Obama tells Congress U.S. deploying up to 275 troops to Iraq

Comments (27)
Lyn4U wrote:

Did Obama ASK Congress before he sends troops as war making powers given to Congress in the Constitution?

Jun 16, 2014 6:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Saluki21 wrote:

There is no easy answer to what is going on in Iraq and Syria. The issues there have NOTHING to do with Bush or Obama, so you Foxnews and MSNBC junkies just look stupid pointing blame. The issues there have to with colonial powers leaving those lands in the mid 1900′s and arbitrary rulers and borders being set up.

Lets imagine for a minute there was no oil there. What would the place look like? Tribes scattered across the lands in a state of semi-war / semi-truce.

Back to Iraq – the US spent close to a trillion training the Iraqi military. They folded at first chance. WHY? Not from a lack of training or equipment. From a lack of belief in their government. The central government is exclusive, not inclusive. Sunnis and Kurds don’t feel part of the democratic process. Both groups would just assume have their own states.

I say let it play out. Lets get a multi-national force to protect the oil fields and let those that live there figure things out. Sounds harsh – but before judging the absurdity of what I proposed make sure you understand how commodities are priced on the global market. The US may get the majority of its oil from Canada, Mexico, and Venzeuela, but the price paid around the world will be impacted by events in Iraq. Hence this is a global issue. Either the world solves it together, protects the natural resources, or suffers the consequences of higher energy prices.

Jun 16, 2014 9:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Robert76 wrote:

Must be wonderful to be you Lyn4U, 4825, or betrayed. Throwing out all those outragious accusations. The troop withdrawal from Iraq as signed by GW Bush. As for treason, check the definition. So far President Obama has not committed anything close to treason. Iraq wanted us out. We are out. As for the 275, they need to concentrate on removing all our people from Iraq. We had no business in Iraq in the first place. They had nothing to do with 911. They did not have WMD’s and none of the lying that went on during GWB’s tenure justifies our being there or overthrowing a sovereign nation’s government.

Jun 16, 2014 9:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
The_Traveler wrote:

Republican Logic:

Don’t send troops and risk another Benghazi. Impeach Obama.
Send troops to avoid another Benghazi. Impeach Obama.

Jun 16, 2014 11:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Timbuk3 wrote:

@4825

It is oh so easy to say ” send more troops” when ou are not a “troop”

Jun 16, 2014 11:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

4825..what exactly does do it right mean? Care to expound on your grand plan to solve this problem?

Jun 16, 2014 11:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
fteter wrote:

How about we just get our people the hell out of there and watch this play out from the sidelines?

Jun 16, 2014 12:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse
REnninga wrote:

Good grief. Those who screamed the loudest about NOT adequately protecting a US State Dept. diplomatic mission in “BENGHAZI”, and who are STILL almost 2-years later taking every opportunity to continue to scream “BENGHAZI, …BENGHAZI, …BENGHAZI” like so many parrots, are now braying like jackasses because the President has decided to send an additional 275 troops to enhance support and security to protect the US Embassy personnel in Baghdad.

Have you people ever tried using logic? No? (Google it).

Jun 17, 2014 1:43am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Tmaxx wrote:

That’s 25 more than he sent to protect Poland

Jun 17, 2014 10:10am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bighammerman wrote:

This is more proof that Obama is lying to us about everything. Congress, Please remove Obama from office. This way Obama will have more time to visit the golf course.

Jun 17, 2014 10:17am EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

Hmm. Are Democrats still touting that Obama got us out of Iraq?

Jun 17, 2014 10:20am EDT  --  Report as abuse
unionwv wrote:

“This force will remain in Iraq until the security situation becomes such that it is no longer needed.” – Obama

This force should be used to cover the withdrawal of all Americans,
because this really tny combat contingent will be facing captured tanks and stinger missiles and probably cannot prevent some American deaths and/or their taking as hostages.

Then, it will be Iran 1954, all over again.

Jimmy Carter II.

Jun 17, 2014 10:22am EDT  --  Report as abuse
rivi8840 wrote:

Bush should have never signed the Status of Forces agreement with al-Maliki’s government. We should have left a US base in Baghdad just we do in S. Korea, Japan, Germany.

Jun 17, 2014 10:33am EDT  --  Report as abuse
unionwv wrote:

Correction. Iran 1979-1981.

Jun 17, 2014 10:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
unionwv wrote:

“Stimulus response. They hear the stimulus of Obama saying something and respond by saying the opposite, unmediated by reason or logic.” – Bakhtin

Where is the “reason or logic” in this ad hominem trolling ?

Jun 17, 2014 10:47am EDT  --  Report as abuse
johnathan58 wrote:

Wasn’t it just a few days ago when Obama said he had ruled out sending in any troops? Another reversal by our amateur President. This on-the-job training is not working out very well.

Jun 17, 2014 11:33am EDT  --  Report as abuse
rlm328 wrote:

The administration does have the legal authority to send in the troops. What they are capable of doing other than embassy evacuation is questionable.

The main problem I have is the ineffective foreign policy this aministration has. They have done an excellent job since the beginning of their tenure of turning over real estate to radical muslims, or is this their natural state to hate everyone who doesn’t agree with them. They have alienated every ally we have ever had, even the Canadians are POd at us they don’t get mad at anyone.

Jun 17, 2014 12:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

TheNewWorld wrote:
“Hmm. Are Democrats still touting that Obama got us out of Iraq?”

Yup, I would imagine so. Iraq was a disaster, we never should have been there in the first place, and most Americans are glad we are out & do not want us to return. However, if you’re itching to get back into Iraq, please, by all means, head down to your local recruiting office and sign up.

Jun 17, 2014 12:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Kahnie wrote:

@Lyn4U: The POTUS has the power under the War Powers Act enacted decades ago, to send troops without the permission of Congress, when POTUS deems it necessary. Within 30 days the POTUS must report to Congress and discuss the situation, probably in the Intelligence Committees of each House. You need to know the laws of the nation before you make statements.

Jun 17, 2014 12:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Kahnie wrote:

No matter what Obama does, it’s wrong to some. The hawks want to send in troops and bomb, bomb, bomb. The Doves don’t. the 275 is to protect our people. Those who criticize POTUS also criticized him for not doing enough in Libya (Benghazi). Can’t have it both ways.

Jun 17, 2014 12:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
GameTime wrote:

Oh, he is sending a couple hundred troops? What a joke. Thought we were not sending any troops to Iraq? Isn’t that what he was saying just last week? The man can’t find his rear end with both hands and if all ten fingers were flashlights.

Jun 17, 2014 1:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BeRealistic wrote:

Did obama even get to take a full breath before swithching from “no boots on the ground” to “troops deploying”?

I am fine with protecting our people there, but it just shows obama’s inability to analyze situations and make these crucial decisions.

Jun 17, 2014 1:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BeRealistic wrote:

“Within 30 days the POTUS must report to Congress and discuss the situation,” – is this the same kind of 30 days required before releasing GITMO detainees?

Jun 17, 2014 1:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

I honestly think the right WANTS another Benghazi, which is why they are pissed off and criticizing him for sending 275 troops to secure our embassy over there. I think the prospect of more American deaths they can blame the president for has them salivating and licking their chops.

Bunch of anti-American, un-patriotic, partisan hypocrites.

Jun 17, 2014 2:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BeRealistic wrote:

“I honestly think the right WANTS another Benghazi…” Well, if there was nothing wrong with what happened in Benghazi, why would one not want another one? Just saying, because your ilk says there was nothing wrong done in Benghazi.

For my part at least, and probably for others, like I have already eluded to,obama showed his inability to lead, evaluate, and make quick decisions by his almost immediate turn around on what he was going to do. No one wants any Americans killed, we just want a leader who should have recognized and had enough thought and respect for our people so that his first thought was how to protect them, not as an after thought of “oh, guess I should probably backtrack and do something about those people stuck over there”.

Jun 17, 2014 2:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bobking84 wrote:

I’m with Saluki. Time for us to realize that, apart from the free flow of oil in the Persian Gulf, we have no dog in this fight. No reason whatsoever for us to spend any more money or any more blood. If whoever emerges as the leader threatens us, well, that’s why we have a Navy, an Air Force, and special forces. No more taking sides in intramural disputes.

Jun 17, 2014 9:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Billbones88 wrote:

Saluki21 Makes some good points, I agree that and international peace keeping force is needed, but I think the priority is the protection of civilians, but any international action regarding the “protection” of the oil makes me hesitant… I have doubts that the Iraqi people will benefit from the wealth beneath them anytime soon.

Jun 18, 2014 2:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.