Can We Agree Obama Failed?

[Faun]

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in 2011 as negotiations on a new SOFA with Iraq were ongoing, said “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”

Very clearly indeed:

Markle 14286871

NotfooleedbyW, you're way to easy. I agree that you probably didn't see it at the time

You are way too stupid and very uninformed. And you did not respond to what I wrote specifically for a very specific reason

NFBW 14286153

There is not one of Obama's own people who advised Obama to keep troops in Iraq after the deadline set within Bush's surrender agreement with Maliki was reached. Not one adviser to Obama told him to keep troops in Iraq when the Iraqi Government decided US troops would no longer be granted immunity from Iraqi courts. No one ever advised Obama to keep troops there under those conditions.

You see I don't read the Nation or Daily Koz. I find the facts Based on what people actually say as close to the issue as can be found and stick with them. Panetta did not advise Obama to leave troops in Iraq without immunity. I did my homework / you didn't read what you pounced on.


NFBW 10908353

Panetta in October 2011 said "“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”"

Funny, the Mafia boss' own defense secretaries are repeating EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING, but of course the leftist media and Obama ass kissers keep giving Obama a pass:

So no it's not exactly what you are saying. You are repeating right wing malicious propaganda

Panetta said exactly the opposite during the 2011 negotiations of what you are saying:

"On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.

Do you know what that makes you?

.
After months of preparations on both sides for a complete pullout by Dec. 31 of more than 40,000 remaining U.S. troops, the Iraqi government said in recent days that several thousand could stay on as military trainers. The condition, however, is that they lose the legal immunity they now enjoy. It is, an Iraqi government spokesman said this week, the primary dispute preventing an agreement.

On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system.

“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.

There are overwhelming practical reasons to demand that, said Anthony Cordesman, an expert on national security and intelligence with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Iraq ranks as one of the most corrupt countries in the world, Cordesman said, a problem that extends to its police and judicial systems. The political and religious conflicts that divide the nation increase the risk for U.S. troops, he said. Some groups might bid for popular support among Iraqis, still smarting from well-documented civilian killings and cases of abuse by troops and contractors, by provoking violence and bringing malicious prosecutions.

Experts Immunity dispute won t end U.S.-Iraq cooperation - News - Stripes

Learn to read before you blast off on something.

Obabble should have known enough to tell Panetta to tell Maliki how things would work...or else he...Maliki...would be gone. That's what strong leaders do...enforce the rules.

If that were true, why couldn't Bush have accomplished that? After all, he had a better rapport with Maliki.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Obabble should have known enough to tell Panetta to tell Maliki how things would work...or else he...Maliki...would be gone. That's what strong leaders do...enforce the rules.

Using military force for another regime change in Iraq, this time against the majority sect's democratically elected government would not only be stupider than the first one, like Trump says, it would be illegal under international law and even the warmongers in Congress would not have the gonads to authorize it. There were no grounds to attack an ally. That's not enforcing rules - that is shattering law and rules.

But we know you get a thrill when Amricans are killing and dying in wars.

Obama would not do that in order to entertain anyone ignorant enough to suggest such an immoral criminal act.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Panetta dismissed McCain’s claims that Obama wanted all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011 and leave no residual force behind.

Markle14286871

My enhancements above for your convenience. I don't wish to tax your abilities.

My enhancements are below for your convenience. It appears However that you have no abilities to be taxed.

You see I did my homework when these events were going on.

NFBW 10145035

. EconChick 10143035

How many times do we brilliant people have to remind you losers that Panetta and a whole string of others backed us up?

You believe the Panetta selling some books. I believe the Panetta when he was Secretary of defense. But since he's proven to be two/faced in order to sell a book, no one should believe a word he says now. You hitched your wagon to a rat.

Check what your buddy Deltex has to say about opinions.

Panetta held an opinion when he serving in public office. I will replay his exchange with Senator McCain during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Iraq in November of 2011. Panetta dismissed McCain’s claims that Obama wanted all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011 and leave no residual force behind.

Here is that exchange:

. MARTIN: But Senator John McCain lambasted Secretary Panetta. His criticism, the White House never wanted the negotiations to succeed in the first place.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: And the truth is that this administration was committed to the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and they made it happen.

DEFENSE: Senator McCain, that's just simply not true. I guess you can believe that, and I respect your beliefs.

MCCAIN: And I respect your opinion of it.

DEFENSE: But that's not...

And the outcome is exactly as predicted.

But that's not how it happened.

MCCAIN: It is how it happened. (Unintelligible).

DEFENSE: This is about negotiating with a sovereign country, an independent country. This was about their needs. This is not about us telling them what we're going to for with them or what they're going to have to do.

MCCAIN: It's about our needs, as well, Mr. Secretary.

DEFENSE: This is about their country making a decision as to what is necessary here.

.

Panetta Addresses Iraq Troop Withdrawal On The Hill NPR

Panetta in November 2011: This is about their country making a decision as to what is necessary here. ...This is about negotiating with a sovereign country, an independent country. This was about their needs. This is not about us telling them what we're going to for with them or what they're going to have to do. "

Panetta Addresses Iraq Troop Withdrawal On The Hill NPR

Panetta in November 2011: This is about their country making a decision as to what is necessary here. ...This is about negotiating with a sovereign country, an independent country. This was about their needs. This is not about us telling them what we're going to for with them or what they're going to have to do. "


Are you runnin' away Markel?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Markle 14286988

Then you are obviously fooled by the administration of Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama

Fooled by Obama? How specifically? If it's obvious you should have the answer at your fingertips.

It's more likely that you will run.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If that were true, why couldn't Bush have accomplished that? After all, he had a better rapport with Maliki.

Bush was Maliki's useful idiot. Bush did not recognize the political reality in Iraq that Maliki held power in Iraq because of Muqtada Al Sadr's support. Sadr was and still is the most vehement anti-American Shiite religious and political leader in Iraq.

Bush didn't figure that out. Deltex will never figure anything out about Iraq except how to use all the Americans that died there to curse and condemn Obama for what Bush did to them.

 

[candycorn]

One will note that Rabbi ran like the little bitch he is from naming a date when Iraq was supposedly a “stable democracy” during our occupation.

 

[Jroc]

Nope. "They all do it" won't wash. Obama over rode Congress many times with his pen and phone. He created a climate of regime uncertainty that accounts for our poor business investment and consequently poor economy.

Trying to speak rationally with a non-thinker never works this girl is still waiting for her government supplied birth-control

I know, Rabbi hasn’t thought in years.

You’re waiting for birth control? Look in the mirror…that is the most effective form of contraception you’ll find.

Sandra fluke got her free birth control which is why she is smiling in that avi pic..there's easier ways to get birth control other than testifying before congress

Actually she didn’t. This has been shown to you several times.

Your hero worship of that nobody is laughable actually

 

[Jroc]

The theme of both Democrat candidates is things are terrible, working class people are getting screwed, the economy sucks.
Who has been in charge for the last 7+ years? Who had 2 years of filibuster proof Congress and passed major legislation, like Dodd-Frank, the stimulus, and OBamacare?
If things suck as bad as Bernie and Hillary tell us, then isnt it the fault of Obama and the Democrats and their shitty policies?
Why would we want to double down on stupid?
If Dems agree Obama has been a failure, then is there anyone who can say otherwise?

your premise is moot for the same reason Repubs in the senate won't do their jobs to consent to a SCOTUS appointee (not to mention the House )

/end thread

That there is a Supreme Court nominee by Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama is a moot point isn't it?

Not to concern yourself. Obviously, Donald Trump has some excellent selections in mind for the position.

You're an idiot

Back to topic: rw hack OP's butt hurt over our proud two-term, African American President cleaning-up his Repub predecessor's mess

The theme of both Democrat candidates is things are terrible, working class people are getting screwed, the economy sucks.
Who has been in charge for the last 7+ years? Who had 2 years of filibuster proof Congress and passed major legislation, like Dodd-Frank, the stimulus, and OBamacare?
If things suck as bad as Bernie and Hillary tell us, then isnt it the fault of Obama and the Democrats and their shitty policies?
Why would we want to double down on stupid?
If Dems agree Obama has been a failure, then is there anyone who can say otherwise?

your premise is moot for the same reason Repubs in the senate won't do their jobs to consent to a SCOTUS appointee (not to mention the House )

/end thread

That there is a Supreme Court nominee by Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama is a moot point isn't it?

Not to concern yourself. Obviously, Donald Trump has some excellent selections in mind for the position.

You're an idiot

Back to topic: rw hack OP's butt hurt over our proud two-term, African American President cleaning-up his Repub predecessor's mess

Since when is Obama president of Canada?

Nova Scotia (Latin for "New Scotland", pronounced in English as /ˌnoʊvə ˈskoʊʃə/) (French: Nouvelle-Écosse; Scottish Gaelic: Alba Nuadh; Scots: New Scotland) is one of Canada's three Maritime provinces, and one of the four provinces which form Atlantic Canada. Its provincial capital is Halifax. Nova Scotia is the second-smallest province in Canada, with an area of 55,284 square kilometres (21,300 sq mi), including Cape Breton and another 3,800 coastal islands. As of 2011, the population was 921,727, making Nova Scotia the second-most-densely populated province in Canada with almost 20 inhabitants per square kilometre

 

[candycorn]

Trying to speak rationally with a non-thinker never works this girl is still waiting for her government supplied birth-control

I know, Rabbi hasn’t thought in years.

You’re waiting for birth control? Look in the mirror…that is the most effective form of contraception you’ll find.

Sandra fluke got her free birth control which is why she is smiling in that avi pic..there's easier ways to get birth control other than testifying before congress

Actually she didn’t. This has been shown to you several times.

Your hero worship of that nobody is laughable actually

As long as you know you're dreadfully wrong...

 

[Markle]

we were in vietraq 10+ tyears dummy AKA- Markle to the tune of $3,000,000,000,000 (borrowed by BushCo as opposed to paid) and 4500+ casualties and they didn't learn to love thier occupiers. It was long past time to declare victory and GTFO just like 'nam

You're welcome

Since the War on Terror began in 2003.

The War On Terror Has Cost Taxpayers $1.7 Trillion
Niall McCarthy
CONTRIBUTOR
Data journalist covering technological, societal and media topics
FEB 3, 2015

According to data compiled by the Mercatus Center citing the Congressional Research Service, the cost of global “War on Terror” operations (including both Afghanistan and Iraq) since 2001 had reached about $1.6 trillion by FY2014. When war funding approved by Congress for FY2015 is taken into account, the total reaches $1.7 trillion.

The majority of that funding, some $1.562 trillion, has been allocated to the Department of Defense. The “War on Terror” is proving extremely expensive compared to past military campaigns. Putting the cost into context, the bill for the Vietnam War comes to about $686 billion when adjusted for inflation.

Read more:
The War On Terror Has Cost Taxpayers $1.7 Trillion [Infographic]

ummm..... factor in healthcare for 30+ years kiddo

Then I presume you want to do the same with the unfunded liabilities we have with Social Security and Medicare?

Allow me:
MacIver News Service | August 7, 2014

[Washington, D.C.] The Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees' 2014 report shows that Medicare and Social Security, the most popular government programs in the U.S., have reached nearly $49 trillion in long-term unfunded liabilities. This equates to a liability of more than $150,000 for every person in the United States.

Read more: Long-Term Unfunded Liabilities for Medicare and Social Security Reach $49 Trillion

 

[Markle]

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in 2011 as negotiations on a new SOFA with Iraq were ongoing, said “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”

Very clearly indeed:

Markle 14286871

NotfooleedbyW, you're way to easy. I agree that you probably didn't see it at the time

You are way too stupid and very uninformed. And you did not respond to what I wrote specifically for a very specific reason

NFBW 14286153

There is not one of Obama's own people who advised Obama to keep troops in Iraq after the deadline set within Bush's surrender agreement with Maliki was reached. Not one adviser to Obama told him to keep troops in Iraq when the Iraqi Government decided US troops would no longer be granted immunity from Iraqi courts. No one ever advised Obama to keep troops there under those conditions.

You see I don't read the Nation or Daily Koz. I find the facts Based on what people actually say as close to the issue as can be found and stick with them. Panetta did not advise Obama to leave troops in Iraq without immunity. I did my homework / you didn't read what you pounced on.


NFBW 10908353

Panetta in October 2011 said "“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”"

Funny, the Mafia boss' own defense secretaries are repeating EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING, but of course the leftist media and Obama ass kissers keep giving Obama a pass:

So no it's not exactly what you are saying. You are repeating right wing malicious propaganda

Panetta said exactly the opposite during the 2011 negotiations of what you are saying:

"On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.

Do you know what that makes you?

.
After months of preparations on both sides for a complete pullout by Dec. 31 of more than 40,000 remaining U.S. troops, the Iraqi government said in recent days that several thousand could stay on as military trainers. The condition, however, is that they lose the legal immunity they now enjoy. It is, an Iraqi government spokesman said this week, the primary dispute preventing an agreement.

On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system.

“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.

There are overwhelming practical reasons to demand that, said Anthony Cordesman, an expert on national security and intelligence with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Iraq ranks as one of the most corrupt countries in the world, Cordesman said, a problem that extends to its police and judicial systems. The political and religious conflicts that divide the nation increase the risk for U.S. troops, he said. Some groups might bid for popular support among Iraqis, still smarting from well-documented civilian killings and cases of abuse by troops and contractors, by provoking violence and bringing malicious prosecutions.

Experts Immunity dispute won t end U.S.-Iraq cooperation - News - Stripes

Learn to read before you blast off on something.

Obabble should have known enough to tell Panetta to tell Maliki how things would work...or else he...Maliki...would be gone. That's what strong leaders do...enforce the rules.

If that were true, why couldn't Bush have accomplished that? After all, he had a better rapport with Maliki.

Wasn't that the job of Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama to negotiate a status of forces agreement? Had President Obama not promised to remove ALL troops when he took office?

Face it, President Obama made a decision, prior to taking office and prior to knowing diddly squat about the situation. Then, being far too arrogant and conceited he KNEW BETTER than all his advisers put together. Now, proven to have been a devastating decision, President Obama is now sending back in more troops.

Well done!

 

[Kosh]

I see the far left would much rather watch the world burn than admit their messiah is a failure!

 

[Faun]

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in 2011 as negotiations on a new SOFA with Iraq were ongoing, said “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”

Very clearly indeed:

Markle 14286871

NotfooleedbyW, you're way to easy. I agree that you probably didn't see it at the time

You are way too stupid and very uninformed. And you did not respond to what I wrote specifically for a very specific reason

NFBW 14286153

There is not one of Obama's own people who advised Obama to keep troops in Iraq after the deadline set within Bush's surrender agreement with Maliki was reached. Not one adviser to Obama told him to keep troops in Iraq when the Iraqi Government decided US troops would no longer be granted immunity from Iraqi courts. No one ever advised Obama to keep troops there under those conditions.

You see I don't read the Nation or Daily Koz. I find the facts Based on what people actually say as close to the issue as can be found and stick with them. Panetta did not advise Obama to leave troops in Iraq without immunity. I did my homework / you didn't read what you pounced on.


NFBW 10908353

Panetta in October 2011 said "“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”"

Funny, the Mafia boss' own defense secretaries are repeating EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING, but of course the leftist media and Obama ass kissers keep giving Obama a pass:

So no it's not exactly what you are saying. You are repeating right wing malicious propaganda

Panetta said exactly the opposite during the 2011 negotiations of what you are saying:

"On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.

Do you know what that makes you?

.
After months of preparations on both sides for a complete pullout by Dec. 31 of more than 40,000 remaining U.S. troops, the Iraqi government said in recent days that several thousand could stay on as military trainers. The condition, however, is that they lose the legal immunity they now enjoy. It is, an Iraqi government spokesman said this week, the primary dispute preventing an agreement.

On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system.

“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.

There are overwhelming practical reasons to demand that, said Anthony Cordesman, an expert on national security and intelligence with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Iraq ranks as one of the most corrupt countries in the world, Cordesman said, a problem that extends to its police and judicial systems. The political and religious conflicts that divide the nation increase the risk for U.S. troops, he said. Some groups might bid for popular support among Iraqis, still smarting from well-documented civilian killings and cases of abuse by troops and contractors, by provoking violence and bringing malicious prosecutions.

Experts Immunity dispute won t end U.S.-Iraq cooperation - News - Stripes

Learn to read before you blast off on something.

Obabble should have known enough to tell Panetta to tell Maliki how things would work...or else he...Maliki...would be gone. That's what strong leaders do...enforce the rules.

If that were true, why couldn't Bush have accomplished that? After all, he had a better rapport with Maliki.

Wasn't that the job of Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama to negotiate a status of forces agreement? Had President Obama not promised to remove ALL troops when he took office?

Face it, President Obama made a decision, prior to taking office and prior to knowing diddly squat about the situation. Then, being far too arrogant and conceited he KNEW BETTER than all his advisers put together. Now, proven to have been a devastating decision, President Obama is now sending back in more troops.

Well done!

You didn't answer my question.... why couldn't Bush? And why is Obama to blame for an agreement made by Bush?

 

[Geaux4it]

See this

OBAMA ‘HOPE’ POSTER ARTIST CALLS PRESIDENT A FAILURE

 

[rightwinger]

What did Obama promise?

Healthcare........Done
Get our combat troops out of Iraq and Aafghanistan.....Done
Save the economy.....Done
Repeal Bush Tax cuts......Done
Get along with Republicans....Failed

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Wasn't that the job of Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama to negotiate a status of forces agreement? Had President Obama not promised to remove ALL troops when he took office?

Obama did negotiate so your question is misleading. Obama was not obligated to reach an agreement on Iraq's terms. He is obligated to negotiate with the best interest of the U.S. and in the best interest of US troops who are the most affected by a SOFA.

According to Panetta in testimony on the Hill there was no alternative but complete withdrawal because of Iraqi refusal to grant judicial immunity for US troops that remains after Iraq.

I'm pretty sure Obama's pledge was to withdraw all combat troops prior to winning the 2008 election.

If you want to find a president who failed on the SOFA your culprit is of course Bush. It was his duty in 2008 to end the Iraq war with a long term SOFA, not the three year surrender to Maliki and Sadr that he was forced to sign.

A Ten year SOFA would have protected Iraq better than the three year deal and Bush failed to get it done. So Bush said Iraq was ready in 2008 and three years The U.S. Would be gone.

That is what the Iraqis agreed with and they saw no reason to extend it.

Blaming no extension on Obama can be described as nothing other than stupid bias.

Panetta Addresses Iraq Troop Withdrawal On The Hill NPR


Panetta in November 2011: This is about their country making a decision as to what is necessary here. ...This is about negotiating with a sovereign country, an independent country. This was about their needs. This is not about us telling them what we're going to for with them or what they're going to have to do. "

Why don't you want to discuss what Panetta said at the time of the negotiations. You only want to discuss what he said while on a book tour hawking his book.

You are not fair reasonable or objective on this subject. You need to work harder on strengthening your weaknesses.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Kosh 14288989

I see the far left would much rather watch the world burn than admit their messiah is a failure!

The world is burning compared to what? You see you have no baseline other than a perfect calm non-violent perfect world.

The baseline should be the violence created because of Bush's mistake (according to Trump) to invade Iraq in March 2003. By 2006 there was extreme amounts of violence and death and property destruction all over Iraq and it was George W Bush's DECISION to make all that violence and upheaval happen. Bush put US troops in the middle of that fire and 4485 were killed as a result. Bush did not put out the fire. He let it spread into places like Syria and empowered Iran's influence in the entire region.

So we hated to see Bush set Iraq on fire for no reason at all, and we hate what has happened since. You loved Bush being the arsonist but you hate Obama for putting Bush's fire out by getting the people that live there do the fighting on the ground. We hate that you right wingers are so messed up trying to blame Obama for what Bush triggered by invading Iraq.

Obama's coalition is defeating ISIS with three U.S. Casualties over a two year stretch. You would rather declare that ISIS is winning than admit that Obama is a much better war president than your idiot Bush.

You still need ISIS to conquer and control Iraq to maintain your 'world on fire' pro-ISIS revolt against Obama.

But ISIS is being defeated by U.S. led coalition air power and trainers and the Iraqis themselves putting their lives on the line.

That is smart. What you would do is more Republican dumb.

 

[Pete7469]

In the 1890's Bismarck recognized that communism was appealing to the German people so instead of trying to scare the people with McCarthyism, Bismarck instituted socialized medicine in Germany.

Which was fucking stupid.

He should have expatriated the commies via trebuchet and explained to the people why dependence on government is detrimental to society.

Commies are parasites, you either kill them or they kill you.

 

[Pete7469]

This thread really has legs, but when you shove the fact that the meat puppet queer is a treasonous piece of orwellian shit in the faces of bed wetting libturd regressives...

 

[The Rabbi]

What did Obama promise?

Healthcare........Done
Get our combat troops out of Iraq and Aafghanistan.....Done
Save the economy.....Done
Repeal Bush Tax cuts......Done
Get along with Republicans....Failed

Healthcare--Disaster. Does anyone really think our healthcare sytem is better now? Costs have skyrocketed when we were promised ACA would save money..
Wars. We aer still fighting and dying in both places.
Economy: worst economic growth since 1930s
Raise taxes: done
Get along with:
Republicans
British
Israelis
Saudis
Germans
French
Czechs
Poles
Anyone who disagrees with him
FAIL!