            It’s obvious that if Saddam was in control, this chaos would not be happening.

          • jim_m

            No he would be happily killing about 100,000 of his people every year and paying terrorists to murder innocents, both of which you seem to support.

          • Commander_Chico

            The Iraqi army, despite being given the best US equipment and training for years, cut and run like curs before a few hundred ISIS jihadis.

            Why should Americans die if they won’t fight?

          • jim_m

            In the Revolutionary War the state militias often would cut and run. Eventually, the Continental generals figured out that if you position the troops such that the militia is backed up by regulars, or better yet a river so they cannot run, they stand and fight.

            When you give troops that are untried and poorly trained and you support them with well trained and battle hardened troops the former will fight better.

            Someone who claims (bogusly it becomes apparent) that he served, ought to know something more about military history and about the tactics of supporting green troops.

            More Americans will die as a result of obama’s policies. He has made us weak in the ME and his weakness has emboldened both Russia and China. We will end up fighting a new world war and millions will die because he is an incompetent ideologue and morons like you gave him power he did not deserve and knew nothing about using.

          • Commander_Chico

            The Iraqis would just run right through the Americans.

            But using an 18th century example from the Revolutionary War to apply to Iraq now wins you the Armchair General Prize.

          • jim_m

            I’ll take that as a compliment form a POS like you who claims to be a vet but doesn’t give a rip about this country and would rather see us fail as a nation than bother to defend our interests, a worthless parasite that rants constantly about maintaining his benes but is so pathologically afraid of any military action that you sound more like Medea Benjamin than the former member of the Joint Chiefs that you profess to be. Insults from an ass like you who openly welcomes a fascist state where only people who serve have a right to vote or express a political opinion, are a compliment.

          • Retired military

            Only obvious to the ever loving Obama butt kissers.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Its obvious that if Obama was in control, this chaos would not be happening.

          • westcoastwiser

            you’re right; just more genocide.

      • Retired military

        So chico goes with option B. Obama is bad but Bush was worse.

      • westcoastwiser

        I’d call you a bonehead, but that would be insulting to bones.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        Citations Required.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves
  • Commander_Chico

    It was a good idea to pull troops out of Iraq, and the Iraqis were sick of Americans with guns rampaging around, so they could not have stayed anyways. The Blackwater massacre, the perps of which are on trial now, was the nail in the coffin in any American troop presence in Iraq, because the Iraqis were sick of Americans killing Iraqis and getting away with it.

    If this Joel Gehrke is so much in favor of troops in Iraq, why doesn’t he join?

    Oh right, another epicene warmonger.

    http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/joe_gehrke.jpg

    • Retired military

      And chico totally missed where Obama said it wasnt his idea. Even though it was.

      • Commander_Chico

        Yeah Obama should have just said, if Iraqis won’t fight, I’m not going to send Americans to fight, I’m glad were out of there.

        • Retired military

          So in other words Obama lied and Americans died correct?

          • Commander_Chico

            Americans are not dying in Iraq now.

            Bush lied and Americans died. At least Obama got Americans out of that hellhole.

          • Bird666

            You’re just a sad, one-dimensional cartoon character.

          • jim_m

            Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Jerry R. Curry sums it up best:

            “To the American people an American military life is worth far more than the life of an Afghan soldier or civilian. For the current occupants of the White House and the Administration’s staff it seems to be just the opposite.”

            With more military deaths in Afghanistan occurring under obama than under Bush and with ROE that ensure that our soldiers die rather than defend themselves, Chico is endorsing the slaughter of our military and wrapping himself in the flag as he does so.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Ha Ha!, asshole…

  • jim_m

    We could have reached an agreement on the status of forces agreement but Barry was too intent on delivering a big F you to the Iraqis and GWB. Even Hillary is throwing Barry’s ME policies under the bus.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Isnt it amazing the way Obama always escapes the blame? Its like his superpower is blame the other guy.

    He’s the Amazing BlameThrower!

    • jim_m

      He took credit right up until it became apparent that he facilitated genocide and the creation of a new terrorist islamic state. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX1gdpEFAzg#t=31

    • Hank_M

      If the damn MSM wasn’t a wing of the democrat party, he wouldn’t be getting away with anything.

  • http://www.BR-549.com Junior Samples

    Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

    “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
    —President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
    —President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
    —Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

    “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
    —Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
    — Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

    “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
    -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
    — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    “There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
    — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

    “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
    — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

    “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
    — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
    — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
    — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
    — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

    “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
    — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
    — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

    “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
    — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
    — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
    — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

    “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
    — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

  • GarandFan

    The ‘All-knowing, All-seeing’ Obamassiah makes no mistakes, commits no errors. Failure is ALWAYS because of others, not The Chosen One and His “Smart Power!” policies.

    Ukraine. Benghazi. Syria. Iraq. Southern Border. Yes indeed! “The adults are now in charge!”

  • jim_m

    Let’s be honest. Does anyone really think that any of his policies are his ideas? He’s an ideologue. By definition he has no ideas, they are defined by his ideology or someone else.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE