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.
And I'm amused by your characterization of the Bush SOFA as "weak" on immunities and protections. How "weak" was it compared to the Obama SOFA? Oh, that's right...Barry never got a deal period!
SO, you WANT Obama to send our troops into Iraq without immunities.
An Army Sargent wrote this about SOFA in 2009...
Iraq: Is the SOFA viable?
The Status of Forces Agreement between the governments of Iraq and the United States comes with outrageous stipulations that render our troops helpless, subject them to Iraqi military tribunals, halt U.S. military operations, and turn vengeful detainees over to the Iraqis. So what is the point of leaving our troops there as potted plants for the next three years?
Anyone who thinks this SOFA is similar to that of the pacts we have with Germany or Japan is delusional. There will be no safe tours of the Iraqi countryside for our troops on R&R. The Bush Administration, in one of their last attempts to salvage some grain of positive legacy, pushed this "rush job" through so they can say: "look at how far the Iraqis have come, see, we really did liberate them." At the same time a bipartisan majority of Congress sat on their hands with the deer in the headlights look. Knowing it's going to blow up in the Obama Administration's face. You gotta love how politics works.
Mr. Obama has promised to initiate a firm time line for troop withdrawal which coincides with the SOFA. However, it won't be overnight -- it will take years. And if upon our exit from Iraq violence spikes, it is likely that the withdrawal plan will be replaced by a contingency plan that keeps our troops in harms way indefinitely.
According to the SOFA a system has to be established for Iraqi approval of all U.S. missions. Therefore, our military strategy over the next six months is to leave Iraqi cities and confine ourselves behind walls while waiting to be assigned approved missions by the Iraqi government. Every time U.S. troops leave their bases it will have to be cleared by the Iraqis -- even if they want to conduct a convoy to Kuwait for resupply purposes. Not to mention an actual combat mission to quell violence and find bad guys.
How many undercover insurgent cells currently plague the Iraqi police and security forces? When retired Marine General James Jones and then D.C. Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey conducted their trip to Iraq to evalute the Iraqi police they concluded that the Iraqi National Police Force is so sectarian and corrupt that the entire force should be disbanded and rebuilt from the ground up -- it never happened.
Next month we start the process of releasing approximately sixteen thousand Iraqi detainees in U.S. custody to the Iraqi government. We here in America have no clue who these people are. They may be actual anti-American killers or just Iraqi bystanders that were falsely identified as insurgents and locked up for the last 5 years. When released many Iraqi men may find that their homes have been destroyed and their family members killed. Will that provide sixteen thousand (a divisional size element) reinforcements to the Iraqi insurgency? It's very conceivable.
Our regular ground forces still apprehend 50 insurgents a day while our special forces teams apprehend approximately a dozen hardline terrorists. Under the SOFA, not only can't we apprehend them, we have to turn them loose to a corrupt Iraqi police force loaded with sleepers within forty eight hours.
What about the Iraqi detainees that will be considered "enemies of the state?" They'll be placed in brutal Iraqi detention camps where they're likely to be tortured and eventually killed on mere circumstantial evidence. If they're fortunate enough to be released further down the line don't expect them not to retaliate -- a perfect ingredient to jump start the abated Iraqi civil war.
If and when that happens, and the Iraqis authorize U.S. troops to restart military operations and innocent people are accidentally killed, Iraqi military tribunals reserve the right to prosecute our service people.
The Iraqi government can now try U.S. civilians and military personnel for crimes committed outside of U.S. bases and while "off duty." I can't envision a scenario that would place our military in an "off duty" status in a country as hostile as Iraq. Suffice it to say that our troops will be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system every second of the day.
The Iraqi government, in an effort to further demonstrate it's sovereignty, reserves the right search and inventory all U.S. cargo entering the country. They will check off the boxes on exactly what resources they feel are acceptable for our military. So if a shipment of ordinance arrives in Kuwait and the Iraqis decide to conduct an inspection of a U.S. convoy carrying the shipment across the border and render a decision to confiscate our munitions will they allow us to turn it around or will they confiscate it, use it, or possibly turn it over to our enemies for them to use against our residual forces?
Silly us, we must have forgotten it's their country.
All for the bargain price of 3 billion dollars per week. What a beautiful mess.
Your "Sgt." is a retired veteran who is now a Huffington Post writer. He sees Barack Obama as "the last moderate Republican" so it's obvious that he's about as far left as they come. Nice try though trying to pass him off as someone from the military who backs Obama's policies. Well...not really!
Yet George W. Bush...who you progressives have labeled the "village idiot...somehow managed to obtain a SOFA from Iraq...but it was IMPOSSIBLE for Barack Obama "the smartest President EVER!" according to progressive theology to do the same?
What Panetta revealed in his book was that Obama made little to no effort to ever obtain a new SOFA. That's the reality of what took place...despite the assurances of Colin Kahl!So let me see if I follow your argument here...
A U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East supposedly knows more about the SOFA negotiations than the man who was Director of the CIA or Secretary of Defense during the time period in question? Really, Bfgrn? LOL
It's obvious that the Obama Administration trotted a junior level Administration adviser out to try and do damage control to Panetta's expose of Obama's failure of policy in Iraq. Kahl's piece is nothing more than a rather limp attempt to excuse Barack Obama's total lack of effort to obtain a new SOFA.
YES. He was DIRECTLY involved in THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.
What you CAN'T comprehend is that IRAQ WAS NOT GOING TO offer a SOFA that gave our sons and daughters the immunities and protections needed to keep them out of Iraqi jails.
And the SOFA Bush signed and DID NOT take to Congress was WEAK on those immunities and protections.
So you really DO think that a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense knew more about our negotiations with Iraq than Leon Panetta, the actual Secretary of Defense, did? That's amusing...really...
What Panetta pointed out was that Iraq was never going to offer us a SOFA deal if they felt that Barack Obama had no interest in keeping troops in Iraq to start with. Why would they? Why would any Iraqi politician vote for something that was unpopular (even if they realized that it was needed!) when they saw zero desire on Obama's part to keep troops in Iraq? Why would Obama put in the hard work to get a SOFA deal done when he fully intended to pull the troops out prior to running for reelection? That was the reality of the situation, Bfgrn...despite subsequent attempts by Obama flunky Kohl, to paint it differently.
I really don't give a shit what Panetta's opinion is. And by the way, you have presented ZERO links to what he said.
WHY are you unable to comprehend that no matter what Obama did, there would be no SOFA agreement that Iraq would approve without being able to treat American soldiers as subjects of Iraq. THAT is not in the best interests of America.
Funny how Leon Panetta was lauded by progressives for his impeccable reputation right up to the point where he leveled with us about what really went on with the SOFA negotiations...and then suddenly he's a "LIAR" or his opinion isn't worth "shit"!
Funny how W....who you all were convinced was a moron because he pronounced nuclear funny...was able to pull off a SOFA deal with Iraqi leaders...yet for Barack Obama it's now been declared an IMPOSSIBILITY!!!
Have you noticed that there are a LOT of things that are impossible for Barry and his little band of progressive misfits?
I said Panetta has a right to his opinion. I have never "lauded" the man.
What IS funny is that the right who hate everything connected with our President, NOW LAUD Leon Panetta.
Bush IS a moron. He has caused more damage in this world than any living human being. He was consistently wrong at every turn. He blatantly lied to the American people from the moment he took office. His first Treasury Secretary exposed who and what George W. Bush is...a MORON.
Bush didn't 'negotiate' a SOFA, he SIGNED an edict dictated by the Iraqi parliament 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. He continued to throw America sons and daughters under the Bus, right up to the very end.
And I'm amused by your characterization of the Bush SOFA as "weak" on immunities and protections. How "weak" was it compared to the Obama SOFA? Oh, that's right...Barry never got a deal period!
SO, you WANT Obama to send our troops into Iraq without immunities.
An Army Sargent wrote this about SOFA in 2009...
Iraq: Is the SOFA viable?
The Status of Forces Agreement between the governments of Iraq and the United States comes with outrageous stipulations that render our troops helpless, subject them to Iraqi military tribunals, halt U.S. military operations, and turn vengeful detainees over to the Iraqis. So what is the point of leaving our troops there as potted plants for the next three years?
Anyone who thinks this SOFA is similar to that of the pacts we have with Germany or Japan is delusional. There will be no safe tours of the Iraqi countryside for our troops on R&R. The Bush Administration, in one of their last attempts to salvage some grain of positive legacy, pushed this "rush job" through so they can say: "look at how far the Iraqis have come, see, we really did liberate them." At the same time a bipartisan majority of Congress sat on their hands with the deer in the headlights look. Knowing it's going to blow up in the Obama Administration's face. You gotta love how politics works.
Mr. Obama has promised to initiate a firm time line for troop withdrawal which coincides with the SOFA. However, it won't be overnight -- it will take years. And if upon our exit from Iraq violence spikes, it is likely that the withdrawal plan will be replaced by a contingency plan that keeps our troops in harms way indefinitely.
According to the SOFA a system has to be established for Iraqi approval of all U.S. missions. Therefore, our military strategy over the next six months is to leave Iraqi cities and confine ourselves behind walls while waiting to be assigned approved missions by the Iraqi government. Every time U.S. troops leave their bases it will have to be cleared by the Iraqis -- even if they want to conduct a convoy to Kuwait for resupply purposes. Not to mention an actual combat mission to quell violence and find bad guys.
How many undercover insurgent cells currently plague the Iraqi police and security forces? When retired Marine General James Jones and then D.C. Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey conducted their trip to Iraq to evalute the Iraqi police they concluded that the Iraqi National Police Force is so sectarian and corrupt that the entire force should be disbanded and rebuilt from the ground up -- it never happened.
Next month we start the process of releasing approximately sixteen thousand Iraqi detainees in U.S. custody to the Iraqi government. We here in America have no clue who these people are. They may be actual anti-American killers or just Iraqi bystanders that were falsely identified as insurgents and locked up for the last 5 years. When released many Iraqi men may find that their homes have been destroyed and their family members killed. Will that provide sixteen thousand (a divisional size element) reinforcements to the Iraqi insurgency? It's very conceivable.
Our regular ground forces still apprehend 50 insurgents a day while our special forces teams apprehend approximately a dozen hardline terrorists. Under the SOFA, not only can't we apprehend them, we have to turn them loose to a corrupt Iraqi police force loaded with sleepers within forty eight hours.
What about the Iraqi detainees that will be considered "enemies of the state?" They'll be placed in brutal Iraqi detention camps where they're likely to be tortured and eventually killed on mere circumstantial evidence. If they're fortunate enough to be released further down the line don't expect them not to retaliate -- a perfect ingredient to jump start the abated Iraqi civil war.
If and when that happens, and the Iraqis authorize U.S. troops to restart military operations and innocent people are accidentally killed, Iraqi military tribunals reserve the right to prosecute our service people.
The Iraqi government can now try U.S. civilians and military personnel for crimes committed outside of U.S. bases and while "off duty." I can't envision a scenario that would place our military in an "off duty" status in a country as hostile as Iraq. Suffice it to say that our troops will be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system every second of the day.
The Iraqi government, in an effort to further demonstrate it's sovereignty, reserves the right search and inventory all U.S. cargo entering the country. They will check off the boxes on exactly what resources they feel are acceptable for our military. So if a shipment of ordinance arrives in Kuwait and the Iraqis decide to conduct an inspection of a U.S. convoy carrying the shipment across the border and render a decision to confiscate our munitions will they allow us to turn it around or will they confiscate it, use it, or possibly turn it over to our enemies for them to use against our residual forces?
Silly us, we must have forgotten it's their country.
All for the bargain price of 3 billion dollars per week. What a beautiful mess.
Your "Sgt." is a retired veteran who is now a Huffington Post writer. He sees Barack Obama as "the last moderate Republican" so it's obvious that he's about as far left as they come. Nice try though trying to pass him off as someone from the military who backs Obama's policies. Well...not really!
Slander away there OS...herein lies your problem...Sgt. John Bruhns is telling the TRUTH.
The Council on Foreign Relations says the same thing...and calls it A Contentious Accord
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/us-security-agreements-iraq/p16448#p5
YES. He was DIRECTLY involved in THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.
What you CAN'T comprehend is that IRAQ WAS NOT GOING TO offer a SOFA that gave our sons and daughters the immunities and protections needed to keep them out of Iraqi jails.
And the SOFA Bush signed and DID NOT take to Congress was WEAK on those immunities and protections.
So you really DO think that a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense knew more about our negotiations with Iraq than Leon Panetta, the actual Secretary of Defense, did? That's amusing...really...
What Panetta pointed out was that Iraq was never going to offer us a SOFA deal if they felt that Barack Obama had no interest in keeping troops in Iraq to start with. Why would they? Why would any Iraqi politician vote for something that was unpopular (even if they realized that it was needed!) when they saw zero desire on Obama's part to keep troops in Iraq? Why would Obama put in the hard work to get a SOFA deal done when he fully intended to pull the troops out prior to running for reelection? That was the reality of the situation, Bfgrn...despite subsequent attempts by Obama flunky Kohl, to paint it differently.
I really don't give a shit what Panetta's opinion is. And by the way, you have presented ZERO links to what he said.
WHY are you unable to comprehend that no matter what Obama did, there would be no SOFA agreement that Iraq would approve without being able to treat American soldiers as subjects of Iraq. THAT is not in the best interests of America.
Funny how Leon Panetta was lauded by progressives for his impeccable reputation right up to the point where he leveled with us about what really went on with the SOFA negotiations...and then suddenly he's a "LIAR" or his opinion isn't worth "shit"!
Funny how W....who you all were convinced was a moron because he pronounced nuclear funny...was able to pull off a SOFA deal with Iraqi leaders...yet for Barack Obama it's now been declared an IMPOSSIBILITY!!!
Have you noticed that there are a LOT of things that are impossible for Barry and his little band of progressive misfits?
I said Panetta has a right to his opinion. I have never "lauded" the man.
What IS funny is that the right who hate everything connected with our President, NOW LAUD Leon Panetta.
Bush IS a moron. He has caused more damage in this world than any living human being. He was consistently wrong at every turn. He blatantly lied to the American people from the moment he took office. His first Treasury Secretary exposed who and what George W. Bush is...a MORON.
Bush didn't 'negotiate' a SOFA, he SIGNED an edict dictated by the Iraqi parliament 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. He continued to throw America sons and daughters under the Bus, right up to the very end.
You may have never "lauded" Leon Panetta's character but I'd be happy to provide scores of quotes from liberals who DID! Funny how you now say that Panetta has right to his opinion but just a few posts ago you were saying that you didn't give a shit about Panetta's opinion! Admit it, Bfgrn...you started not giving a shit about Leon Panetta's opinion right about the time he started telling us what REALLY happened behind the scenes with the SOFA negotiations!
We're back to accusing Bush of being a liar? I'm not sure that's a wise tack to take at this point in Barack Obama's Presidency, my liberal friend! The number of things that Barack Obama has misled the American people on is rather staggering at this point. If we were to believe him...it seems that he doesn't know ANYTHING that's going on in his own government until he sees or reads about it in the main stream media!
So you really DO think that a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense knew more about our negotiations with Iraq than Leon Panetta, the actual Secretary of Defense, did? That's amusing...really...
What Panetta pointed out was that Iraq was never going to offer us a SOFA deal if they felt that Barack Obama had no interest in keeping troops in Iraq to start with. Why would they? Why would any Iraqi politician vote for something that was unpopular (even if they realized that it was needed!) when they saw zero desire on Obama's part to keep troops in Iraq? Why would Obama put in the hard work to get a SOFA deal done when he fully intended to pull the troops out prior to running for reelection? That was the reality of the situation, Bfgrn...despite subsequent attempts by Obama flunky Kohl, to paint it differently.
I really don't give a shit what Panetta's opinion is. And by the way, you have presented ZERO links to what he said.
WHY are you unable to comprehend that no matter what Obama did, there would be no SOFA agreement that Iraq would approve without being able to treat American soldiers as subjects of Iraq. THAT is not in the best interests of America.
Funny how Leon Panetta was lauded by progressives for his impeccable reputation right up to the point where he leveled with us about what really went on with the SOFA negotiations...and then suddenly he's a "LIAR" or his opinion isn't worth "shit"!
Funny how W....who you all were convinced was a moron because he pronounced nuclear funny...was able to pull off a SOFA deal with Iraqi leaders...yet for Barack Obama it's now been declared an IMPOSSIBILITY!!!
Have you noticed that there are a LOT of things that are impossible for Barry and his little band of progressive misfits?
I said Panetta has a right to his opinion. I have never "lauded" the man.
What IS funny is that the right who hate everything connected with our President, NOW LAUD Leon Panetta.
Bush IS a moron. He has caused more damage in this world than any living human being. He was consistently wrong at every turn. He blatantly lied to the American people from the moment he took office. His first Treasury Secretary exposed who and what George W. Bush is...a MORON.
Bush didn't 'negotiate' a SOFA, he SIGNED an edict dictated by the Iraqi parliament 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. He continued to throw America sons and daughters under the Bus, right up to the very end.
You may have never "lauded" Leon Panetta's character but I'd be happy to provide scores of quotes from liberals who DID! Funny how you now say that Panetta has right to his opinion but just a few posts ago you were saying that you didn't give a shit about Panetta's opinion! Admit it, Bfgrn...you started not giving a shit about Leon Panetta's opinion right about the time he started telling us what REALLY happened behind the scenes with the SOFA negotiations!
We're back to accusing Bush of being a liar? I'm not sure that's a wise tack to take at this point in Barack Obama's Presidency, my liberal friend! The number of things that Barack Obama has misled the American people on is rather staggering at this point. If we were to believe him...it seems that he doesn't know ANYTHING that's going on in his own government until he sees or reads about it in the main stream media!
You seem to want to wallow in meaningless crap. I have never had a strong opinion of Panetta. I don't care what Panetta's opinion is, because I have my own opinion.
My own timeline...
2001
After the attacks on 9/11, like many liberals, I fully supported president Bush and his objective to seek out, capture or kill bin Laden and the terrorists behind that attack. I supported going into Afghanistan.
2003
As soon as talk about Iraq started, I smelled a rat. I remember telling one of my conservative buddies that I didn't see any connection between 9/11 and Iraq. I vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq.
It wasn't until Iraq that Bush lost my support. Yes, I voted for Gore, but I didn't hate Bush. Her earned my wrath and the wrath of much of the world.
Present
You are assuming that a SOFA in Iraq is desirable or necessary. I don't agree. I fully supported Obama getting our troops out of Iraq. And so did most Americans... And I still do. In 2011-12 there was no ISIS in Iraq. That didn't happen until 2013-14.
It is time my conservative friend for the rest of the world to step up to the plate. America cannot be the sheriff of the world. I don't support ANY unilateral US invasions or wars unless it directly threatens our sovereignty. America should be a partner in any operations to stop ISIS, but the 'go it alone' has to end.
As usual, whenever we argue about war, conservatives never want to talk about how we are going to pay for it. That subject only arises when talking about helping poor Americans or rebuilding America's roads and bridges. But never a peep when we rebuild Iraq.
"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy
Shhhhhh
She thinks there was an agreement. Don't spoil it by telling her there's no agreement. Just a way for John Kerry to leave an empty room.
I know congress has to give their two cents....listen, you morons, no matter how hard you ass holes try to dumb me down, I'm not going any where...get over it...I'm hear to defend and protect my man, President Obama and I'm willing to get kicked off this site, as I have with others in order to do it.
lolAnd I'm amused by your characterization of the Bush SOFA as "weak" on immunities and protections. How "weak" was it compared to the Obama SOFA? Oh, that's right...Barry never got a deal period!
SO, you WANT Obama to send our troops into Iraq without immunities.
An Army Sargent wrote this about SOFA in 2009...
Iraq: Is the SOFA viable?
The Status of Forces Agreement between the governments of Iraq and the United States comes with outrageous stipulations that render our troops helpless, subject them to Iraqi military tribunals, halt U.S. military operations, and turn vengeful detainees over to the Iraqis. So what is the point of leaving our troops there as potted plants for the next three years?
Anyone who thinks this SOFA is similar to that of the pacts we have with Germany or Japan is delusional. There will be no safe tours of the Iraqi countryside for our troops on R&R. The Bush Administration, in one of their last attempts to salvage some grain of positive legacy, pushed this "rush job" through so they can say: "look at how far the Iraqis have come, see, we really did liberate them." At the same time a bipartisan majority of Congress sat on their hands with the deer in the headlights look. Knowing it's going to blow up in the Obama Administration's face. You gotta love how politics works.
Mr. Obama has promised to initiate a firm time line for troop withdrawal which coincides with the SOFA. However, it won't be overnight -- it will take years. And if upon our exit from Iraq violence spikes, it is likely that the withdrawal plan will be replaced by a contingency plan that keeps our troops in harms way indefinitely.
According to the SOFA a system has to be established for Iraqi approval of all U.S. missions. Therefore, our military strategy over the next six months is to leave Iraqi cities and confine ourselves behind walls while waiting to be assigned approved missions by the Iraqi government. Every time U.S. troops leave their bases it will have to be cleared by the Iraqis -- even if they want to conduct a convoy to Kuwait for resupply purposes. Not to mention an actual combat mission to quell violence and find bad guys.
How many undercover insurgent cells currently plague the Iraqi police and security forces? When retired Marine General James Jones and then D.C. Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey conducted their trip to Iraq to evalute the Iraqi police they concluded that the Iraqi National Police Force is so sectarian and corrupt that the entire force should be disbanded and rebuilt from the ground up -- it never happened.
Next month we start the process of releasing approximately sixteen thousand Iraqi detainees in U.S. custody to the Iraqi government. We here in America have no clue who these people are. They may be actual anti-American killers or just Iraqi bystanders that were falsely identified as insurgents and locked up for the last 5 years. When released many Iraqi men may find that their homes have been destroyed and their family members killed. Will that provide sixteen thousand (a divisional size element) reinforcements to the Iraqi insurgency? It's very conceivable.
Our regular ground forces still apprehend 50 insurgents a day while our special forces teams apprehend approximately a dozen hardline terrorists. Under the SOFA, not only can't we apprehend them, we have to turn them loose to a corrupt Iraqi police force loaded with sleepers within forty eight hours.
What about the Iraqi detainees that will be considered "enemies of the state?" They'll be placed in brutal Iraqi detention camps where they're likely to be tortured and eventually killed on mere circumstantial evidence. If they're fortunate enough to be released further down the line don't expect them not to retaliate -- a perfect ingredient to jump start the abated Iraqi civil war.
If and when that happens, and the Iraqis authorize U.S. troops to restart military operations and innocent people are accidentally killed, Iraqi military tribunals reserve the right to prosecute our service people.
The Iraqi government can now try U.S. civilians and military personnel for crimes committed outside of U.S. bases and while "off duty." I can't envision a scenario that would place our military in an "off duty" status in a country as hostile as Iraq. Suffice it to say that our troops will be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system every second of the day.
The Iraqi government, in an effort to further demonstrate it's sovereignty, reserves the right search and inventory all U.S. cargo entering the country. They will check off the boxes on exactly what resources they feel are acceptable for our military. So if a shipment of ordinance arrives in Kuwait and the Iraqis decide to conduct an inspection of a U.S. convoy carrying the shipment across the border and render a decision to confiscate our munitions will they allow us to turn it around or will they confiscate it, use it, or possibly turn it over to our enemies for them to use against our residual forces?
Silly us, we must have forgotten it's their country.
All for the bargain price of 3 billion dollars per week. What a beautiful mess.
Your "Sgt." is a retired veteran who is now a Huffington Post writer. He sees Barack Obama as "the last moderate Republican" so it's obvious that he's about as far left as they come. Nice try though trying to pass him off as someone from the military who backs Obama's policies. Well...not really!
Slander away there OS...herein lies your problem...Sgt. John Bruhns is telling the TRUTH.
The Council on Foreign Relations says the same thing...and calls it A Contentious Accord
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/us-security-agreements-iraq/p16448#p5
And your JFK quote is rather amusing since he's the American President that got us into Vietnam in a major way!
And your JFK quote is rather amusing since he's the American President that got us into Vietnam in a major way!
You just abdicated and admitted you are losing...LOL
I really don't give a shit what Panetta's opinion is. And by the way, you have presented ZERO links to what he said.
WHY are you unable to comprehend that no matter what Obama did, there would be no SOFA agreement that Iraq would approve without being able to treat American soldiers as subjects of Iraq. THAT is not in the best interests of America.
Funny how Leon Panetta was lauded by progressives for his impeccable reputation right up to the point where he leveled with us about what really went on with the SOFA negotiations...and then suddenly he's a "LIAR" or his opinion isn't worth "shit"!
Funny how W....who you all were convinced was a moron because he pronounced nuclear funny...was able to pull off a SOFA deal with Iraqi leaders...yet for Barack Obama it's now been declared an IMPOSSIBILITY!!!
Have you noticed that there are a LOT of things that are impossible for Barry and his little band of progressive misfits?
I said Panetta has a right to his opinion. I have never "lauded" the man.
What IS funny is that the right who hate everything connected with our President, NOW LAUD Leon Panetta.
Bush IS a moron. He has caused more damage in this world than any living human being. He was consistently wrong at every turn. He blatantly lied to the American people from the moment he took office. His first Treasury Secretary exposed who and what George W. Bush is...a MORON.
Bush didn't 'negotiate' a SOFA, he SIGNED an edict dictated by the Iraqi parliament 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. He continued to throw America sons and daughters under the Bus, right up to the very end.
You may have never "lauded" Leon Panetta's character but I'd be happy to provide scores of quotes from liberals who DID! Funny how you now say that Panetta has right to his opinion but just a few posts ago you were saying that you didn't give a shit about Panetta's opinion! Admit it, Bfgrn...you started not giving a shit about Leon Panetta's opinion right about the time he started telling us what REALLY happened behind the scenes with the SOFA negotiations!
We're back to accusing Bush of being a liar? I'm not sure that's a wise tack to take at this point in Barack Obama's Presidency, my liberal friend! The number of things that Barack Obama has misled the American people on is rather staggering at this point. If we were to believe him...it seems that he doesn't know ANYTHING that's going on in his own government until he sees or reads about it in the main stream media!
You seem to want to wallow in meaningless crap. I have never had a strong opinion of Panetta. I don't care what Panetta's opinion is, because I have my own opinion.
My own timeline...
2001
After the attacks on 9/11, like many liberals, I fully supported president Bush and his objective to seek out, capture or kill bin Laden and the terrorists behind that attack. I supported going into Afghanistan.
2003
As soon as talk about Iraq started, I smelled a rat. I remember telling one of my conservative buddies that I didn't see any connection between 9/11 and Iraq. I vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq.
It wasn't until Iraq that Bush lost my support. Yes, I voted for Gore, but I didn't hate Bush. Her earned my wrath and the wrath of much of the world.
Present
You are assuming that a SOFA in Iraq is desirable or necessary. I don't agree. I fully supported Obama getting our troops out of Iraq. And so did most Americans... And I still do. In 2011-12 there was no ISIS in Iraq. That didn't happen until 2013-14.
It is time my conservative friend for the rest of the world to step up to the plate. America cannot be the sheriff of the world. I don't support ANY unilateral US invasions or wars unless it directly threatens our sovereignty. America should be a partner in any operations to stop ISIS, but the 'go it alone' has to end.
As usual, whenever we argue about war, conservatives never want to talk about how we are going to pay for it. That subject only arises when talking about helping poor Americans or rebuilding America's roads and bridges. But never a peep when we rebuild Iraq.
"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy
Are you kidding? Of course there was no ISIS in Iraq in 2011! We'd just pulled our troops out. Would you like to make the point that there was no connection between Barack Obama's decision to withdraw all American troops from Iraq and ISIS's decision to mount a major military offensive from Syria INTO Iraq the following year? What he was cautioned about by Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs and his own State Department came to pass. The complete withdrawal of US troops created a power vacuum in Iraq and ISIS happily stepped into that vacuum. The result was deadly for tens of thousands of Iraqis and caused millions to flee for their lives. That was IDIOTIC policy from a President who doesn't deal well with reality.
And your JFK quote is rather amusing since he's the American President that got us into Vietnam in a major way!
You just abdicated and admitted you are losing...LOL
What...you want to contest that JFK got us into Vietnam in a big way? Hey, if we're going to rewrite history like that, Bfgrn...you might as well claim that JFK defeated Castro at the Bay of Pigs and Cuba is actually been another US State since the 1960's!
And your JFK quote is rather amusing since he's the American President that got us into Vietnam in a major way!
You just abdicated and admitted you are losing...LOL
What...you want to contest that JFK got us into Vietnam in a big way? Hey, if we're going to rewrite history like that, Bfgrn...you might as well claim that JFK defeated Castro at the Bay of Pigs and Cuba is actually been another US State since the 1960's!
We have been over this before. You continue to FORGET that I schooled you BIG time on this topic. Lyndon B. Johnson, not JFK got us into Vietnam in a big way.
Did you forget...
Francis Bator, who had been President Johnson's Deputy National Security Adviser said: “there was a plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, beginning with the first thousand by December 1963, and almost all of the rest by the end of 1965…. President Kennedy had approved that plan. It was the actual policy of the United States on the day Kennedy died.
And your JFK quote is rather amusing since he's the American President that got us into Vietnam in a major way!
You just abdicated and admitted you are losing...LOL
What...you want to contest that JFK got us into Vietnam in a big way? Hey, if we're going to rewrite history like that, Bfgrn...you might as well claim that JFK defeated Castro at the Bay of Pigs and Cuba is actually been another US State since the 1960's!
We have been over this before. You continue to FORGET that I schooled you BIG time on this topic. Lyndon B. Johnson, not JFK got us into Vietnam in a big way.
Did you forget...
Francis Bator, who had been President Johnson's Deputy National Security Adviser said: “there was a plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, beginning with the first thousand by December 1963, and almost all of the rest by the end of 1965…. President Kennedy had approved that plan. It was the actual policy of the United States on the day Kennedy died.
You "schooled" me? Wow, that's quite a "selective" memory you have there! If you'll recall, our debate on that issue came down to claims made by some that Kennedy had a plan in place to withdraw US forces from Vietnam...claims that were not backed up by the actions that Kennedy took or the conversations that he had prior to his assassination. Do you REALLY want to get taken to the woodshed on that discussion again, Bfgrn?
When you buy into "myths" like that one you're simply going to embarrass yourself.
Shhhhhh
She thinks there was an agreement. Don't spoil it by telling her there's no agreement. Just a way for John Kerry to leave an empty room.
I know congress has to give their two cents....listen, you morons, no matter how hard you ass holes try to dumb me down, I'm not going any where...get over it...I'm hear to defend and protect my man, President Obama and I'm willing to get kicked off this site, as I have with others in order to do it.
And your JFK quote is rather amusing since he's the American President that got us into Vietnam in a major way!
You just abdicated and admitted you are losing...LOL
What...you want to contest that JFK got us into Vietnam in a big way? Hey, if we're going to rewrite history like that, Bfgrn...you might as well claim that JFK defeated Castro at the Bay of Pigs and Cuba is actually been another US State since the 1960's!
We have been over this before. You continue to FORGET that I schooled you BIG time on this topic. Lyndon B. Johnson, not JFK got us into Vietnam in a big way.
Did you forget...
Francis Bator, who had been President Johnson's Deputy National Security Adviser said: “there was a plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, beginning with the first thousand by December 1963, and almost all of the rest by the end of 1965…. President Kennedy had approved that plan. It was the actual policy of the United States on the day Kennedy died.
You "schooled" me? Wow, that's quite a "selective" memory you have there! If you'll recall, our debate on that issue came down to claims made by some that Kennedy had a plan in place to withdraw US forces from Vietnam...claims that were not backed up by the actions that Kennedy took or the conversations that he had prior to his assassination. Do you REALLY want to get taken to the woodshed on that discussion again, Bfgrn?
When you buy into "myths" like that one you're simply going to embarrass yourself.
Yes, 'schooled' is an appropriate term. Do YOU REALLY want to get taken to the woodshed on that discussion again OS?
What don't you understand about what Francis Bator said? The plan was in place the day Kennedy died.
What don't you understand about EVERYTHING that happened AFTER Kennedy died were the actions of Johnson, NOT Kennedy.
There were no 'conversations' that Kennedy had that would indicate anything other than "a plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, beginning with the first thousand by December 1963, and almost all of the rest by the end of 1965"
Kennedy's troop commitment topped out at only 16,000 servicemen. And, as he confided to trusted advisers like McNamara and White House aide O'Donnell, he intended to withdraw completely from Vietnam after he was safely re-elected in 1964. "So we had better make damned sure that I am re-elected," he told O'Donnell. ref
20 Nov 1963 - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.
22 Nov 1963 - President Kennedy assassinated in Dallas, Texas.
24 Nov 1963 - Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."
