Anyone remember the full page ad in the NYT advocating AGAINST invading Iraq?

[ClosedCaption]

So the ad says we would have to have troops in Iraq for many years to create a stable society. Then why the hell didn't we? Why didnt Obama listen to those wise people and keep troops there? Why did he run like hell the first chance he got? Obama sacrificed Iraq on the altar of his political ambitions, like everything else.

Because the Iraqi's wanted us to leave.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So the ad says we would have to have troops in Iraq for many years to create a stable society. Then why the hell didn't we? Why didnt Obama listen to those wise people and keep troops there? Why did he run like hell the first chance he got? Obama sacrificed Iraq on the altar of his political ambitions, like everything else.

Because the Iraqi's wanted us to leave.

Not according to people who were handling the negotiations.

But, again, you will repeat anything fed into the Prog Collective

 

[ClosedCaption]

So the ad says we would have to have troops in Iraq for many years to create a stable society. Then why the hell didn't we? Why didnt Obama listen to those wise people and keep troops there? Why did he run like hell the first chance he got? Obama sacrificed Iraq on the altar of his political ambitions, like everything else.

Because the Iraqi's wanted us to leave.

Not according to people who were handling the negotiations.

But, again, you will repeat anything fed into the Prog Collective

Like the wall street journal? Lets play a game...I provide a source backing what I say and you do the same. I'll go first

BAGHDAD—Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ruled out the presence of any U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of 2011, saying his new government and the country's security forces were capable of confronting any remaining threats to Iraq's security, sovereignty and unity.

Iraqi Prime Minister Says U.S. Forces Must Leave On Time - WSJ

Your turn? "Do the Rubioooo"

 

[tinydancer]

What a freaking pantload!! This situation has nothing to do with the war in Iraq.

It has to do with the war in Syria. Our leaders in the West turned a blind eye to ISIS and and Levant trying to depose Assad.

They grew in power to become the most powerful and wealthy terrorist army on the planet.

Obama and Cameron / Saudi Arabia and Qatar own this bloody mess.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Because the Iraqi's wanted us to leave.

Not according to people who were handling the negotiations.

But, again, you will repeat anything fed into the Prog Collective

Like the wall street journal? Lets play a game...I provide a source backing what I say and you do the same. I'll go first

BAGHDAD—Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ruled out the presence of any U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of 2011, saying his new government and the country's security forces were capable of confronting any remaining threats to Iraq's security, sovereignty and unity.

Iraqi Prime Minister Says U.S. Forces Must Leave On Time - WSJ

Your turn? "Do the Rubioooo"

Graham: White House Lying About Iraq Status of Forces Agreement

"Graham told the story of his personal role in the negotiations during the draw down of U.S. forces in Iraq. He said when he and Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) were in Iraq, Malik agreed to a "follow up force" being left in theater and it was the Obama administration's intentional refusal to give the Iraqis a solid troop number that destroyed the deal."

So why did Obama switch sides in the GWOT? Why is Obama backing Al Qaeda?

 

[tinydancer]

Because the Iraqi's wanted us to leave.

Not according to people who were handling the negotiations.

But, again, you will repeat anything fed into the Prog Collective

Like the wall street journal? Lets play a game...I provide a source backing what I say and you do the same. I'll go first

BAGHDAD—Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ruled out the presence of any U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of 2011, saying his new government and the country's security forces were capable of confronting any remaining threats to Iraq's security, sovereignty and unity.

Iraqi Prime Minister Says U.S. Forces Must Leave On Time - WSJ

Your turn? "Do the Rubioooo"

Of course he did that to save face after Obama refused to consider leaving him enough troops for stability and trainers for his military.

And the immunity was still up for negotiations but the Iraqis gave up in August realizing Obama was not negotiating in good faith.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Not according to people who were handling the negotiations.

But, again, you will repeat anything fed into the Prog Collective

Like the wall street journal? Lets play a game...I provide a source backing what I say and you do the same. I'll go first

BAGHDAD—Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ruled out the presence of any U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of 2011, saying his new government and the country's security forces were capable of confronting any remaining threats to Iraq's security, sovereignty and unity.

Iraqi Prime Minister Says U.S. Forces Must Leave On Time - WSJ

Your turn? "Do the Rubioooo"

Graham: White House Lying About Iraq Status of Forces Agreement

"Graham told the story of his personal role in the negotiations during the draw down of U.S. forces in Iraq. He said when he and Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) were in Iraq, Malik agreed to a "follow up force" being left in theater and it was the Obama administration's intentional refusal to give the Iraqis a solid troop number that destroyed the deal."

So why did Obama switch sides in the GWOT? Why is Obama backing Al Qaeda?

Wow talk about fair...A Republican on a republican site claims that its all his political opponents fault. Thats shocking...ly typical.

Got anything from yanno...not a hack site or a politician looking to score points or disproves the reporting from WSJ?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Like the wall street journal? Lets play a game...I provide a source backing what I say and you do the same. I'll go first



Iraqi Prime Minister Says U.S. Forces Must Leave On Time - WSJ

Your turn? "Do the Rubioooo"

Graham: White House Lying About Iraq Status of Forces Agreement

"Graham told the story of his personal role in the negotiations during the draw down of U.S. forces in Iraq. He said when he and Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) were in Iraq, Malik agreed to a "follow up force" being left in theater and it was the Obama administration's intentional refusal to give the Iraqis a solid troop number that destroyed the deal."

So why did Obama switch sides in the GWOT? Why is Obama backing Al Qaeda?

Wow talk about fair...A Republican on a republican site claims that its all his political opponents fault. Thats shocking...ly typical.

Got anything from yanno...not a hack site or a politician looking to score points or disproves the reporting from WSJ?

See, this is what happens when you don't read the articles you link

"But Mr. Maliki said the only way for any of the remaining 50,000 or so American soldiers to stay beyond 2011 would be for the two nations to negotiate—with the approval of Iraq's Parliament—a new Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, similar to the one concluded in 2008."

You didn't read the article, right? You saw the headline and grabbed it.

 

[tinydancer]

Like the wall street journal? Lets play a game...I provide a source backing what I say and you do the same. I'll go first



Iraqi Prime Minister Says U.S. Forces Must Leave On Time - WSJ

Your turn? "Do the Rubioooo"

Graham: White House Lying About Iraq Status of Forces Agreement

"Graham told the story of his personal role in the negotiations during the draw down of U.S. forces in Iraq. He said when he and Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) were in Iraq, Malik agreed to a "follow up force" being left in theater and it was the Obama administration's intentional refusal to give the Iraqis a solid troop number that destroyed the deal."

So why did Obama switch sides in the GWOT? Why is Obama backing Al Qaeda?

Wow talk about fair...A Republican on a republican site claims that its all his political opponents fault. Thats shocking...ly typical.

Got anything from yanno...not a hack site or a politician looking to score points or disproves the reporting from WSJ?

McCain and Graham were more than happy to help out Obama in Egypt. Remember they ran over for Obama to try to convince the Egyptians to be warm and fuzzy and kind to Obama's puppet Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood? And McCain in the Ukraine helping to drive the coup and install the new puppet of the west.

They are not opponents of Obama. Hell's bells McCain even gave an interview to Huff Po I think it was saying he wished he could be of MORE help to Obama.

Here's the deal from the man who was directly involved in the talks. McCain minces no words.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said opponents are lying when they say the Iraqi government did not want a continued troop presence in the country when U.S. combat missions ended in 2011.

The Arizona senator has blamed the current militant Sunni uprising in Iraq on the failure of the United States to secure a status of forces agreement in 2011. He said some Democrats are trying to explain that away by inaccurately claiming the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not want troops to remain.

"Opponents and those who want to justify this colossal failure that has caused the greatest threat to United States's national security since the end of the Cold War, they're trying to justify it by saying that Maliki didn't want American troops there," he told PBS on Wednesday night.

And here is the key to how the negotiations fell apart. And the problem wasn't the Iraqis.

McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) were in direct talks with the Iraqi government at the time, McCain said, and Iraq was ready for a deal before the number of troops the United States proposed leaving fell sharply.

"What Senator Kaine is saying is just totally false," McCain said. "In fact, it's a lie, because Lindsey Graham and I were there."

"The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff himself said that the number of troops that we were proposing cascaded down to 3,000, when it had been recommended to be 20,000," McCain added.

He said Iraq, at that point, determined an agreement “wasn't worth the problem.”

https://thehill.com/policy/international/209887-mccain-opponents-lying-about-iraq-history[/QUOTE]

 

[ClosedCaption]

Graham: White House Lying About Iraq Status of Forces Agreement

"Graham told the story of his personal role in the negotiations during the draw down of U.S. forces in Iraq. He said when he and Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) were in Iraq, Malik agreed to a "follow up force" being left in theater and it was the Obama administration's intentional refusal to give the Iraqis a solid troop number that destroyed the deal."

So why did Obama switch sides in the GWOT? Why is Obama backing Al Qaeda?

Wow talk about fair...A Republican on a republican site claims that its all his political opponents fault. Thats shocking...ly typical.

Got anything from yanno...not a hack site or a politician looking to score points or disproves the reporting from WSJ?

See, this is what happens when you don't read the articles you link

"But Mr. Maliki said the only way for any of the remaining 50,000 or so American soldiers to stay beyond 2011 would be for the two nations to negotiate—with the approval of Iraq's Parliament—a new Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, similar to the one concluded in 2008."

You didn't read the article, right? You saw the headline and grabbed it.

Oh I have to follow the link in the link

The link goes here: Donilon: Violence In Iraq Due To al Maliki Not Accommodating Opponents | Video | RealClearPolitics

Nowhere in that link does it have that paragraph you included.

It does include this exchange with Bob:

BOB SCHIEFFER: You know I must say that a lot of people, including Senator Graham, who a couple of years ago said that if we leave there without leaving a residual force, this is exactly what's going to happen. Well, what they said seems to have happened.

THOMAS DONILON: Well, I think, no, I think what happened is this, and think back, all right. At the end of December 2011, the United States withdrew its forces. That had been, though, after eight and a half years of working in Iraq. We tried to get a Status of Forces Agreement that is an agreement by the Iraqi government to provide the protections to our soldiers needed if we were going to stay and they wouldn't provide it. And, indeed, if you think about the situation at that point, what they were telling us is is they politically couldn't provide it after eight and a half years.

snip

BOB SCHIEFFER: --the Status of Forces Agreement is something that says, well, for example, if an American soldier is arrested or becomes captive of the Israeli government they can take him into court. They can try him, that we have no jurisdiction. We have never left troops in a country without that kind of agreement at least not in modern times as far as--

THOMAS DONILON: That's exactly right.

BOB SCHIEFFER: --as far as I can remember but--

THOMAS DONILON: That's exactly right, Bob. That's important.

Now that is what your link links too. Care to explain where you got your paragraph? Or why the info your link links too says the opposite of Graham?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wow talk about fair...A Republican on a republican site claims that its all his political opponents fault. Thats shocking...ly typical.

Got anything from yanno...not a hack site or a politician looking to score points or disproves the reporting from WSJ?

See, this is what happens when you don't read the articles you link

"But Mr. Maliki said the only way for any of the remaining 50,000 or so American soldiers to stay beyond 2011 would be for the two nations to negotiate—with the approval of Iraq's Parliament—a new Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, similar to the one concluded in 2008."

You didn't read the article, right? You saw the headline and grabbed it.

Oh I have to follow the link in the link

The link goes here: Donilon: Violence In Iraq Due To al Maliki Not Accommodating Opponents | Video | RealClearPolitics

Nowhere in that link does it have that paragraph you included.

It does include this exchange with Bob:

BOB SCHIEFFER: You know I must say that a lot of people, including Senator Graham, who a couple of years ago said that if we leave there without leaving a residual force, this is exactly what's going to happen. Well, what they said seems to have happened.

THOMAS DONILON: Well, I think, no, I think what happened is this, and think back, all right. At the end of December 2011, the United States withdrew its forces. That had been, though, after eight and a half years of working in Iraq. We tried to get a Status of Forces Agreement that is an agreement by the Iraqi government to provide the protections to our soldiers needed if we were going to stay and they wouldn't provide it. And, indeed, if you think about the situation at that point, what they were telling us is is they politically couldn't provide it after eight and a half years.

snip

BOB SCHIEFFER: --the Status of Forces Agreement is something that says, well, for example, if an American soldier is arrested or becomes captive of the Israeli government they can take him into court. They can try him, that we have no jurisdiction. We have never left troops in a country without that kind of agreement at least not in modern times as far as--

THOMAS DONILON: That's exactly right.

BOB SCHIEFFER: --as far as I can remember but--

THOMAS DONILON: That's exactly right, Bob. That's important.

Now that is what your link links too. Care to explain where you got your paragraph? Or why the info your link links too says the opposite of Graham?

That's because we have a POTUS, Obama, who supports Jihad and not a real US President.

Can you imagine another country talking to Truman or Reagan like that and them saying, "Yeah, OK, if you say so" like Obama did

Obama switched sides and is the best thing to ever happen to Al Qaeda

 

[KNB]

What part of "Bush's lies caused the Iraq war" is too difficult to understand?

Iraq was not functioning when Bush left office. Of course Iraqis voted. Pussy Conservatives complain about a couple of black guys standing at a polling place, but the Iraqi people braved kidnappers, suicide bombers and crazy assholes with guns and home-made bombs to vote. It still doesn't mean that Iraq was some market-based Republican utopia. As soon as Saddam Hussein was gone, Iraq was a free-for-all. It didn't matter how many soldiers stayed after 2008, just as it doesn't matter if the US sends soldiers back in.

The 1999 Desert Crossing war games scenario showed 400k US soldiers in Iraq still couldn't turn it into a functioning nation. Iraq was lost when Bush lied to invade.

 

[KNB]

That's because we have a POTUS, Obama, who supports Jihad and not a real US President.

Reagan armed terrorists in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Why can't you people face reality?

Your heroes are shit. Reagan is burning in Hell right now.

 

[tinydancer]

Wow talk about fair...A Republican on a republican site claims that its all his political opponents fault. Thats shocking...ly typical.

Got anything from yanno...not a hack site or a politician looking to score points or disproves the reporting from WSJ?

See, this is what happens when you don't read the articles you link

"But Mr. Maliki said the only way for any of the remaining 50,000 or so American soldiers to stay beyond 2011 would be for the two nations to negotiate—with the approval of Iraq's Parliament—a new Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, similar to the one concluded in 2008."

You didn't read the article, right? You saw the headline and grabbed it.

Oh I have to follow the link in the link

The link goes here: Donilon: Violence In Iraq Due To al Maliki Not Accommodating Opponents | Video | RealClearPolitics

Nowhere in that link does it have that paragraph you included.

It does include this exchange with Bob:

BOB SCHIEFFER: You know I must say that a lot of people, including Senator Graham, who a couple of years ago said that if we leave there without leaving a residual force, this is exactly what's going to happen. Well, what they said seems to have happened.

THOMAS DONILON: Well, I think, no, I think what happened is this, and think back, all right. At the end of December 2011, the United States withdrew its forces. That had been, though, after eight and a half years of working in Iraq. We tried to get a Status of Forces Agreement that is an agreement by the Iraqi government to provide the protections to our soldiers needed if we were going to stay and they wouldn't provide it. And, indeed, if you think about the situation at that point, what they were telling us is is they politically couldn't provide it after eight and a half years.

snip

BOB SCHIEFFER: --the Status of Forces Agreement is something that says, well, for example, if an American soldier is arrested or becomes captive of the Israeli government they can take him into court. They can try him, that we have no jurisdiction. We have never left troops in a country without that kind of agreement at least not in modern times as far as--

THOMAS DONILON: That's exactly right.

BOB SCHIEFFER: --as far as I can remember but--

THOMAS DONILON: That's exactly right, Bob. That's important.

Now that is what your link links too. Care to explain where you got your paragraph? Or why the info your link links too says the opposite of Graham?

This situation in Iraq and in Syria still has nothing to do with ISIS and Levant.

You can babble on all you want about the pullout and how badly it was handled by both parties (well you won't pin anything on Obama ever), but it still has nothing to do with the war or the pullout.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the west wanting Assad to be deposed so bad that they could taste it and consequently ignored all the growing mega terrorist activity against Assad.

The bloody fools Obama and Cameron now are going whoopsies we didn't think it would spill over.

Morons. Short sighted morons who have allowed ISIS to flourish and become the monster force they are today.

Oh and they won't be happy with just Syria and Iraq. You should take the time to read their long range goal plan.

And because they are now the richest and most powerful terrorist army on the planet and growing daily with Sunni jihadists I think they could realize their dream.

 

[ClosedCaption]

See, this is what happens when you don't read the articles you link

"But Mr. Maliki said the only way for any of the remaining 50,000 or so American soldiers to stay beyond 2011 would be for the two nations to negotiate—with the approval of Iraq's Parliament—a new Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, similar to the one concluded in 2008."

You didn't read the article, right? You saw the headline and grabbed it.

Oh I have to follow the link in the link

The link goes here: Donilon: Violence In Iraq Due To al Maliki Not Accommodating Opponents | Video | RealClearPolitics

Nowhere in that link does it have that paragraph you included.

It does include this exchange with Bob:



snip

BOB SCHIEFFER: --the Status of Forces Agreement is something that says, well, for example, if an American soldier is arrested or becomes captive of the Israeli government they can take him into court. They can try him, that we have no jurisdiction. We have never left troops in a country without that kind of agreement at least not in modern times as far as--

THOMAS DONILON: That's exactly right.

BOB SCHIEFFER: --as far as I can remember but--

THOMAS DONILON: That's exactly right, Bob. That's important.

Now that is what your link links too. Care to explain where you got your paragraph? Or why the info your link links too says the opposite of Graham?

That's because we have a POTUS, Obama, who supports Jihad and not a real US President.

Can you imagine another country talking to Truman or Reagan like that and them saying, "Yeah, OK, if you say so" like Obama did

Obama switched sides and is the best thing to ever happen to Al Qaeda

I'll ask again....Care to explain where you got your paragraph? Or why the info your link links too says the opposite of Graham?

 

[Siete]

I wonder how long it will take people to understand Iraq and the mid east cant be saved and/or held to AMERICAN standards?

argue about it as long as you want to, it won't happen boys and girls. EVER.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'll bet Al Qaeda is using Obama in their recruiting posters.

Join Jihad, the Prophet Obama guides us! We have All the land from Aleppo to Baghdad and $15B in the best US Equipment. Praise be to Obama! Praise be his Holy Name!

 

[tinydancer]

That's because we have a POTUS, Obama, who supports Jihad and not a real US President.

Reagan armed terrorists in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Why can't you people face reality?

Your heroes are shit. Reagan is burning in Hell right now.

Why don't you just shut the fuck up about Reagan? Do you live in some bizarro time warp or what?

Every thread about radical Islamists for you and other idiots is never in the here and now. No you have to go back decades.

Moron. If we want to talk radical Islamists and how they were influenced we could go back to the freaking Koran in every thread.

I know. Lets blame ISIS and Levant on the Crusades. Yeah yeah that's the ticket.

Get real. Right now. Or every decent thread that turns into a Reagan or Bush bashing thread I'm going to request the Mods move it to HISTORY.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I'll bet Al Qaeda is using Obama in their recruiting posters.

Join Jihad, the Prophet Obama guides us! We have All the land from Aleppo to Baghdad and $15B in the best US Equipment. Praise be to Obama! Praise be his Holy Name!

I'll ask again....Care to explain where you got your paragraph? Why does the paragraph you copied from your link does not exist on your link?

See you accused me of not reading your link then it was found that YOU didnt read it because the link says the OPPOSITE of Graham

why does the copied info say the opposite of your link to Breitbart and Lindsey Graham?

 

[Siete]

thou shall not repeat history

Republicans 1:14