Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You aren't seriously contending that Obama supported a long term troop presence in Iraq and that it was only because of the SOFA agreed to in 2008 that Obama's hands were tied are you?EC 10151229You were completely trounced weeks ago on every issue to do with Iraq.
But you cannot find one post out of the thousand you claim to have whet I was shown to be wrong about Iraq.
Your foul mouth has returned - a sign that you are lost and bewildered by the facts and the truth I bring to my posts.
I did not contend in anyway what you have erroneously surmised.You aren't seriously contending that Obama supported a long term troop presence in Iraq and that it was only because of the SOFA agreed to in 2008 that Obama's hands were tied are you?
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. <> 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. "
Iraq made the decision in 2011 to stay with the Bush deadline that was agreed to in 2008. That is what Panetta said in 2011.
"In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”
But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis (read Iraq Parliament) were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.
President DumbFuck inserts a POISON PILL. He requires that the Iraqi Legislature had to approve the agreement. Well a) that's difficult for a western legis but especially for one as messy as this one but b) that has never been a requirement in any of the 40 other SOFA agreements we have with other nations. <> So please folks, anyone interested in dealing in truth, please help override the corrupt press and WH and get the actual truth out to the public. Which is already happening on Twitter and other parts of the internet.
"In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate.
President DumbFuck inserts a POISON PILL. He requires that the Iraqi Legislature had to approve the agreement. Well a) that's difficult for a western legis but especially for one as messy as this one but b) that has never been a requirement in any of the 40 other SOFA agreements we have with other nations. <> So please folks, anyone interested in dealing in truth, please help override the corrupt press and WH and get the actual truth out to the public. Which is already happening on Twitter and other parts of the internet.
You aren't seriously contending that Obama supported a long term troop presence in Iraq and that it was only because of the SOFA agreed to in 2008 that Obama's hands were tied are you?.
I just did. Maliki offered and executive memorandum for immunity in September 2011, and the Iraqi Parliament approved the extension for continued US military presence in October 2011. Obama rejected Maliki's offer of an executive memorandum and we withdrew all combat forces at the end of the year.Ste 10151512 regarding NF 10151458, EC 10151229You aren't seriously contending that Obama supported a long term troop presence in Iraq and that it was only because of the SOFA agreed to in 2008 that Obama's hands were tied are you?.
Can you provide any scenario where the decision to extend the 2008 SOFA beyond its original deadline of January 1, 2012 was placed into the hands of the US government.
What kind of name is Roshan?The numbers are irrelevant. In any case, more would be required to fumigate the landscape of Muslim vermin.
It seems Barry is finally working to dust off that label as a lapdog for the religion of piss, nice to see!
What kind of name is Roshan?The numbers are irrelevant. In any case, more would be required to fumigate the landscape of Muslim vermin.
It seems Barry is finally working to dust off that label as a lapdog for the religion of piss, nice to see!
Obama required a vote of complete immunity from the Parliament as a precondition he knew very well couldn't be fulfilled, nor was it a precondition Bush required in the 2008
In a constitutional democracy it requires parliament to waive its own laws. An agreement signed by Mr. Maliki without parliamentary approval, as he suggested, would not suffice. James Franklin Jeffrey - WSJ - Updated Nov. 2, 2014 7:31 p.m. ET
Panetta is just helping the President save face, like any loyal member of a presidential administration would do. It is not surprising, but it also isn't an honest assessment by Panetta.
Its funny, just a couple years ago, Obama and his supporters where celebrating the withdrawal from Iraq as one of his preeminent policy accomplishments, now that Iraq took a turn for the worse, not so much. How convenient.
That part isn't false, it is the second excerpt you quoted, where Panetta said Iraq chose to stick with the 2008 SOFA in 2011, which is patently a lie. Maliki offered blanket immunity in September 2011 and Iraqi parliament voted for a continued US presence in October 2011.Ste 10151876Panetta is just helping the President save face, like any loyal member of a presidential administration would do. It is not surprising, but it also isn't an honest assessment by Panetta.
Are you saying that none of this is true?
Panetta in November 2011: (A) "This is about their country making a decision as to what is necessary here. ..." (B) This is about negotiating with a sovereign country, an independent country. (C) This was about their needs. (D) This is not about us telling them what we're going to for with them or what they're going to have to do. "
If you think it is not true, please explain why not?
It's called mission creep.
And Obama playing politics with foreign policy. Remember all those times you told me it wouldn't happen??????????????????????????
LMAO.
Just got the CNN alert below:
The White House announced Friday that President Barack Obama has authorized the deployment of up to 1,500 "additional U.S. military personnel in a non-combat role to train, advise, and assist Iraqi Security Forces, including Kurdish forces" against ISIS.
The deployment will bring the total number of U.S. troops there to about 2,900.
The White House said in a statement that it will also ask Congress for another $5.6 billion dollars to fund the fight against ISIS.
Get complete coverage of breaking news on CNN TV, CNN.com and CNN Mobile.
Talk about cognitive dissonance. On one hand you celebrate the withdrawal, and credit Obama's decision there, but on the other hand claim his hands were tied, and that the current situation isn't his fault because of Bush's SOFA. So which is it?Ste10151939Its funny, just a couple years ago, Obama and his supporters where celebrating the withdrawal from Iraq as one of his preeminent policy accomplishments, now that Iraq took a turn for the worse, not so much. How convenient.
I celebrate the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq as much today as I did then. What are you talking about? The dumb war that got 4484 Americans in Uniform killed to find WMD that was not there was finally over. Didn't you celebrate it?
Obama required full immunity, not only this, demanded it from Parliament, and wouldn't accept an executive memorandum from Maliki.
The Obama administration was willing to “roll over” the terms of the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement as long as the new agreement, like the first, was ratified by the Iraqi Parliament. -James Franklin Jeffrey - WSJ - Updated Nov. 2, 2014 7:31 p.m. ET
In a constitutional democracy it requires parliament to waive its own laws. An agreement signed by Mr. Maliki without parliamentary approval, as he suggested, would not suffice. . - James Franklin Jeffrey - WSJ - Updated Nov. 2, 2014 7:31 p.m. ET
On one hand you celebrate the withdrawal, and credit Obama's decision there, but on the other hand claim his hands were tied, and that the current situation isn't his fault because of Bush's SOFA. So which is it?
[
That part isn't false, it is the second excerpt you quoted, where Panetta said Iraq chose to stick with the 2008 SOFA in 2011, which is patently a lie. Maliki offered blanket immunity in September 2011 and Iraqi parliament voted for a continued US presence in October 2011.
