Looks like Baghdad imploding

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 11079781

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.

That is Panetta's word years later vs what he said when the negotiations were ongoing, The Amb to Iraq at that time involved in the negotiations said reducing the number of troops and referring to them as trainers that were confined to a base was the only potential way to get immunity passed,

The smaller the number of troops the more chance to get them immunity.

Its common sense. Since the Iraqis we balking at granting immunity - it would be tougher getting a large number of troops when the Sadrist Bloc didn't want any troops at all . Reducing the numbers nay have peeled off some lawmakers to find that acceptable.


Common sense is not your forte when it comes to hating Obama for no reason.

 

[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.

​

​

Maybe you're just a senile old lady.

"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."

Obama, nor America HAVE to abide by anything Iraq or Al-Maliki demanded. Right? What would they do about it if we ignored them and stayed anyway? What are you so frightened of? They held NO POWER over us. We have the power, we have the upper hand. There is absolutely NOTHING they could have done to us if we had decided to ignore them and stay. Idiot.

 

[ChrisL]

OS 11079781

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.

That is Panetta's word years later vs what he said when the negotiations were ongoing, The Amb to Iraq at that time involved in the negotiations said reducing the number of troops and referring to them as trainers that were confined to a base was the only potential way to get immunity passed,

The smaller the number of troops the more chance to get them immunity.

Its common sense. Since the Iraqis we balking at granting immunity - it would be tougher getting a large number of troops when the Sadrist Bloc didn't want any troops at all . Reducing the numbers nay have peeled off some lawmakers to find that acceptable.


Common sense is not your forte when it comes to hating Obama for no reason.

Too effing bad for Iraq. There is nothing they could do to us. You're making excuses, and by your admissions, you are actually admitting that Obama is INEFFECTIVE when it comes to foreign policy.

 

[ChrisL]

OS 11079781

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.

That is Panetta's word years later vs what he said when the negotiations were ongoing, The Amb to Iraq at that time involved in the negotiations said reducing the number of troops and referring to them as trainers that were confined to a base was the only potential way to get immunity passed,

The smaller the number of troops the more chance to get them immunity.

Its common sense. Since the Iraqis we balking at granting immunity - it would be tougher getting a large number of troops when the Sadrist Bloc didn't want any troops at all . Reducing the numbers nay have peeled off some lawmakers to find that acceptable.


Common sense is not your forte when it comes to hating Obama for no reason.

This is why, WAY EARLIER, I said that when we fight wars, the negotiations should be on OUR terms. WE make the rules. We tell THEM what is going to happen. We don't waste all that blood and money to appease the enemy. We make sure that we are effective in the end game.

 

[ChrisL]

OS 11079781

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.

That is Panetta's word years later vs what he said when the negotiations were ongoing, The Amb to Iraq at that time involved in the negotiations said reducing the number of troops and referring to them as trainers that were confined to a base was the only potential way to get immunity passed,

The smaller the number of troops the more chance to get them immunity.

Its common sense. Since the Iraqis we balking at granting immunity - it would be tougher getting a large number of troops when the Sadrist Bloc didn't want any troops at all . Reducing the numbers nay have peeled off some lawmakers to find that acceptable.


Common sense is not your forte when it comes to hating Obama for no reason.

Screw you. You liberals LOST the war. Plain and simple. When it comes to war, liberals should not have a say because they are pussies. We didn't invest ALL of what we invested to lose it because of you pussies. You don't have an effing clue. CLUELESS.

 

[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.

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.

Obama made the correct decision. As far as Panetta goes, I have no doubt that if troops had been left behind without the immunity clause and any of them had been arrested by Iraqi officials, Panetta would have been the first to claim he had warned the President to not leave troops behind without the immunity clause, which is what he in fact did advise.
Thankfully, we did not leave troops behind to prop up the corrupt government Bush created. We would have been seeing more US troops coming home in boxes and crippled. You seem to think we should have begged and pleaded with Iraq to allow us to sacrifice more of our people as if it was some kind of special privilege. Instead, Obama told them to fuck off and parked our troops on the other side of the border in Kuwait where we already had operating bases and could make our own determinations about when and how to use our troops.

 

[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.

Obama made the correct decision. As far as Panetta goes, I have no doubt that if troops had been left behind without the immunity clause and any of them had been arrested by Iraqi officials, Panetta would have been the first to claim he had warned the President to not leave troops behind without the immunity clause, which is what he in fact did advise.
Thankfully, we did not leave troops behind to prop up the corrupt government Bush created. We would have been seeing more US troops coming home in boxes and crippled. You seem to think we should have begged and pleaded with Iraq to allow us to sacrifice more of our people as if it was some kind of special privilege. Instead, Obama told them to fuck off and parked our troops on the other side of the border in Kuwait where we already had operating bases and could make our own determinations about when and how to use our troops.

No, the bottom line is WE hold the power. The Iraqis do NOT. They know that, and so do we. Obama did what he did to appease clueless people like yourself. We could have threatened to remove him from power.

AND you wonder why we would want to set up the government??? Good Lord, you people are completely clueless. This is why, whenever we fight a war, we don't fight with one hand tied behind our backs. It takes brutality and toughness to WIN a war. You don't wimp out during the end game. You stay, you occupy that country, and you do what it takes so that OUR investment isn't just thrown away. Duh! The reason why the US can not and will NEVER be able to win wars is because of you liberals.

 

[Camp]

OS 11079781

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.

That is Panetta's word years later vs what he said when the negotiations were ongoing, The Amb to Iraq at that time involved in the negotiations said reducing the number of troops and referring to them as trainers that were confined to a base was the only potential way to get immunity passed,

The smaller the number of troops the more chance to get them immunity.

Its common sense. Since the Iraqis we balking at granting immunity - it would be tougher getting a large number of troops when the Sadrist Bloc didn't want any troops at all . Reducing the numbers nay have peeled off some lawmakers to find that acceptable.


Common sense is not your forte when it comes to hating Obama for no reason.

Too effing bad for Iraq. There is nothing they could do to us. You're making excuses, and by your admissions, you are actually admitting that Obama is INEFFECTIVE when it comes to foreign policy.

In case you didn't notice, they killed thousands and crippled 50,000 and turned untold numbers into disabled veterans. Your I idea that they could do nothing to us and all we had to do is be tough is delusional and insane. Your proposal is that if we just kept doing the same thing we did under Bush/Cheney we would get different results this time.

 

[ChrisL]

OS 11079781

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.

That is Panetta's word years later vs what he said when the negotiations were ongoing, The Amb to Iraq at that time involved in the negotiations said reducing the number of troops and referring to them as trainers that were confined to a base was the only potential way to get immunity passed,

The smaller the number of troops the more chance to get them immunity.

Its common sense. Since the Iraqis we balking at granting immunity - it would be tougher getting a large number of troops when the Sadrist Bloc didn't want any troops at all . Reducing the numbers nay have peeled off some lawmakers to find that acceptable.


Common sense is not your forte when it comes to hating Obama for no reason.

Too effing bad for Iraq. There is nothing they could do to us. You're making excuses, and by your admissions, you are actually admitting that Obama is INEFFECTIVE when it comes to foreign policy.

In case you didn't notice, they killed thousands and crippled 50,000 and turned untold numbers into disabled veterans. Your I idea that they could do nothing to us and all we had to do is be tough is delusional and insane. Your proposal is that if we just kept doing the same thing we did under Bush/Cheney we would get different results this time.

We had that place under control, then we threw it away because of people like YOU. We LOST the war in the end game. IF we did not leave, NONE of what is happening over there would be happening now. Liberals are bleeding heart wimps. Obama left Iraq because that was one of his campaign promises to appease you bleeding hearts without thought to the consequences.

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 11079781

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.

That is Panetta's word years later vs what he said when the negotiations were ongoing, The Amb to Iraq at that time involved in the negotiations said reducing the number of troops and referring to them as trainers that were confined to a base was the only potential way to get immunity passed,

The smaller the number of troops the more chance to get them immunity.

Its common sense. Since the Iraqis we balking at granting immunity - it would be tougher getting a large number of troops when the Sadrist Bloc didn't want any troops at all . Reducing the numbers nay have peeled off some lawmakers to find that acceptable.


Common sense is not your forte when it comes to hating Obama for no reason.

It is common sense! Even though Iraqi politicians realized that they needed a stabilizing US force left in Iraq they were not willing to vote for a new SOFA if the force that Obama was going to give them was only a few thousand troops or none at all! That's what Panetta revealed in his book. I'm amused by the attempts by people like you and Camp to now defame Leon Panetta when all he did was level with the American people about what really happened.

 

[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.

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.

Obama made the correct decision. As far as Panetta goes, I have no doubt that if troops had been left behind without the immunity clause and any of them had been arrested by Iraqi officials, Panetta would have been the first to claim he had warned the President to not leave troops behind without the immunity clause, which is what he in fact did advise.
Thankfully, we did not leave troops behind to prop up the corrupt government Bush created. We would have been seeing more US troops coming home in boxes and crippled. You seem to think we should have begged and pleaded with Iraq to allow us to sacrifice more of our people as if it was some kind of special privilege. Instead, Obama told them to fuck off and parked our troops on the other side of the border in Kuwait where we already had operating bases and could make our own determinations about when and how to use our troops.

Perhaps you should actually read Panetta's book, Camp! Panetta, the Joint Chiefs and the State Department all advised Barack Obama to leave a force of about 20,000 troops to stabilize Iraq. Panetta says that privately, the Iraqi leadership ALSO understood the need for those troops.

It was the Obama White House that pushed a total withdrawal of troops. It was the Obama White House that showed zero interest in getting a new SOFA. I'm sorry but that was Barry's call. He owns it. What his Secretary of Defense and his Joint Chiefs warned him might happen...DID HAPPEN!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 11075983

Panetta says that privately, the Iraqi leadership ALSO understood the need for those troops.

You are on thin ice when your argument depends on what someone says that someone else said something privately. What a joke you are at verifying facts. There is way too much public record that there was no way the Sadrist Bloc that came into power after Bush was cornered into a 3 year deal in 2008. No one serious with knowledge of the facts could disagree that Sadrist and Maliki in power combined created a stronger anti-American environment than what existed in 2008.

I don't have to depend on private conversations between who knows and whom. Your case is dead.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 11081574

Panetta, the Joint Chiefs and the State Department all advised Barack Obama to leave a force of about 20,000 troops to stabilize Iraq.

I'm sure they did. But Obama was not the Prime Minister of Iraq or any other office holder in Iraq. It was the Iraqis that needed convincing not Obama. Obama could have kept troops in Iraq in a non-combat role with a small amount of flak from the extremist anti-war crowd. The Iraqis would not extend the immunity - that is vividly clear and you still cannot utter the word because your argument is dead because of the Iraqis not granting it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ChrL 11079929

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.

Obama has no jurisdiction over Iraq or political clout against the Sadrist Bloc in Iraq's Parliament. He has a responsibility to respect Iraq'd sovereignty and constitution.

What you are saying is that Obama has "Potency" that no president will ever have over Iraq unless they invade and occupy it like Bush did. Is that what you want?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Unko 11079536

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.

Americans are living in the safest times ever.

And we don't have to fight their wars for them - that's leadership

Arab League Calls for Unified ArabForce to Battle Islamic ...
Arab League Calls for Unified Arab Force to Battle Islamic Extremists - Latest News Briefs - Arutz Sheva
Arab League Calls for Unified Arab Force to Battle Islamic Extremists. Arab League chief ... There is an...

 

[Unkotare]

Unko 11079536

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.

Americans are living in the safest times ever.

And we don't have to fight their wars for them - that's leadership

Arab League Calls for Unified ArabForce to Battle Islamic ...
Arab League Calls for Unified Arab Force to Battle Islamic Extremists - Latest News Briefs - Arutz Sheva
Arab League Calls for Unified Arab Force to Battle Islamic Extremists. Arab League chief ... There is an...

You're living in a fool's paradise, Neville.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ChrsL 11079912

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 responsibilit

Can you cite any legal, moral
situational or practical means whereby a US President has the responsibility for the outcome of a vote or pending vote in a foreign government's legislative body?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You're living in a fool's paradise, Neville.

You cannot contest the fact that Americans are living under the safest of times & that it is a good thing that the Arab League will step up and fight their region's terrorists and extremists on their own - so you throw out an ignorance driven insult.

In 2001 3000 Americans were killed on US soil including at the Pentagon by foreign based terrorists. Then unrelated to that 4484 Americans were killed in a dumb and unnecessary war that the US started. The war in response to the September 11 attacks was left to falter because of the invasion of Iraq. According to Admiral Mullen Bush presided over 'endless drift' in Afghanistan to the point that Obama had to triple the number of troops in 2009 to save that war from a Taliban victory. Obama then signs a ten year security deal with the Afghans and they are doing the fighting now.

Not one single US soldier has been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan 90 days into 2015 and you want to declare that Americans are in more danger from war terrorism and crime all because of Obama. There is nothing going on that backs your hate-filled ideas about the world up. Absolutely nothing.

 

[ChrisL]

ChrL 11079929

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.

Obama has no jurisdiction over Iraq or political clout against the Sadrist Bloc in Iraq's Parliament. He has a responsibility to respect Iraq'd sovereignty and constitution.

What you are saying is that Obama has "Potency" that no president will ever have over Iraq unless they invade and occupy it like Bush did. Is that what you want?

Well then, he is a terrible leader.

 

[ChrisL]

ChrsL 11079912

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 responsibilit

Can you cite any legal, moral
situational or practical means whereby a US President has the responsibility for the outcome of a vote or pending vote in a foreign government's legislative body?

You completely miss my point on PURPOSE, as usual. You are just a dishonest Obama arse kisser.