Looks like Baghdad imploding

[Oldstyle]

11076747

he first is Barack Obama's decision to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq despite being warned by his military advisers that doing so could create a power vacuum.

I am still waiting for you to provide one single military adviser who advised against Obama's decision to pull all troops when it became apparent that the Iraqi Parliament was not going to extend the immunity that expired on the date of the deadline that Bush43 agreed that all US troops were required to leave Iraq completely,

ChrisL cannot provide it either so don't feel alone in your failure.

You obviously didn't read Leon Panetta's book...did you, NotFooled? You know...Barry's Secretary of Defense? Panetta stated that both Defense and State wanted a deal to keep American troops in Iraq (something that Panetta says the Iraqi leaders also privately desired) but that the White House "inner circle" pushed back against the idea.

Panetta Blasts White House for Pulling US Forces out of Iraq Military.com

"He said that Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy advocated that position - which was shared by military commanders in the region and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Panetta writes - but found that Mr. Obama's team at the White House "pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated."

"Those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests," he said."

Leon Panetta criticizes Obama for Iraq withdrawal - CBS News

Are you getting tired of getting handed your ass in our little "discussions", NotFooled?

 

[ChrisL]

ChrL 11074641

Still, some of Obama's own generals advised against it and explained why. It is my belief that he ignored them due to his wanting to please his base.

A leader is supposed to have diplomacy and be able to come to deals with other leaders. That is all part of being the POTUS. Obama could have fought harder to come to a deal, but he did not.

Some of Obama's own generals advised against it and explained why.

What is "It" ? I'm trying to get Oldstyle to use the word "immunity" but he can't do it. Nether can you, Why.

No American General advised Obama to keep troops in Iraq unless they had immunity. The Iraqi legislature made it clear that it was not going to happen. So Obama kept 5000 troops in Kuwait plus 10,000 more for rapid deployments if requested by Iraq. Obama did not abandon the region.


You say "A leader is supposed to have diplomacy and be able to come to deals with other leaders" A few things:

Bush failed to keep Maliki in (December 2007) from forcing the necessity to negotiate a SOFA by the end of 2008.

Because of that failure Bush failed to get a long term deal with Iraq including basing rights to keep an American presence in Iraq for as long as an American presence was needed. Obama got a ten year SOFA passed for Afghanistan - There is no excuse for Bush being 1/3 the diplomat as Obama.

Maliki's government was in power because of the Sadr Bloc. If you knew anything about Muqtada al Sadr and his anti American history throughout the US occupation of Iraq you'd know why there was no making a deal that granted immunity. It could not be negotiated just with Maliki - it had to pass the parliament - And Sadr was more politically powerful in 2012 than he was in 2008. The votes were not there in 2012. They were barely there in 2008.

None of this has to do with OBAMA's presidency. He is supposed to be able to make his own deals. If he had any diplomacy (or even knew what it was - lol), he would have been able to cut a deal. Geez, funny, how he can cut deals with rogue terrorist countries like Iran though, huh? Lol.

It is Obama's JOB to be able to negotiate.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

"Sadrists are also the only bloc that steadfastly refuses to meet with any U.S. government official."

April 2010 "anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr are casting ballots in a referendum for prime minister. In practical terms, the winner can count on the support of Sadr's parliamentary bloc — and it's not a small one. In fact, the Sadrist movement — once dismissed as a militia — has shown a sophisticated understanding of elections. As a result, it may be the kingmaker of Iraq's next government."


April 2010 is the date that any possibility for an extended troop presence beyond 2011 literally crashed and burned.

See Militants To Kingmakers Iraq s Sadrists Show Savvy NPR

OS 11076747

The second is how progressives like you have seized on an expiring SOFA as the reason that Barry HAD to withdrawn all our troops.

Why was there an expiring SOFA at the end of 2011 in unstable Iraq in the first place? Why did Bush agree in 2008 to end immunity in three years? It was unpredictable that Muqtada al Sadr become kingmaker in Iraq's 2010 election for Prime Minister. Sadr is not an American Progressive.

It's not progressives that said Obama HAD to withdraw all our troops. It was every single military and civilian adviser around the president who realized that a deal including immunity would never make it through Iraq's Parliament which was largely influenced by the anti-American Sadrist Bloc within Maliki's own party.

Here's some relevant history that explains to uninformed Obama haters exactly what changed politically in Iraqi politics and how that change made an extension of immunity in 2012 absolutely impossible.

Militants To Kingmakers, Iraq's Sadrists Show Savvy. APRIL 02, 2010 4:11 PM ET

.Another election began Friday in Iraq. It's not a binding vote, but followers of the anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr are casting ballots in a referendum for prime minister. In practical terms, the winner can count on the support of Sadr's parliamentary bloc — and it's not a small one.

In fact, the Sadrist movement — once dismissed as a militia — has shown a sophisticated understanding of elections. As a result, it may be the kingmaker of Iraq's next government.

Sadr has made a career out of being underestimated in Iraq, from the beginning of the American occupation. After the U.S. invasion in 2003, his militia slowly took over much of the south. And in the first set of parliamentary elections four years ago, the Shiite cleric used his political force to push a compromise candidate for prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.

As prime minister, Maliki later turned against the Sadrist militias and defeated them with U.S. military help. Sadr subsequently moved to Iran for religious study, and the Sadrists looked to be finished again. But last month's elections proved otherwise.

.
Militants To Kingmakers Iraq s Sadrists Show Savvy NPR

. The Sadrists may have emerged as the Iraqi group that understands democracy the best, which is bittersweet for the Americans, because the Sadrists are also the only bloc that steadfastly refuses to meet with any U.S. government official.

Is this so difficult to understand why an extension of the 2008 SOFA was impossible to negotiate: "Sadrists are also the only bloc that steadfastly refuses to meet with any U.S. government official."

 

[NotfooledbyW]

11078104.

It is Obama's JOB to be able to negotiate.

Read Post 283 and explain why you didn't know anything about the Sadrist Bloc in Iraq's Parliament in 2010:

"Sadrists are also the only bloc that steadfastly refuses to meet with any U.S. government official."

"April 2010 "anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr are casting ballots in a referendum for prime minister. In practical terms, the winner can count on the support of Sadr's parliamentary bloc — and it's not a small one. In fact, the Sadrist movement — once dismissed as a militia — has shown a sophisticated understanding of elections. As a result, it may be the kingmaker of Iraq's next government."

See Militants To Kingmakers Iraq s Sadrists Show Savvy NPR

April 2010 is the date that any possibility for an extended troop presence beyond 2011 literally crashed and burned.

If you were informed of Muqtada! Al Sadr's staunch anti-Americanism you would've known better than to write these idiotic words: "it is Obama's JOB to be able to negotiate."

"Sadrists are also the only bloc that steadfastly refuses to meet with any U.S. government official."


Bush43 got the 2008 amnesty through Parliament when Sadr went to Iran after Maliki disbanded Sadr's militia but Maliki kept the Badr militia intact because they were pro-American but also from Iran.

Bush held hands with the BADR leader in the White House .. The Badr militia was aligned with Hakim and Bush and Maliki in 2008;

Here's the photo;

↑
President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq

President George W. Bush welcomes Sayyed Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, to the White House Monday, Dec. 4, 2006. Said the President, "I appreciate so very much His Eminence's commitment to a unity government. I assured him the United States supports his work and the work of the Prime Minister to unify the country." White House photo by Eric Draper
Click to expand...

 

[ChrisL]

It is Obama's JOB to be able to negotiate.

Read Post 283 and explain why you didn't know anything about the Sadrist Bloc in Iraq's Parliament in 2010:

"Sadrists are also the only bloc that steadfastly refuses to meet with any U.S. government official."

"April 2010 "anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr are casting ballots in a referendum for prime minister. In practical terms, the winner can count on the support of Sadr's parliamentary bloc — and it's not a small one. In fact, the Sadrist movement — once dismissed as a militia — has shown a sophisticated understanding of elections. As a result, it may be the kingmaker of Iraq's next government."

See Militants To Kingmakers Iraq s Sadrists Show Savvy NPR

April 2010 is the date that any possibility for an extended troop presence beyond 2011 literally crashed and burned.

If you were informed of Muqtada! Al,Sadr's staunch anti-Americanism you would've known better Than to write these idiotic words: "it is Obama's JOB to be able to negotiate."

"Sadrists are also the only bloc that steadfastly refuses to meet with any U.S. government official."


Bush43 got the 2008 amnesty through Parliament when Sadr went to Iran after Maliki disbanded,Sadr's militia but Maliki kept the Badr militia intact because they were pro-American but also from Iran.

Bush held hands with their leader in the White House .. The Badr militia was aligned with Hakim and Bush and Maliki in 2008;

Here's the photo;

↑
President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq

President George W. Bush welcomes Sayyed Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, to the White House Monday, Dec. 4, 2006. Said the President, "I appreciate so very much His Eminence's commitment to a unity government. I assured him the United States supports his work and the work of the Prime Minister to unify the country." White House photo by Eric Draper
Click to expand...

WHO CARES? If Obama cannot negotiate deals, then what good is he?

 

[Oldstyle]

I note that you totally ignored my post showing that not only Barack Obama's Secretary of Defense but most of his generals were calling for troops to stay longer in Iraq. That's coming right from Leon Panetta's mouth. Defense and State grasped the danger...the Obama team in the White House didn't. They were too busy playing politics.

 

[Oldstyle]

Or are you calling Leon Panetta a liar?

 

[ChrisL]

Or are you calling Leon Panetta a liar?

He's just in love with Obama, I think. These people and their defense of sleazy politicians. I'll never get it.

 

[Camp]

Or are you calling Leon Panetta a liar?

Leon Panetta was the Director of the CIA. Everyone knows that CIA Directors never lie. They are the most trustworthy government officials you can find anywhere.

 

[ChrisL]

Or are you calling Leon Panetta a liar?

Leon Panetta was the Director of the CIA. Everyone knows that CIA Directors never lie. They are the most trustworthy government officials you can find anywhere.

Well, duh, he wasn't lying was he? He was absolutely 100% correct, right?

 

[Camp]

Or are you calling Leon Panetta a liar?

Leon Panetta was the Director of the CIA. Everyone knows that CIA Directors never lie. They are the most trustworthy government officials you can find anywhere.

Well, duh, he wasn't lying was he? He was absolutely 100% correct, right?

He is a trained liar. He knows how to do it with plausible deniability. He lies by omission of including the immunity clause necessary for the agreement to have been completed. He, and others, have made the point over and over that they advised the President to leave a strong force behind, but they he never answers the dilemma regarding the question of immunity. He is attempting to cover his ass for his own responsibility during the negotiating period as CIA Director and Sec. of Defense.

 

[Oldstyle]

Or are you calling Leon Panetta a liar?

Leon Panetta was the Director of the CIA. Everyone knows that CIA Directors never lie. They are the most trustworthy government officials you can find anywhere.

Leon Panetta was Obama's choice as Secretary of Defense. That's Barry's guy saying that Obama's inner circle at the White House never wanted to keep American troops in Iraq and that the President was never engaged in seeking a new SOFA. How Panetta describes what was taking place in the White House makes NotFooled's claim that Obama only pulled the troops because the Iraqis wouldn't agree to a new SOFA dubious at best. Panetta drew back the curtain and let everyone see what was going on in the White House.

 

[Oldstyle]

Or are you calling Leon Panetta a liar?

Leon Panetta was the Director of the CIA. Everyone knows that CIA Directors never lie. They are the most trustworthy government officials you can find anywhere.

Well, duh, he wasn't lying was he? He was absolutely 100% correct, right?

He is a trained liar. He knows how to do it with plausible deniability. He lies by omission of including the immunity clause necessary for the agreement to have been completed. He, and others, have made the point over and over that they advised the President to leave a strong force behind, but they he never answers the dilemma regarding the question of immunity. He is attempting to cover his ass for his own responsibility during the negotiating period as CIA Director and Sec. of Defense.

With all due respect, Camp...compared to Barack Obama...Leon Panetta is one of the more honest men on the planet!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ChrL 11078327

WHO CARES? If Obama cannot negotiate deals, then what good is he?

Run away again. Informed and intelligent people,care and realize that an anti-American political Bloc took over in Parliament and that extended immunity would never pass. There was no room for the American side to negotiate anything at all.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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

OS 11078420

Or are you calling Leon Panetta a liar?

No you and ChrisL are lying about Panetta.

Here is his actual advice to Obama on the issue of immunity:

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

 

[NotfooledbyW]

"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,”



OS 11078715.

. Leon Panetta was Obama's choice as Secretary of Defense. That's Barry's guy saying that Obama's inner circle at the White House never wanted to keep American troops in Iraq and that the President was never engaged in seeking a new SOFA. How Panetta describes what was taking place in the White House makes NotFooled's claim that Obama only pulled the troops because the Iraqis wouldn't agree to a new SOFA dubious at best. Panetta drew back the curtain and let everyone see what was going on in the White House.

I drew back the curtain and quote Panetta directly what he said in real time as the real negotiations to keep 5,000 troops in Iraq were going on. ChrisL,has been running from the truth ever since. And now you have joined him in spreading yet another right winger lie:

ChrL 11024862

Oh . . .what's this? Another person, who probably knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, who thought it was a bad idea. OCS.

Panetta Obama Wrong on Iraq Pullout Failure to Arm Syrians

Of course Panetta thought it was a bad idea to keep troops in Iraq without legal immunity.

If Panetta knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, don't you have to agree with everything the man had to say and specifically what he had to say during the negotiations and as Secretary of Defense.

NF 11024987

"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."

I realize you can't discuss the immunity issue since it explains exactly why the Bush Maliki deadline could never have been extended. Unless of course Obama was inclined to disregard the advice of Panetta and every general giving the same advice:

NF 10908353 Panetta said in 2011:

U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system.

​

​

 

[Unkotare]

Shameless obama nuthugger playing games with spin while the real world burns down around us due to the clown-in-chief's incompetence and reckless irresponsibility.

 

[Oldstyle]

ChrL 11078327

WHO CARES? If Obama cannot negotiate deals, then what good is he?

Run away again. Informed and intelligent people,care and realize that an anti-American political Bloc took over in Parliament and that extended immunity would never pass. There was no room for the American side to negotiate anything at all.

If you read Panetta's account of how the Obama White House handled the issue of a new SOFA in Iraq, it's quite clear that Panetta felt that Obama never even TRIED to get a new agreement! In an effort to appease his "base" Obama kept lowering the number of troops that would remain behind until it was such a miniscule number that it became absurd for Iraqi politicians to take the political risk of voting for a new SOFA. Panetta makes it clear that he, the Joint Chiefs, folks over at the State Department and the Iraqi's running things in Iraq all wanted to get a deal done to extend the SOFA but it was Obama and his people inside the White House who "pushed back" on that. Panetta describes the difference of opinion on keeping troops in Iraq as being "heated" at times between "our side" and "their side".

 

[ChrisL]

Or are you calling Leon Panetta a liar?

Leon Panetta was the Director of the CIA. Everyone knows that CIA Directors never lie. They are the most trustworthy government officials you can find anywhere.

Well, duh, he wasn't lying was he? He was absolutely 100% correct, right?

He is a trained liar. He knows how to do it with plausible deniability. He lies by omission of including the immunity clause necessary for the agreement to have been completed. He, and others, have made the point over and over that they advised the President to leave a strong force behind, but they he never answers the dilemma regarding the question of immunity. He is attempting to cover his ass for his own responsibility during the negotiating period as CIA Director and Sec. of Defense.

Lol. I would think that would be more so the case with Mr. Obama. It wasn't just Panetta who advised him that it was too soon to leave. Sorry, but this is the president's responsibility. This falls on HIS shoulders as the POTUS. I know you would just LOVE to pass on the blame, but the buck stops with Mr. Obama. He is the president, and it's HIS responsibility.

 

[ChrisL]

"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,”



OS 11078715.

. Leon Panetta was Obama's choice as Secretary of Defense. That's Barry's guy saying that Obama's inner circle at the White House never wanted to keep American troops in Iraq and that the President was never engaged in seeking a new SOFA. How Panetta describes what was taking place in the White House makes NotFooled's claim that Obama only pulled the troops because the Iraqis wouldn't agree to a new SOFA dubious at best. Panetta drew back the curtain and let everyone see what was going on in the White House.

I drew back the curtain and quote Panetta directly what he said in real time as the real negotiations to keep 5,000 troops in Iraq were going on. ChrisL,has been running from the truth ever since. And now you have joined him in spreading yet another right winger lie:

ChrL 11024862

Oh . . .what's this? Another person, who probably knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, who thought it was a bad idea. OCS.

Panetta Obama Wrong on Iraq Pullout Failure to Arm Syrians

Of course Panetta thought it was a bad idea to keep troops in Iraq without legal immunity.

If Panetta knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, don't you have to agree with everything the man had to say and specifically what he had to say during the negotiations and as Secretary of Defense.

NF 11024987

"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."

I realize you can't discuss the immunity issue since it explains exactly why the Bush Maliki deadline could never have been extended. Unless of course Obama was inclined to disregard the advice of Panetta and every general giving the same advice:

NF 10908353 Panetta said in 2011:

U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system.

​

​

That's she, like I told you before, you idiot. Now, I know that you keep calling me a "he" to try and insult me. You have been proven wrong with just about every post you've made.

This is OBAMA'S responsibility. HE is the president. It is up to him to make the right decisions. Basically, what you are saying is that he is IMPOTENT as a POTUS.