Was it considered cutting & running when George Bush signed an agreement to have all troops out of Iraq by 2011?

Posted on | February 28, 2009 | 10 Comments

President Obama gave a speech at Camp Lejeune on Friday where he told our troops that all but 35-50,000 troops will be out of Iraq by August 2010 and those soldiers held over will be returning to America during 2011. I’m sure the jackboot licking Bush neocons will consider this move by President Obama to be ‘cutting & running’ without stating America had won the illegal occupation of Iraq hands down, but we have to remember it was George Bush who signed a deal with the Iraqi government that our troops will be home by 2011. How come Bush didn’t do a press conference stating we had won the war and that he had signed this agreement as the proof? Coward.

Personally, we never should have gone into Iraq because this country had absolutely nothing to do with the attack on our nation on 9/11/01. Going into Iraq was the dream of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush, and the other PNACers who desperately wanted the oil, because whoever controls the oil controls the planet. Basically, it was a financial transaction for the Oil Maggots and their contractors played out live for all of us to see. Many of our soldiers and Iraqis died for this financial transaction and still are. How much money have we spent in Iraq since the first boot hit the ground? Almost a TRILLION dollars and by the time we leave Iraq, it could be close to $3 TRILLION. And what have we gotten back? Nothing. We have a new nation in Iraq that is becoming very chummy with Iran (you know….America’s ‘enemy’) and the American contractors who got their no-bid contracts did shoddy work to leave behind for the Iraqis. In other words, it’s embarrassing!

Category: 9/11/01, Blackwater, George Bush, Halliburton, Iran, Iraq, Iraq War, Military, Oil Industry Traitors, Politics, President Obama, War, Xe
Tags: George Bush > Iran > Iraq > Politics > President Obama > War

Comments

10 Responses to “Was it considered cutting & running when George Bush signed an agreement to have all troops out of Iraq by 2011?”

Ryan
February 28th, 2009 @ 12:26 pm

It’s interesting to see how Obama’s timeframe is similar to Bush’s. He is making the right choice.

Whether we should or shouldn’t be there doesn’t matter at this point; the exit strategy is what is most important.

Ryan
Joe
February 28th, 2009 @ 12:42 pm

And US Oil companies have gotten how many contracts in Iraq? For every year since 1998 only 5% of our total imported crude oil has come from Iraq. So if we did this for the oil companies, why hasn’t percentage of imports risen?

Please find the quote where Bush said Iraq was behind 9/11. You can’t because it doesn’t exist.

Every intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The belief was Saddam would give a nuclear bomb to the terrorists.

I agree with you, we should have never gone into Iraq. The arguments you present of why we removed Saddam from power just don’t hold water.
kayinmaine
February 28th, 2009 @ 1:36 pm

On 9/11/01, Colin Powell SAID GEORGE BUSH WAS FOCUSED ON SADDAM HUSSEIN and had to rein him in because he said the American people would never believe the attack was perpetrated by Saddam Hussein/Iraq.

Even John McCain was blaming Iraq…

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/11/mccain-iraq-911/
trashman
February 28th, 2009 @ 2:15 pm

First you said we went after the oil then you said we didn’t get anything from Iraq. Which is it? Can’t be both.
kayinmaine
February 28th, 2009 @ 3:19 pm

Did Americans get the oil? Nope! We paid record prices. Iraq? 19 cents a gallon.
kayinmaine
February 28th, 2009 @ 3:23 pm

Remember when George Bush told the nation that if we invaded Iraq oil/gas prices would go down and then the Iraqis would rebuild their nation using their own oil revenues? ANOTHER LIE! None of it happened. Americans paid record prices for oil & gas and WE PAID FOR IRAQ’S RECONSTRUCTION. What did Georgie do when Iraq announced it has billions in the bank? Nothing!
Clif
February 28th, 2009 @ 6:24 pm

First you said we went after the oil then you said we didn’t get anything from Iraq. Which is it? Can’t be both.

Yes it can, shit for brains, cause the republicunts fuck up everything they try,

The idiot reich-wing neo-con republicunts went after the oil and as usual FAILED but they did get over 4000 Americans killed in the process.

Jesus fucking Christ, you are stupid.
Grant in Texas
February 28th, 2009 @ 6:35 pm

Iraq has the world’s third largest reserves of oil. However due to the years of war and sabotage, that nation hasn’t been able to come close to realizing much production. With Bush/Cheney thinking the war would be WON in only a few months….the “cakewalk!”, they figured their friends in the oil industry would soon be there taking advantage of the “spoils of war”. However, the Iraqi government hasn’t given the green light much to foreigners except for an oil deal with China last year.
Grant in Texas
February 28th, 2009 @ 7:24 pm

A lot of Iraq in oil seems to be stolen…

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1622785,00.html

In the run-up to the Iraq invasion, then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz assured Congress that Iraqi oil would pay for the country’s occupation and reconstruction. If the Iraqi oil traders are right, it’s one more thing we need to add to the long list Wolfowitz and his neo-con friends in the Administration got wrong: that Iraq’s oil would pay for Iraq’ s repairing the Bush destruction of their nation.
With Pledges to Troops and Iraqis, Obama Details Pullout | Tits and Whiskey
February 28th, 2009 @ 10:34 pm

[...] Was it considered cutting & running when George Bush signed an agreement to have all troops out … - WHITE NOISE INSANITY [...]

QUOTE OF THE DAY:

GLENN BECK AT CPAC 2010: ‘Hello, my name is the Republican Party, and I’ve got a problem. I’m addicted to spending and big government…I’m addicted to spending and I just don’t want to spend today.’ (CLICK HERE FOR LINK TO QUOTE)

"If by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” ~ John F. Kennedy, 1960