Iraq told us to LEAVE "their" country - PERIOD!

[edthecynic]

The White House said THEY ordered the banner But it appears the GOP paid for it. The Republican Party paid $3,066 to Thomas Graphics, Inc., for the banner.

'Mission Accomplished' Whodunit - CBS News

When it was brought up again Tuesday at a news conference, Mr. Bush said, "The 'Mission Accomplished' sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished."

"I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff — they weren't that ingenious, by the way."

That explanation hadn't surfaced during months of questions to White House officials about proclaiming the mission in Iraq successful while violence continued.

After the news conference, a White House spokeswoman said the Lincoln's crew asked the White House to have the sign made. The White House asked a private vendor to produce the sign, and the crew put it up, said the spokeswoman. She said she did not know who paid for the sign.

Three grand for the banner? WTF? No wonder we're broke, that's almost ten times the going rate.


Franks: Blame Me for 'Mission Accomplished' | Fox News
Published August 09, 2004
Associated Press
Facebook0 Twitter0 livefyre0

WASHINGTON – Retired Gen. Tommy Franks (search) tried to take the blame Monday for President Bush's much-criticized comments declaring an end to major combat in Iraq (search) more than a year ago.

"That's my fault, that George W. Bush said what he said on the first of May of last year, just because I asked him to," said Franks, former commander of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Less than two months after the invasion of Iraq, Bush flew to a U.S. aircraft carrier and declared an end to major combat with a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" in the background.

The event, Bush's words and the banner have been repeatedly criticized and mocked since that first day of May 2003. The Iraq occupation turned more violent, American deaths continued to mount and U.S. forces failed to find weapons of mass destruction, a main rationale for the war.

"I wanted to get the phase of military operation over as quickly as I could, because a lot of countries on this planet had said as soon as that major stuff is over, we'll come in and help with all of the peacekeeping," Franks said.

That says NOTHING about the GOP campaign banner! Learn to read!

 

[Iceweasel]

Hilarious...you that is.
I hope you stay here for a long time.

You've shown no special insight or presented any facts except to tell us that 'a lot goes on behind closed doors'.
I'm sure you've just come to realise that yourself, and it must have been a mind-blowing epiphany when you came up with that revelation but I'm pretty sure the rest of us here have known it for quite a long time.

No, that isn't all she said. Your brain thinks so because you can't read or don't care to. Personal accounts aren't linked to the internet, did you know that? You can disagree due to your own bias but to pretend nothing was said is sheer stupidity. And the "I hope you stay around" comment is transparent grade school level stuff. Grow up.

No, she's a low level partisan clown who hasn't presented a single verifiable fact here.
When you stop your pathetic generic comments about 'liberals' maybe you'll have some high ground to speak about insults from others.
Until that day, try not to feel so hurt.

The day a retard like you "hurts" me, I'll put an end to my life. Irony, you need to look the word up. Who gives a fuck if you believe someone's account? You're a nobody claiming some intellectual high ground.

 

[paperview]

I've wasted about 20 hours in the past weeks trying to patiently explain why your comments are so far off about the SOFA.

You talk as if there was one SOFA.

You talk as if there was a SOFA and no negotiations before, during, and after.

There is not a single verifiable fact in any of your comment. You need not 'explain' your opinions why I'm so far off about the SOFA because you are not citing anything to back your opinions up. The language in the SOFA has been posted. The FACT that Maliki began running the Defense Ministry and Interior Ministry meant that all power and decisions about security was made by him. He did what dictators do. He made the National Army coup-proof by getting rid of Sunni Officers that were competent and replaced them with his stooges.

Maliki screwed up the chain of command and that is mostly why the Iraqi Army ran when ISIS raided Mosul. The Maliki Stooge Generals hopped on helicopters and abandoned their troops and let the troops see it. So they broke and ran too. That's Maliki not Obama.

Half the Obama bashers are saying Obama didn't want troops to stay. The other half are saying he did want troops to stay. Do you take both positions ... odd days Stay even days 'go'?

We've recently had a much clearer vision of how Maliki does things...good riddance to bad rubbish.

 

[Plasmaball]

i guess Econ chick abandoned this thread? Nothing like a quasi intellectual who thinks they are bringing something fresh and new, and end up being more of the same.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yes, I disagree. I can make you a martini that you'll love. It can also kill you if I put poison in it. Do you disagree?

Meaningless drivel. Children are being murdered and beheaded, which would not be happening if Obama had left a contingency force, something he bragged about not doing during the debate with Romney. Do you need to see it?

Really?
It wouldn't be happening?
How are things in Afghanistan?
I'm sure there's no mayhem going on there.

Somalia worked out pretty well too.

Iraq was handed back to the Iraqis - Mission Accomplished.
They've asked for help.
Simple.

Our generals told Obama a small force should be kept in Iraq for a while. Obama said "no" and then bragged about getting everyone out. Purely political, which is why you said the families were happy. Do you think the families of dead American soldiers are happy today?

Matthis Chiroux, an activist with Iraq Veterans Against the War, an organization that is pressing for a quick exit from Iraq, said that Obama has won sympathies within the anti-war movement that could quickly evaporate if he does not take quick action to begin a drawdown in Iraq.

"I think that Obama has very successfully branded himself as anti-war, but the fact remains that he's willing to keep a residual force in Iraq indefinitely, he wants to escalate in Afghanistan," Chiroux said. "My hope is that he starts bringing home the troops from Iraq immediately, but I think those of us in the anti-war movement could find ourselves disappointed. It's going to be important that we keep the pressure up."

Will Obama stick to the timetable? - Chicago Tribune

Through the summer, American officials continued to assume that the agreement would be amended, and Mr. Obama was willing to support a continued military presence. In June, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that Mr. Obama had told Mr. Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces. Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies.

Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/w...expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html?_r=0

 

[BlindBoo]

Keep it up. The more you write the more we see how little you know about Iraq.

Let's get something straight, Mr. Yes-you-are-a-fool. You know absolutely nothing about Iraq.

I was actually there at the time, working not many doors down from the Ambassador's contingent in the Palace.

You've never been to Iraq. You've never been to the Middle East. You know how I know? Because people who've been there can see right through comments you make that show you don't understand the culture.

Everything you say reflects ZERO understanding of this topic.

I've wasted about 20 hours in the past weeks trying to patiently explain why your comments are so far off about the SOFA.

WHILE I KNOW PARTISANS EAT YOUR IGNORANCE RIGHT UP, PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH DON'T.

You talk as if there was one SOFA.

You talk as if there was a SOFA and no negotiations before, during, and after.

Your simple mind can't grasp that the 2008 SOFA was a placeholder for a 2011 FINAL SOFA. Yes, moron, there was an outline for a 2011 SOFA that didn't get signed because O dropped the ball.

You're too stupid to understand these differences. That's why you can't understand when I talk about the Iraqi Parliament. You keep thinking there was just ONE event.

The fact is that there were ROLLING NEGOTIATIONS ....and then a SOFA and then more rolling negotiations with an outline drafted for the 2011 SOFA.

You talk like you can't distinguish between the 2008 placeholder and the 2011 SOFA that Bush's team had set up for O to finish.


When a person with a lot of experience hears one of you lefties say "but Maliki said the troops have to go," it's a sure sign we're dealing with unsophisticated idiots that have no right talking about this subject.

That was called "domestic consumption" you moron. That's how negotiations are done. That's how they're done everywhere. Behind the scenes is where the real haggling goes on.

You lefties on this thread can lie for the next 1000 days, as I'm sure you will.

But the public is overwhelmingly dismissing the leftie lies. Next week it will be worse for you liars. And even worse the week after that.

But it's a free country so go right ahead.

I'd be curious to see how you probably rewrite WWII and the Cold War as well with some FLAT OUT LIE version that America actually lost being slurped up by lefties on this thread.

Which article is the Placeholding or temporary nature of the 2008 SOFA stated?

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

Please be specific.

 

[idb]

No, that isn't all she said. Your brain thinks so because you can't read or don't care to. Personal accounts aren't linked to the internet, did you know that? You can disagree due to your own bias but to pretend nothing was said is sheer stupidity. And the "I hope you stay around" comment is transparent grade school level stuff. Grow up.

No, she's a low level partisan clown who hasn't presented a single verifiable fact here.
When you stop your pathetic generic comments about 'liberals' maybe you'll have some high ground to speak about insults from others.
Until that day, try not to feel so hurt.

The day a retard like you "hurts" me, I'll put an end to my life. Irony, you need to look the word up. Who gives a fuck if you believe someone's account? You're a nobody claiming some intellectual high ground.

You're doing an incredible impression of hurt.
Poor thing.

You should look up 'desiderium'.
No particular reason, it's just a cool word.

 

[1776]

Dumbass cocksucker....in the video with Romney, Obama ADMITS he never wanted to keep troops in Iraq.

You are just fucking stupid from inbred parents.

Which is it Obama???? you fucking liar....

Obama says keeping US Troops in Iraq starting in 2012 and having the same exact legal protections that they had under the Bush negotiated SOFA that ran out was not his decision. And it wasn't. Why are you calling him a liar?

 

[1776]

OBAMA is on VIDEO admitting he wanted to get out of Iraq with zero US troops left there, yet you fucking inbreds keep claiming Bush and Iraq made him do it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

How many times on these threads have USMB right wingers said "Obama's decision to leave blah blah blah......"?

How many times have we posted links with Maliki telling us keeping troops in Iraq was NOT an option????

What is it that Right wingers don't get?

We couldn't stay.

That was the agreement.

And why couldn't we agree to stay? Because Maliki wanted US troops under Iraqi law. US troops could be prosecuted on a whim. That would never happen. Think about the disaster that would cause our soldiers.

They wouldn't back down because they wanted us gone.

Iraq wanted us gone.

Iraq didn't want us there.

We couldn't stay past the agreement they made with Bush.

Is this so hard to understand? Seriously?

Once again for our clueless and naive worshipers of the Messianic One, namely, rdean and Twilight Zone Jane of the feminazi Y (a.k.a., LiberalMedia):

The status of forces agreement was not necessarily a general pull out by a certain date, but a systematic reduction in forces over time as we built up and trained an Iraqi army with a targeted date. It provided for an extension of a force of roughly 10,000 if Iraq were not stable by that date or for a redeployment of additional forces in the event it were to become unstable. Iraq clearly was not ready by December 2011! Everyone with an IQ above that of a gnat understood that.

A faction of the Iraqi Parliament thought to renege on that provision and threatened to oust Maliki. At that time it should have been explained to them in no uncertain terms that they owed us big, and that we were not about to squander the blood and the treasure that we had vested in their success. There is no way in hell a Republican president would have allowed that, but Obama, because that was his wont all along in any event, folded like the pair of soiled panties in your top drawer.

It was sheer politics, not leadership, and it was irresponsible. Within a year it was clear that the fledgling government was in trouble; moreover, it has been abundantly clear for nearly a year now that it could not adequately defend its people, and this Administration and the MSM ignored the mounting crisis.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OBAMA is on VIDEO admitting he wanted to get out of Iraq with zero US troops left there, yet you fucking inbreds keep claiming Bush and Iraq made him do it.

Iraq's government and Bush set the deadline for withdrawal of all combat troops before January 1 2012. That cannot be refuted by anyone. Iraq's government decided it would not extend it with the immunity for combat troops that the US requires.

Since Iraq's political leadership wouid not extend the deadline with immunity, Obama had no legal or satisfactory options to keep troops in Iraq.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

McCain has said blatantly that Iraq wanted to renegotiate troops staying but Obama refused to negotiate.

So anything said after the negotiations fell apart would be to save face. Geeze louise, why do you lefties keep lying?

It doesn't do any good. The world knows that Obama and other western leaders are to blame for ISIS. All this blood is on the wests hands. All because they wanted to depose Assad.

McCain: Opponents lying about Iraq history | TheHill

McCain: Opponents lying about Iraq history


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.”

That is precisely right. At the time, despite what the Obama Administration and the MSM were trying to sell there were two key issues that plagued the negotiation for extending the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the targeted date of December 31, 2011, an extension, by the way, that was already provided for in the original 2008 agreement: (1) immunity and (2) the size of the force.

While it is true that a significant number of Iraqis, including key members of the Iraqi Parliament, were wary of invoking the extension proviso, the matter was not strictly the Iraqis' call. There's was no damn way the immunity provision was going to be struck, and the faction of Iraqis who attempted to use that as a wedge knew that.

Initially, the Obama Administration proposed a force of 20,000, twice the size of the force that was originally thought to be necessary in the event that the extension proviso was invoked. And the 10,000 number actually included more, as that was the minimum of combat troops thought to be necessary in 2008 based on projections of the political and military situation. The rest would be support troops of approximately two- to three-thousand.

At virtually the first sign of resistance, the Administration folded, offering a paltry force of 3,000, which it knew would never fly, as Maliki et. al. were not about to go against the rising swell of resistance for an utterly meaningless token force as that.

There's no way in hell a Republican president would have allowed the Iraqis to renege on the original proviso for extending the presence of our forces beyond the targeted date given the fact that Iraq was clearly not ready to go it alone.

 

[Kosh]

OBAMA is on VIDEO admitting he wanted to get out of Iraq with zero US troops left there, yet you fucking inbreds keep claiming Bush and Iraq made him do it.

Iraq's government and Bush set the deadline for withdrawal of all combat troops before January 1 2012. That cannot be refuted by anyone. Iraq's government decided it would not extend it with the immunity for combat troops that the US requires.

Since Iraq's political leadership wouid not extend the deadline with immunity, Obama had no legal or satisfactory options to keep troops in Iraq.

No it did not when you read the actual document.

It was a scale down of forces with a possible to be announced number of troops to stay behind as "advisors" and help train the rest of the Iraqi army.

I know the far left does not understand these terms such as "combat troops", "advisors", "training forces", etc. So this will not compute to the far left programmed propaganda running now.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

OBAMA is on VIDEO admitting he wanted to get out of Iraq with zero US troops left there, yet you fucking inbreds keep claiming Bush and Iraq made him do it.

Iraq's government and Bush set the deadline for withdrawal of all combat troops before January 1 2012. That cannot be refuted by anyone. Iraq's government decided it would not extend it with the immunity for combat troops that the US requires.

Since Iraq's political leadership wouid not extend the deadline with immunity, Obama had no legal or satisfactory options to keep troops in Iraq.

No one is disputing the targeted date for withdrawal. What you don't know, however, inbred, is that the 2008 agreement already provided for an extension if it were deemed necessary by either the U.S. or Iraq! It wasn't their call, but our call that counted in the end. Obama folded because that was his wont all along. The rest is shoeshine.

Immunity? That was the very least problem of the two. The Iraqi Parliament already agreed to the immunity and the extension provisos in the 2008 agreement. It was a done deal, and they didn't have the legal right or, more importantly, the power to renege on those provisos. No Republican president would have allowed that to happened. A Republican president would have explained things to them just so in light of the blood and treasure we had vested and wouldn't have wasted anyone's time or political capital with a paltry force of 3,000. Just how the hell were they going to renege on the immunity and extension provisos and then kick 40,000 troops of the most fearsome military power on Earth out?

Naiveté is lefty's middle name.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

J

The status of forces agreement was not necessarily a general pull out by a certain date, but a systematic reduction in forces over time as we built up and trained an Iraqi army with a targeted date.

It was specifically and equivocally a 'certain' fixed date for all US troops to be gone. Show us the actual language of the signed document where you think it says the date was a target only or flexible.

Your Non-Response is your admission that there is no such language.

It provided for an extension of a force of roughly 10,000 if Iraq were not stable by that date or for a redeployment of additional forces in the event it were to become unstable. Iraq clearly was not ready by December 2011! Everyone with an IQ above that of a gnat understood that.

If it did, what were the terms of the extension? Please post the language where this extension is explained.

 

[EconChick]

Were "we" invited guests to begin with?

Another know nothing.

Yes we WERE invited. I actually drove through the streets heading to Erbil where Kurds lined the streets with adults and children waving American flags.

I won't waste more time explaining. I'm sure your next post will reveal more of your ignorance.

In 2003 did you see any of Saddam's troops in the Kurdish provinces? Were the Kurds hiding Saddam's stash of WMD? Sure the Kurds wanted us to overthrow Saddam, but that was about it. Sunnis sure didn't. Shiites sure didn't want it the way Bush did it. And the Shiites that we allied with were the ISCI Islamic Suppreme Council of Iraq Hakim. And the Badr Brigades straight out of Iran ...... So it looks like Iran invited us in. Did you meet any Badr Brigade fighters fresh from Iran during the invasion.


This is what welcomed us from the Shiite Side:

Abdul Aziz al-Hakim - Telegraph

Hakim's conversion to the cause of national unity in Iraq might be seen as more a matter of expediency than a genuine change of heart. Earlier he had favoured a semi-autonomous Shia state in the south of the country, as well as Kurdish autonomy. His own political movement was bankrolled by Tehran, and in the 1980s he had headed the ISCI's military wing, the Badr group, which fought alongside the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war between 1980 and 1988.


Abdul Aziz al-Hakim was born in 1950 in Najaf, the son of the Grand Ayatollah Muhsin al-Hakim. The family boasts a long lineage of scholars and is revered among the Shia, and he was educated by the Najaf institution of learning known as the Hawza, considered to deliver the acme of Shia teaching.


It is said that six of his brothers were murdered on the orders of Saddam, and Hakim played a leading role in the Safar Intifada (uprising) in 1977 against the secular Ba'ath party government. During the 1970s he was jailed on three occasions, finally going into exile in Iran in 1980, where two years later he became a founding member of the ISCI.


Hakim took over leadership of the party from his older brother, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Baqer al-Hakim, who was killed by a car bomb at the Imam Ali mosque in Najaf in August 2003.

His close ties with Iran generated distrust not only among Sunnis in Iraq but also among some Shia, and he competed for leadership of Iraq's Shia community with the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Some suspected that Hakim's support for Shia self-rule in the south was a ruse to deliver to Tehran political control of the main Iraqi oil fields, as well as sovereignty over the Shia holy shrines in Najaf and Karbala. Hakim dismissed these fears, declaring: "Independence is a principle we insist on. We reject interference in our internal affairs, from Iran or anyone else."

He also claimed to support a "democratic government", but one in which there was "respect for the Islamic identity", adding: "We should not apply laws that are inconsistent with Islam."

In December 2004 he survived an attempt on his life when a car bomb exploded near his office in Baghdad, killing 15 of his guards.

The following year he demanded that the Americans set a timetable for military withdrawal from Iraq, and criticised the United States for its handling of security in the country. The Americans, he said, depended too much "on the criminals from the former regime".

Do you really think the invasion into Baghdad is what liberated the Kurds from the terror of Saddam Hussein? And why would you think that the Kurds represented the government of Iraq? Talk about knowing nothing.

You think because you pulled some liberal article off the internet that it's a verifiable fact?

Let me ask you a general question about critical thinking. Do you think all the articles to be found on Google are exactly 50% liberal bias and 50% conservative bias? As in nice and even....one has left bias and the next has right bias and the next has left bias and next has right bias? You know, nice and objective?

Oh wait, I forgot there are some of you that think ALL of it is UNBIASED.

It's just the opposite.

The answer is...at least on the subjects I have expertise in, is you'll find the overwhelming numbers of links will be liberal on the first page and finally some conservative ones thrown in on the second page. There are a lot of lazy Americans who won't dig past the first page.

That's just a sidebar for the truly independent thinkers trying to figure out why our country is so fucked right now.

That's why so much of what you post is bullshit. YOU call it verifiable. I just laugh and roll my eyes.

 

[EconChick]

^ not one link in either of your posts

No link, idiot?

I'm the person people would be getting a link FROM. I don't go chase down some dumbass journalist's opinion ...someone that's never been there. He or she would be sourcing someone like me, you half wit.

You couldn't figure that out from my post?

Jesus, we have some really intellectually deficient people on here....

Hilarious...you that is.
I hope you stay here for a long time.

You've shown no special insight or presented any facts except to tell us that 'a lot goes on behind closed doors'.
I'm sure you've just come to realise that yourself, and it must have been a mind-blowing epiphany when you came up with that revelation but I'm pretty sure the rest of us here have known it for quite a long time.

What you know could fit into a Coca cola can.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Wow.. who makes threads just to make excuses for a sitting POTUS?? Your stupid opinion isn't news Deanie.. your meltdown is ridiculous.. LMAO

But yet, can you refute what the OP said? Were we to ignore what the government of Iraq wanted as if we owned their country?

That's right! A real American president wouldn't have pushed the immunity question as if that were actually negotiable, and a real American president wouldn't have folded with a paltry offer of 3,000 troops at the first sign of resistance. A real American president would have explained the facts of life to the Iraqi government relative to the blood and treasure America vested in Iraq. A real American president would have interpreted and enforced Article 27 of the agreement in America's best interests with the larger strategic concerns of the international war on Islamofascism in mind.

 

[Kosh]

Of course the link that defats all far left talking points and propaganda:

How many U.S. troops are currently in Iraq?

<....snip....>

How many U.S. troops are currently in Iraq? - CBS News

 

[EconChick]

Keep it up. The more you write the more we see how little you know about Iraq.

Let's get something straight, Mr. Yes-you-are-a-fool. You know absolutely nothing about Iraq.

I was actually there at the time, working not many doors down from the Ambassador's contingent in the Palace.

You've never been to Iraq. You've never been to the Middle East. You know how I know? Because people who've been there can see right through comments you make that show you don't understand the culture.

Everything you say reflects ZERO understanding of this topic.

I've wasted about 20 hours in the past weeks trying to patiently explain why your comments are so far off about the SOFA.

WHILE I KNOW PARTISANS EAT YOUR IGNORANCE RIGHT UP, PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH DON'T.

You talk as if there was one SOFA.

You talk as if there was a SOFA and no negotiations before, during, and after.

Your simple mind can't grasp that the 2008 SOFA was a placeholder for a 2011 FINAL SOFA. Yes, moron, there was an outline for a 2011 SOFA that didn't get signed because O dropped the ball.

You're too stupid to understand these differences. That's why you can't understand when I talk about the Iraqi Parliament. You keep thinking there was just ONE event.

The fact is that there were ROLLING NEGOTIATIONS ....and then a SOFA and then more rolling negotiations with an outline drafted for the 2011 SOFA.

You talk like you can't distinguish between the 2008 placeholder and the 2011 SOFA that Bush's team had set up for O to finish.


When a person with a lot of experience hears one of you lefties say "but Maliki said the troops have to go," it's a sure sign we're dealing with unsophisticated idiots that have no right talking about this subject.

That was called "domestic consumption" you moron. That's how negotiations are done. That's how they're done everywhere. Behind the scenes is where the real haggling goes on.

You lefties on this thread can lie for the next 1000 days, as I'm sure you will.

But the public is overwhelmingly dismissing the leftie lies. Next week it will be worse for you liars. And even worse the week after that.

But it's a free country so go right ahead.

I'd be curious to see how you probably rewrite WWII and the Cold War as well with some FLAT OUT LIE version that America actually lost being slurped up by lefties on this thread.

I asked you for language in the 2008 Bush SOFA that supports your made up version and all this PLACEHOLDER crap. International law and treaties dealing with sovereignty do not work according to your elaborate scheme to deny the reality that Bush strapped his successor with the mandate by the sovereign government of Iraq that all US troops had to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011 unless the Iraqis had a change of mind. The Iraqis could also tell Bush to get out then day after it was signed if they wanted to.


I posted Petraeus' comments about the SOFA on the other thread.... I suppose you know more about it than Petraeus does.


If you don't run off again, I post the Petraeus interview here tomorrow....


So if you know everything about Iraq you lied about the SOFA not needing to be passed by Parliament. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were just ignorant of that fact when you first mentioned that Obama insisted on it for the first time...

Couple of points.

One, I work for a living and can't be here all the time like you lefties on the government teet. Do I really need to explain that?

And this quote? I asked you for language in the 2008 Bush SOFA that supports your made up version and all this PLACEHOLDER crap. International law and treaties dealing with sovereignty do not work according to your elaborate scheme ....

Ok, dumbass dude, during all the years I kept going back, all I did was negotiate, negotiate, negotiate. You don't have the first clue about this. Not the first. But by all means dim wit, tell me how I operated in Iraq.

What part of "rolling negotiations" and "for domestic consumption" did you not grasp?

International law and treaties? Dude, you mean you don't know the difference between a western developed country with sophisticated legal, banking, and political systems and a country starting from scratch in those areas?

You actually think you can apply standards seen in Belgium or Germany to Iraq?????

That's why you show so much ignorance in this sentence: I asked you for language in the 2008 Bush SOFA that supports your made up version and all this PLACEHOLDER crap

As for Petreaus, I had to show up in his office to update him, idiot.

Do you know how many complex, ambiguous statements he made in all his years there?????

Please, your ignorance is not just overwhelming; you're fucking dangerous.