Stunning! Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created

[NotfooledbyW]

In the agreement that Bush signed in 2008 there was a provision that either of the parties could withdraw from it with a years notice. Barry wasn't locked into something that he couldn't have renegotiated. That was HIS choice.

You fool. That is the problem. The Iraqis were not locked into anything and any final decisions as to continued US troop presence from 2012 and beyond was solely up to the Iraqi politicians. Obama kept the troops in Iraq as long as he could according to the Bush/Maliki 2008 agreement. Pointing out that Obama was not locked into something defeats your ridiculous argument that Obama could have forced Iraqis to do what they did not want to do.

If it was recognized as a problem that Iraq's army was not ready in 2008 then the point is Bush should have locked the Iraqis in.

But the truth is that in December 2007 Maliki removed in a letter to the UNSC any decision making process by a US president about keeping US troops in Iraq. The only decision a US president could make from 2008 and on was to take US troop OUT. Neither Bush not Obama from 2008 could decide against Iraqi will to keep US troops in Iraq and what their legal status would be.

 

[rightwinger]

Is that why Obama took credit for ending a successful Iraq war?

He never declared it successful. In fact, Obama declared the whole invasion as a dumb war

 

[Oldstyle]

In the agreement that Bush signed in 2008 there was a provision that either of the parties could withdraw from it with a years notice. Barry wasn't locked into something that he couldn't have renegotiated. That was HIS choice.

quote it.

and assuming you're right, and we withdrew from the agreement.

what right would we have had to keep our forces in iraq after reneging on the agreement?

What right? We were the power that installed Maliki! We were the power that supported Iraq with billions of dollars in aid. If you agree to an opt out clause in an contract you aren't "reneging" on anything if you opt out...you're simply exercising one of your options.

Have you forgotten the exchange between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama during the Presidential debate over foreign policy? Where Romney asked Obama if he wanted a Status of Forces Agreement for Iraq and Obama answered "No. What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”

The choice to not seek a Status of Forces Agreement to keep American forces in Iraq was made by Barack Obama because he didn't want the US to be "tied down".

 

[ogibillm]

In the agreement that Bush signed in 2008 there was a provision that either of the parties could withdraw from it with a years notice. Barry wasn't locked into something that he couldn't have renegotiated. That was HIS choice.

quote it.

and assuming you're right, and we withdrew from the agreement.

what right would we have had to keep our forces in iraq after reneging on the agreement?

What right? We were the power that installed Maliki! We were the power that supported Iraq with billions of dollars in aid. If you agree to an opt out clause in an contract you aren't "reneging" on anything if you opt out...you're simply exercising one of your options.

Have you forgotten the exchange between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama during the Presidential debate over foreign policy? Where Romney asked Obama if he wanted a Status of Forces Agreement for Iraq and Obama answered "No. What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”

The choice to not seek a Status of Forces Agreement to keep American forces in Iraq was made by Barack Obama because he didn't want the US to be "tied down".

okay. so we opt out.
what gives us the legal authority to keep our troops there? we had the authority under the agreement. what would give us the authority after opting out?

the disagreement between romney and obama was in the numbers. we pursued an agreement that would have left 3000 troops. Iraq turned it down.

 

[Oldstyle]

In the agreement that Bush signed in 2008 there was a provision that either of the parties could withdraw from it with a years notice. Barry wasn't locked into something that he couldn't have renegotiated. That was HIS choice.

You fool. That is the problem. The Iraqis were not locked into anything and any final decisions as to continued US troop presence from 2012 and beyond was solely up to the Iraqi politicians. Obama kept the troops in Iraq as long as he could according to the Bush/Maliki 2008 agreement. Pointing out that Obama was not locked into something defeats your ridiculous argument that Obama could have forced Iraqis to do what they did not want to do.

If it was recognized as a problem that Iraq's army was not ready in 2008 then the point is Bush should have locked the Iraqis in.

But the truth is that in December 2007 Maliki removed in a letter to the UNSC any decision making process by a US president about keeping US troops in Iraq. The only decision a US president could make from 2008 and on was to take US troop OUT. Neither Bush not Obama from 2008 could decide against Iraqi will to keep US troops in Iraq and what their legal status would be.

The truth is that Barack Obama COULD have used the fact that we were giving the Iraqis billions of dollars in aid to negotiate a new Status of Forces Agreement but chose not to. As he clearly stated in the 2012 Presidential debate it was his choice not to be tied down in Iraq by having a small force of US troops left behind to help with training and anti terrorist activities.

 

[Oldstyle]

In the agreement that Bush signed in 2008 there was a provision that either of the parties could withdraw from it with a years notice. Barry wasn't locked into something that he couldn't have renegotiated. That was HIS choice.

quote it.

and assuming you're right, and we withdrew from the agreement.

what right would we have had to keep our forces in iraq after reneging on the agreement?

What right? We were the power that installed Maliki! We were the power that supported Iraq with billions of dollars in aid. If you agree to an opt out clause in an contract you aren't "reneging" on anything if you opt out...you're simply exercising one of your options.

Have you forgotten the exchange between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama during the Presidential debate over foreign policy? Where Romney asked Obama if he wanted a Status of Forces Agreement for Iraq and Obama answered "No. What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”

The choice to not seek a Status of Forces Agreement to keep American forces in Iraq was made by Barack Obama because he didn't want the US to be "tied down".

okay. so we opt out.
what gives us the legal authority to keep our troops there? we had the authority under the agreement. what would give us the authority after opting out?

the disagreement between romney and obama was in the numbers. we pursued an agreement that would have left 3000 troops. Iraq turned it down.

We didn't pursue any such agreement, Ogi...because Barack Obama didn't want US troops in Iraq. He was RUNNING for reelection on the message that he promised to end the war in Iraq and he kept his promise when he withdrew the last US troops.

"For much of that election year, Obama had included a line of celebration in his standard stump speech, one that among an electorate exhausted by more than a decade of war always drew a rousing applause: “Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq,” Obama proclaimed in Bowling Green, Ohio, in September 2012, and did nearly every day after until the election. “We did.”"

 

[mudwhistle]

Uh, R.D., US commanders DID tell us we were ready to withdraw from Iraq. It was according to THEIR plan, mostly finished before Bush left office.

So, no, former Pres. Bush's comments were not very prophetic at all. But I'm not surprised that FOX would try to use this tactic.

No, commanders did not tell us we were ready. Democrats insisted on a timeline and Bush said that events on the ground dictated what we would do.

 

[Oldstyle]

It's the same reason why additional security wasn't granted to Ambassador Stevens in Libya...Barack Obama was running for reelection on a message that he had killed Osama bin Laden and had Al Queda on the run. Anything that contradicted that election year message wasn't going to be Obama Administration policy.

 

[Skylar]

What right? We were the power that installed Maliki!

We were the power that supported Iraq with billions of dollars in aid. If you agree to an opt out clause in an contract you aren't "reneging" on anything if you opt out...you're simply exercising one of your options.

What opt out clause? Can you quote it the SOFA?

 

[ogibillm]

In the agreement that Bush signed in 2008 there was a provision that either of the parties could withdraw from it with a years notice. Barry wasn't locked into something that he couldn't have renegotiated. That was HIS choice.

quote it.

and assuming you're right, and we withdrew from the agreement.

what right would we have had to keep our forces in iraq after reneging on the agreement?

What right? We were the power that installed Maliki! We were the power that supported Iraq with billions of dollars in aid. If you agree to an opt out clause in an contract you aren't "reneging" on anything if you opt out...you're simply exercising one of your options.

Have you forgotten the exchange between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama during the Presidential debate over foreign policy? Where Romney asked Obama if he wanted a Status of Forces Agreement for Iraq and Obama answered "No. What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”

The choice to not seek a Status of Forces Agreement to keep American forces in Iraq was made by Barack Obama because he didn't want the US to be "tied down".

okay. so we opt out.
what gives us the legal authority to keep our troops there? we had the authority under the agreement. what would give us the authority after opting out?

the disagreement between romney and obama was in the numbers. we pursued an agreement that would have left 3000 troops. Iraq turned it down.

We didn't pursue any such agreement, Ogi...because Barack Obama didn't want US troops in Iraq. He was RUNNING for reelection on the message that he promised to end the war in Iraq and he kept his promise when he withdrew the last US troops.

"For much of that election year, Obama had included a line of celebration in his standard stump speech, one that among an electorate exhausted by more than a decade of war always drew a rousing applause: “Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq,” Obama proclaimed in Bowling Green, Ohio, in September 2012, and did nearly every day after until the election. “We did.”"

Iraq 8217 s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

Obama wants to keep 3 000-5 000 U.S. troops in Iraq into 2012 - The Washington Post
U.S. Troops Are Leaving Because Iraq Doesn t Want Them There - The Atlantic

A 2008 security deal between Washington and Baghdad called for all American forces to leave Iraq by the end of the year, but the White House -- anxious about growing Iranian influence and Iraq's continuing political and security challenges -- publicly and privately tried to sell the Iraqis on a troop extension. As recently as last week, the White House was trying to persuade the Iraqis to allow 2,000-3,000 troops to stay beyond the end of the year.

Those efforts had never really gone anywhere; One senior U.S. military official told National Journal last weekend that they were stuck at "first base" because of Iraqi reluctance to hold substantive talks.

you were saying?

 

[Skylar]

Uh, R.D., US commanders DID tell us we were ready to withdraw from Iraq. It was according to THEIR plan, mostly finished before Bush left office.

So, no, former Pres. Bush's comments were not very prophetic at all. But I'm not surprised that FOX would try to use this tactic.

No, commanders did not tell us we were ready. Democrats insisted on a timeline and Bush said that events on the ground dictated what we would do.

ACtually, that was the Iraqis demanding a time line. And the 2008 SOFA negotiated by Bush stated unambiguously that all US forces would be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.

 

[Oldstyle]

What right? We were the power that installed Maliki!

We were the power that supported Iraq with billions of dollars in aid. If you agree to an opt out clause in an contract you aren't "reneging" on anything if you opt out...you're simply exercising one of your options.

What opt out clause? Can you quote it the SOFA?

I don't believe that clause is in the SOFA itself but was acknowledged by the parties involved. The following is from a NY Times article about the agreement back in 2008.

"Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman, said the agreement allowed for the possibility that American forces could withdraw even earlier if Iraqi forces were in a position to take over security responsibilities earlier. He also said either side had the right to cancel the agreement with one year’s notice."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html

 

[Statistikhengst]

Uh, R.D., US commanders DID tell us we were ready to withdraw from Iraq. It was according to THEIR plan, mostly finished before Bush left office.

So, no, former Pres. Bush's comments were not very prophetic at all. But I'm not surprised that FOX would try to use this tactic.

No, commanders did not tell us we were ready. Democrats insisted on a timeline and Bush said that events on the ground dictated what we would do.

No, that is not what Pres. Bush said, even on video.

 

[Skylar]

What right? We were the power that installed Maliki!

We were the power that supported Iraq with billions of dollars in aid. If you agree to an opt out clause in an contract you aren't "reneging" on anything if you opt out...you're simply exercising one of your options.

What opt out clause? Can you quote it the SOFA?

I don't believe that clause is in the SOFA itself but was acknowledged by the parties involved. The following is from a NY Times article about the agreement back in 2008.

"Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman, said the agreement allowed for the possibility that American forces could withdraw even earlier if Iraqi forces were in a position to take over security responsibilities earlier. He also said either side had the right to cancel the agreement with one year’s notice."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html

If the agreement is canceled, then the US would have no Status of Forces Agreement. And no legal authority to operate in Iraq. We'd be denouncing Iraq's sovereignty if we kept troops there against the will of the Iraqi government.

And the Iraqi govenrment didn't want us there.

You seem to be suggesting that we should have cancelled our SOFA, ignore the time line Bush negotiated, ignored the democratically elected government of Iraq, and occupied Iraq military without any legal authority and in explicit contradiction of our own word.

Kinda puts the whole 'they will greet us as liberators' narrative into a different light. I suppose by that logic, the Japanese were 'liberating' the Koreans and Russia is 'liberating' Ukraine.

 

[mudwhistle]

Uh, R.D., US commanders DID tell us we were ready to withdraw from Iraq. It was according to THEIR plan, mostly finished before Bush left office.

So, no, former Pres. Bush's comments were not very prophetic at all. But I'm not surprised that FOX would try to use this tactic.

No, commanders did not tell us we were ready. Democrats insisted on a timeline and Bush said that events on the ground dictated what we would do.

ACtually, that was the Iraqis demanding a time line. And the 2008 SOFA negotiated by Bush stated unambiguously that all US forces would be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.

Yeah, it's the Iraqis fault now.

 

[mudwhistle]

Uh, R.D., US commanders DID tell us we were ready to withdraw from Iraq. It was according to THEIR plan, mostly finished before Bush left office.

So, no, former Pres. Bush's comments were not very prophetic at all. But I'm not surprised that FOX would try to use this tactic.

No, commanders did not tell us we were ready. Democrats insisted on a timeline and Bush said that events on the ground dictated what we would do.

No, that is not what Pres. Bush said, even on video.

If you say so.

 

[Skylar]

Uh, R.D., US commanders DID tell us we were ready to withdraw from Iraq. It was according to THEIR plan, mostly finished before Bush left office.

So, no, former Pres. Bush's comments were not very prophetic at all. But I'm not surprised that FOX would try to use this tactic.

No, commanders did not tell us we were ready. Democrats insisted on a timeline and Bush said that events on the ground dictated what we would do.

ACtually, that was the Iraqis demanding a time line. And the 2008 SOFA negotiated by Bush stated unambiguously that all US forces would be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.

Yeah, it's the Iraqis fault now.

Do you even disagree that Iraq was the one that demanded the time line and they didn't want us to keep troops in Iraq?

I mean, is this even debatable?

 

[mudwhistle]

Uh, R.D., US commanders DID tell us we were ready to withdraw from Iraq. It was according to THEIR plan, mostly finished before Bush left office.

So, no, former Pres. Bush's comments were not very prophetic at all. But I'm not surprised that FOX would try to use this tactic.

No, commanders did not tell us we were ready. Democrats insisted on a timeline and Bush said that events on the ground dictated what we would do.

ACtually, that was the Iraqis demanding a time line. And the 2008 SOFA negotiated by Bush stated unambiguously that all US forces would be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.

Yeah, it's the Iraqis fault now.

Do you even disagree that Iraq was the one that demanded the time line and they didn't want us to keep troops in Iraq?

I mean, is this even debatable?

The Democrats were calling for it long before that.

This is just another example of the left trying to distance themselves from their own policies and the disastrous effects thereof.

If Obama wants to do something he does it. If he doesn't want to do something he doesn't do it.

We were in the middle of negotiations to extend the SOFA and they collapsed because of a lack of concern for the future and simply because of politics. Obama wanted to end the war before November elections. He didn't want to bother with the messiness of that war anymore. That is why we are in this mess today.

 

[Skylar]

I mean, is this even debatable?

The Democrats were calling for it long before that.

Then you neither deny nor even disagree that Iraq demanded a time line.

Is there *anyone* who disagrees with this fact?

This is just another example of the left trying to distance themselves from their own policies and the disastrous effects thereof.

And by 'disastrous' policies.....you mean the SOFA that Bush negotiated with the Iraqis?

 

[Oldstyle]

What right? We were the power that installed Maliki!

We were the power that supported Iraq with billions of dollars in aid. If you agree to an opt out clause in an contract you aren't "reneging" on anything if you opt out...you're simply exercising one of your options.

What opt out clause? Can you quote it the SOFA?

I don't believe that clause is in the SOFA itself but was acknowledged by the parties involved. The following is from a NY Times article about the agreement back in 2008.

"Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman, said the agreement allowed for the possibility that American forces could withdraw even earlier if Iraqi forces were in a position to take over security responsibilities earlier. He also said either side had the right to cancel the agreement with one year’s notice."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html

If the agreement is canceled, then the US would have no Status of Forces Agreement. And no legal authority to operate in Iraq. We'd be denouncing Iraq's sovereignty if we kept troops there against the will of the Iraqi government.

And the Iraqi govenrment didn't want us there.

You seem to be suggesting that we should have cancelled our SOFA, ignore the time line Bush negotiated, ignored the democratically elected government of Iraq, and occupied Iraq military without any legal authority and in explicit contradiction of our own word.

Kinda puts the whole 'they will greet us as liberators' narrative into a different light. I suppose by that logic, the Japanese were 'liberating' the Koreans and Russia is 'liberating' Ukraine.

What I'm "suggesting" is that we obviously had immense clout with the Maliki government because of the billions in aid that we give that nation and that if we'd REALLY wanted to keep a small force to assist with training and counter-insurgency, we would have been able to force them to comply. Barack Obama didn't make an attempt to do that however because getting all US forces out of Iraq was one of the cornerstones of his reelection campaign.