Stunning! Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created

[BlindBoo]

Here ya go looking stupid. I actually worked for and briefed Petraeus in Iraq...and you have no idea what you're talking about.

Then you should know as a matter of fact that the reality that Bush strapped his successor with the mandate by the sovereign government of Iraq that all US troops had to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. You should know that there is no such thing as a placeholder in the 2008 SOFA that Bush, Maliki and Iraq's Parliament agreed to last December. Why don't you?

International law and treaties dealing with sovereignty do not work according to your elaborate scheme to deny the reality that Bush strapped his successor with the mandate by the sovereign government of Iraq that all US troops had to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011 unless the Iraqis had a change of mind. The Iraqis could also tell Bush to get out the day after it was signed if they wanted to.

I've told you about 20 fucking times, idiot, that the 2008 SOFA WASSSSSSSSSSSSSSS a placeholder for the one that was supposed to be completed when they left. I can't help you have reading comprehension problems.

And strapped his successor?????????? What a fucking moron. He left plenty of wiggle room for anyone that had any competence at negotiating.

But that person had to WANT to negotiate and your boy didn't.

Surely in or after those 20 times someone asked you where this placeholder agreement was agreed too and signed.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20081119_SOFA_FINAL_AGREED_TEXT.pdf

 

[LiberalMedia]

President Bush warned that if we pulled out of Iraq too soon, it would be dangerous for Iraq, the region and the United States; it would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda.

Then it's a good thing we never pulled out of Iraq, isn't it? We still had a major base operational in the capital, in case you forgot.

Learn something....

Obama Not My Decision to Pull Troops out of Iraq National Review Online

No, you.

Embassy of the United States Baghdad - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

At 104 acres (42 ha), it is the largest and most expensive embassy in the world, and is nearly as large as Vatican City.

The embassy complex employs 15,000 people and cost $750 million to build.

The embassy has extensive housing and infrastructure facilities in addition to the usual diplomatic buildings. The buildings include:[8]

• Six apartment buildings for employees
• Water and waste treatment facilities
• A power station
• Two "major diplomatic office buildings"
• Recreation, including a gym, cinema, several tennis courts and an Olympic-size swimming pool

We never completely withdrew from Iraq. As I said, we still have a major base in their capital.

 

[R.D.]

President Bush warned that if we pulled out of Iraq too soon, it would be dangerous for Iraq, the region and the United States; it would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda.

Then it's a good thing we never pulled out of Iraq, isn't it? We still had a major base operational in the capital, in case you forgot.

Learn something....

Obama Not My Decision to Pull Troops out of Iraq National Review Online

No, you.

Embassy of the United States Baghdad - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

At 104 acres (42 ha), it is the largest and most expensive embassy in the world, and is nearly as large as Vatican City.

The embassy complex employs 15,000 people and cost $750 million to build.

The embassy has extensive housing and infrastructure facilities in addition to the usual diplomatic buildings. The buildings include:[8]

• Six apartment buildings for employees
• Water and waste treatment facilities
• A power station
• Two "major diplomatic office buildings"
• Recreation, including a gym, cinema, several tennis courts and an Olympic-size swimming pool

We never completely withdrew from Iraq. As I said, we still have a major base in their capital.

Obama retorted when asked if he had any second thoughts, in light of the terrorist force taking over regions of Iraq, about having pulled all American troops out of the country. “The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq."

 

[BlindBoo]

President Bush warned that if we pulled out of Iraq too soon, it would be dangerous for Iraq, the region and the United States; it would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean we are risking mass killings on a grand scale. It would allow the terrorists to replace the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d have to return at a later date to confront an enemy who is even more dangerous.



President Obama is trying to blame Bush but he won the war and Obama then handed over to ISIS.

Listen to this clip. He thinks people will fall for his blaming Bush for what is obviously his failure.








Stunning Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created www.independentsentinel.com

Stunning performance by bush. After destroying Iraq and murdering a good percentage of it's population, he warns that pulling out could be dangerous for Iraq.

You know what's REALLY stunning? That you progressives simply can't bring yourselves to admit that Bush was completely correct when he warned about a premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Over a million people have been dislocated from their homes. Tens of thousands more have been raped or slaughtered by an invading terrorist army. Yet you people can't admit that Bush was right when he said an early withdrawal was the wrong thing to do!

If the President truly believed that in November of 2008, why did he sign the agreement to remove all our troops by 2012?

 

[LiberalMedia]

President Bush warned that if we pulled out of Iraq too soon, it would be dangerous for Iraq, the region and the United States; it would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda.

Then it's a good thing we never pulled out of Iraq, isn't it? We still had a major base operational in the capital, in case you forgot.

Learn something....

Obama Not My Decision to Pull Troops out of Iraq National Review Online

No, you.

Embassy of the United States Baghdad - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

At 104 acres (42 ha), it is the largest and most expensive embassy in the world, and is nearly as large as Vatican City.

The embassy complex employs 15,000 people and cost $750 million to build.

The embassy has extensive housing and infrastructure facilities in addition to the usual diplomatic buildings. The buildings include:[8]

• Six apartment buildings for employees
• Water and waste treatment facilities
• A power station
• Two "major diplomatic office buildings"
• Recreation, including a gym, cinema, several tennis courts and an Olympic-size swimming pool

We never completely withdrew from Iraq. As I said, we still have a major base in their capital.

Obama retorted when asked if he had any second thoughts, in light of the terrorist force taking over regions of Iraq, about having pulled all American troops out of the country. “The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq."

You seem confused about the meaning of the words used in the President's statement. Allow me to clarify.

follow-on - definition of follow-on by The Free Dictionary

Following as a related or consequent aspect or development: "Such contracts involve follow-on sales of maintenance services"

So, now that we know what the definition of follow-on is, we can properly analyze the President's statement. Let's revisit it.

“The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there

"The reason that we did not have a consequent/development force in Iraq" --i.e., the reason why we did not send in additional troops--"was because a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there"--was because most people in the area didn't want us to send more. President Obama is saying that we didn't increase troop levels there because Iraqi citizens didn't want us to. Instead, we drew down, and left only a fraction of the soldiers there, stationed at our embassy in Baghdad and consulates in Basrah, Erbil, and Kirkuk.

and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq."

"and politically"--due to the party makeup of the Iraqi Parliament--"they"--President Obama's allies in Iraqi government--"could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq"--were unable to procure complete "diplomatic immunity"-style treatment for all American soldiers stationed in Iraq in regards to them following Iraqi laws. This is largely because a) Iraqis didn't want a huge U.S. presence in their country, and b) American soldiers throughout the country shouldn't have been given diplomatic immunity because their mission was not one of diplomacy. Instead, we left only an embassy and three consulates in Iraq, and our soldiers there--along with the other workers--do have diplomatic immunity, as is the norm throughout the world.

So, to put President Obama's statement in simpler terms, "We didn't send more troops to Iraq because the Iraqi government would not grant them all diplomatic immunity." He clearly wanted U.S. soldiers there to have immunity, so he reduced U.S. military operations in Iraq to levels appropriate to obtain immunity for every soldier.

Do you understand now?

 

[R.D.]

So he was just listening to the people? What a guy

.....Maliki kept saying, ‘I don’t know what I have to sell.’ ” At one meeting, Maliki said that he was willing to sign an executive agreement granting the soldiers permission to stay, if he didn’t have to persuade the parliament to accept immunity. The Obama administration quickly rejected the idea. “The American attitude was: Let’s get out of here as quickly as possible,” Sami al-Askari, the Iraqi member of parliament, said.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

So all of the people killed in Iraq by ISIS over the past eight months "don't count"? The over million people that have had to flee their homes to escape ISIS "don't count"?

I did not say they don't count. You are the liar that EconChick should be complaining about.

My point is that Bush said Iraq would be surrendered to AQ if troops were withdrawn too soon. That ain't happening ever. Words mean nothing to Obama haters. That's why you lied to respond to what Im telling you.

 

[EconChick]

So he was just listening to the people? What a guy

.....Maliki kept saying, ‘I don’t know what I have to sell.’ ” At one meeting, Maliki said that he was willing to sign an executive agreement granting the soldiers permission to stay, if he didn’t have to persuade the parliament to accept immunity. The Obama administration quickly rejected the idea. “The American attitude was: Let’s get out of here as quickly as possible,” Sami al-Askari, the Iraqi member of parliament, said.

Thank you for that great summary, R.D. I get so tired of going into depth to explain that to these very thick liberals.

 

[EconChick]

Here ya go looking stupid. I actually worked for and briefed Petraeus in Iraq...and you have no idea what you're talking about.

Then you should know as a matter of fact that the reality that Bush strapped his successor with the mandate by the sovereign government of Iraq that all US troops had to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. You should know that there is no such thing as a placeholder in the 2008 SOFA that Bush, Maliki and Iraq's Parliament agreed to last December. Why don't you?

International law and treaties dealing with sovereignty do not work according to your elaborate scheme to deny the reality that Bush strapped his successor with the mandate by the sovereign government of Iraq that all US troops had to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011 unless the Iraqis had a change of mind. The Iraqis could also tell Bush to get out the day after it was signed if they wanted to.

I've told you about 20 fucking times, idiot, that the 2008 SOFA WASSSSSSSSSSSSSSS a placeholder for the one that was supposed to be completed when they left. I can't help you have reading comprehension problems.

And strapped his successor?????????? What a fucking moron. He left plenty of wiggle room for anyone that had any competence at negotiating.

But that person had to WANT to negotiate and your boy didn't.

Surely in or after those 20 times someone asked you where this placeholder agreement was agreed too and signed.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20081119_SOFA_FINAL_AGREED_TEXT.pdf

Boo, we have SOFAs with 40 other countries. None of them were handled the way this one has been handled, because none of them have the same complications Iraq has.

The 2008 SOFA was not meant to be final. When done in other countries, they wait till they're finalized and there is just ONE for that time period.

By placeholder, I'm saying the 2008 was never meant to be final. The intent was always that this was a tentative SOFA until a final one that would be negotiated when the next president came in and finalized the number of troops to be left. Obama has even confirmed that, so I don't know what keeps confusing you people. He confirms there was supposed to be a better SOFA, he just claims he couldn't win the negotiation. Let me repeat this again, even O acknowledges what you and NotFooled keep denying.

I don't know why you people keep having a hard time with that concept.

 

[Oldstyle]

President Bush warned that if we pulled out of Iraq too soon, it would be dangerous for Iraq, the region and the United States; it would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean we are risking mass killings on a grand scale. It would allow the terrorists to replace the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d have to return at a later date to confront an enemy who is even more dangerous.



President Obama is trying to blame Bush but he won the war and Obama then handed over to ISIS.

Listen to this clip. He thinks people will fall for his blaming Bush for what is obviously his failure.








Stunning Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created www.independentsentinel.com

Stunning performance by bush. After destroying Iraq and murdering a good percentage of it's population, he warns that pulling out could be dangerous for Iraq.

You know what's REALLY stunning? That you progressives simply can't bring yourselves to admit that Bush was completely correct when he warned about a premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Over a million people have been dislocated from their homes. Tens of thousands more have been raped or slaughtered by an invading terrorist army. Yet you people can't admit that Bush was right when he said an early withdrawal was the wrong thing to do!

If the President truly believed that in November of 2008, why did he sign the agreement to remove all our troops by 2012?

Because he truly wanted to get American combat troops out of Iraq and thought it could be done by that date? The difference between Bush and Obama however is that with the situation two years later Bush would have fought hard for a residual force to remain behind because it was obvious that the Sunnis were not being included in the Maliki government and that there was a growing threat from ISIS across the border in Syria...whereas Obama simply ignored the threat...declared that Iraq was stable and a "win" for his Administration and moved on despite having failed miserably at forcing Maliki to be inclusive with the Kurds and the Sunnis.

 

[EconChick]

President Bush warned that if we pulled out of Iraq too soon, it would be dangerous for Iraq, the region and the United States; it would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean we are risking mass killings on a grand scale. It would allow the terrorists to replace the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d have to return at a later date to confront an enemy who is even more dangerous.



President Obama is trying to blame Bush but he won the war and Obama then handed over to ISIS.

Listen to this clip. He thinks people will fall for his blaming Bush for what is obviously his failure.








Stunning Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created www.independentsentinel.com

Stunning performance by bush. After destroying Iraq and murdering a good percentage of it's population, he warns that pulling out could be dangerous for Iraq.

You know what's REALLY stunning? That you progressives simply can't bring yourselves to admit that Bush was completely correct when he warned about a premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Over a million people have been dislocated from their homes. Tens of thousands more have been raped or slaughtered by an invading terrorist army. Yet you people can't admit that Bush was right when he said an early withdrawal was the wrong thing to do!

If the President truly believed that in November of 2008, why did he sign the agreement to remove all our troops by 2012?

Again for the umpteenth time, it was tentative, and that was for domestic consumption.....as in Iraqi dom consumption. It was a placeholder to buy time for when the next president would actually take office.

Do you really understand so little about how international agreements are hashed out?

 

[Oldstyle]

So all of the people killed in Iraq by ISIS over the past eight months "don't count"? The over million people that have had to flee their homes to escape ISIS "don't count"?

I did not say they don't count. You are the liar that EconChick should be complaining about.

My point is that Bush said Iraq would be surrendered to AQ if troops were withdrawn too soon. That ain't happening ever. Words mean nothing to Obama haters. That's why you lied to respond to what Im telling you.

You are an amazingly obtuse human being!

After US troops are withdrawn ISIS spills across the Syrian border into Iraq...killing tens of thousands...displacing over a million people from their homes as they flee in abject terror...rolling to the very outskirts of the capital of Iraq...but you don't see THAT as Bush's warnings on withdrawing too soon coming to fruition? Wow...

 

[BlindBoo]

Here ya go looking stupid. I actually worked for and briefed Petraeus in Iraq...and you have no idea what you're talking about.

Then you should know as a matter of fact that the reality that Bush strapped his successor with the mandate by the sovereign government of Iraq that all US troops had to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. You should know that there is no such thing as a placeholder in the 2008 SOFA that Bush, Maliki and Iraq's Parliament agreed to last December. Why don't you?

International law and treaties dealing with sovereignty do not work according to your elaborate scheme to deny the reality that Bush strapped his successor with the mandate by the sovereign government of Iraq that all US troops had to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011 unless the Iraqis had a change of mind. The Iraqis could also tell Bush to get out the day after it was signed if they wanted to.

I've told you about 20 fucking times, idiot, that the 2008 SOFA WASSSSSSSSSSSSSSS a placeholder for the one that was supposed to be completed when they left. I can't help you have reading comprehension problems.

And strapped his successor?????????? What a fucking moron. He left plenty of wiggle room for anyone that had any competence at negotiating.

But that person had to WANT to negotiate and your boy didn't.

Surely in or after those 20 times someone asked you where this placeholder agreement was agreed too and signed.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20081119_SOFA_FINAL_AGREED_TEXT.pdf

Boo, we have SOFAs with 40 other countries. None of them were handled the way this one has been handled, because none of them have the same complications Iraq has.

The 2008 SOFA was not meant to be final. When done in other countries, they wait till they're finalized and there is just ONE for that time period.

By placeholder, I'm saying the 2008 was never meant to be final. The intent was always that this was a tentative SOFA until a final one that would be negotiated when the next president came in and finalized the number of troops to be left. Obama has even confirmed that, so I don't know what keeps confusing you people. He confirms there was supposed to be a better SOFA, he just claims he couldn't win the negotiation. Let me repeat this again, even O acknowledges what you and NotFooled keep denying.

I don't know why you people keep having a hard time with that concept.

The Sequester was never suppose to happen either. Many on the left complained that Obama was renegotiating the agreement to keep troops in Iraq. If the Iraqis had agreed to the immunity portion of the agreement with President Bush the matter would have been settled then. It wasn't and the Iraqis never offered to allow our troops immunity. So imo, the premise that President Obama didn't want to leave a residual force is false.

 

[BlindBoo]

President Bush warned that if we pulled out of Iraq too soon, it would be dangerous for Iraq, the region and the United States; it would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean we are risking mass killings on a grand scale. It would allow the terrorists to replace the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d have to return at a later date to confront an enemy who is even more dangerous.



President Obama is trying to blame Bush but he won the war and Obama then handed over to ISIS.

Listen to this clip. He thinks people will fall for his blaming Bush for what is obviously his failure.








Stunning Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created www.independentsentinel.com

Stunning performance by bush. After destroying Iraq and murdering a good percentage of it's population, he warns that pulling out could be dangerous for Iraq.

You know what's REALLY stunning? That you progressives simply can't bring yourselves to admit that Bush was completely correct when he warned about a premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Over a million people have been dislocated from their homes. Tens of thousands more have been raped or slaughtered by an invading terrorist army. Yet you people can't admit that Bush was right when he said an early withdrawal was the wrong thing to do!

If the President truly believed that in November of 2008, why did he sign the agreement to remove all our troops by 2012?

Because he truly wanted to get American combat troops out of Iraq and thought it could be done by that date? The difference between Bush and Obama however is that with the situation two years later Bush would have fought hard for a residual force to remain behind because it was obvious that the Sunnis were not being included in the Maliki government and that there was a growing threat from ISIS across the border in Syria...whereas Obama simply ignored the threat...declared that Iraq was stable and a "win" for his Administration and moved on despite having failed miserably at forcing Maliki to be inclusive with the Kurds and the Sunnis.

Nice try but no, it was the Iraqis who forced the agreement on President Bush. They also refused to allow our troops immunity during the negotiations with Obama as well.

 

[haissem123]

when do you suppose we should have left? when all our money was gone? what about the deficit? what about the stupidity of going in to Iraq in the first place? you people listening to anything W says are the ones responsible for all our nations' woes today. that moron did it all for haliburton cash and daddy's honor. what a bunch of rubes you are being lead by a lying dolt like bush. holding hands with saudi kings. you all deserve the kings you get.

 

[BlindBoo]

President Bush warned that if we pulled out of Iraq too soon, it would be dangerous for Iraq, the region and the United States; it would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean we are risking mass killings on a grand scale. It would allow the terrorists to replace the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d have to return at a later date to confront an enemy who is even more dangerous.



President Obama is trying to blame Bush but he won the war and Obama then handed over to ISIS.

Listen to this clip. He thinks people will fall for his blaming Bush for what is obviously his failure.








Stunning Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created www.independentsentinel.com

Stunning performance by bush. After destroying Iraq and murdering a good percentage of it's population, he warns that pulling out could be dangerous for Iraq.

You know what's REALLY stunning? That you progressives simply can't bring yourselves to admit that Bush was completely correct when he warned about a premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Over a million people have been dislocated from their homes. Tens of thousands more have been raped or slaughtered by an invading terrorist army. Yet you people can't admit that Bush was right when he said an early withdrawal was the wrong thing to do!

If the President truly believed that in November of 2008, why did he sign the agreement to remove all our troops by 2012?

Again for the umpteenth time, it was tentative, and that was for domestic consumption.....as in Iraqi dom consumption. It was a placeholder to buy time for when the next president would actually take office.

Do you really understand so little about how international agreements are hashed out?

Like any legal agreement, it is what's in the document when you sign on the dotted line. So where in the document was it stated that the SOFA that Bush signed was merely temporary. Was that agreement like Monty Pythons' "Wink wink, nudge, nudge"? Hell of a way to hash out international agreements!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The Wall Street Journal editorial board thinks President Barack Obama needs to use his speech outlining military action against ISIS Wednesday night to admit his foreign policy has been a failure and that the Bush administration had it right all along.
“The mere fact that Mr. Obama feels obliged to send Americans to fight again in Iraq acknowledges the failure of his foreign policy,”

Actually the WSJ is doing an excellent job at right winger propaganda by masking the Bush/Cheney war where US combat ground troops were killed and wounded and worn down for seven years by offering up the absurd notion that advisers and fighter pilots are exactly the same thing.

Look at their choice of words.

“The mere fact that Mr. Obama feels obliged to send Americans to fight again in Iraq acknowledges the failure of his foreign policy,”

To fight "again" is pure propaganda. There will not be 4500 dead Americans 'again' because the WSJ are lying about that.

Who here will argue that 150,000 US troops being bogged down in a six year quagmire in Iraq is what Obama will announce tonight?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

By placeholder, I'm saying the 2008 was never meant to be final. The intent was always that this was a tentative SOFA until a final one that would be negotiated...

Who's "intent"?

You are lying. The Iraqis have never shown or stated that intent.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Question: If the President truly believed that in November of 2008, why did he sign the agreement to remove all our troops by 2012?

Because he truly wanted to get American combat troops out of Iraq and thought it could be done by that date?


The difference between Bush and Obama however is that with the situation two years later Bush would have fought hard for a residual force to remain behind because it was obvious that the Sunnis were not being included in the Maliki government and that there was a growing threat from ISIS across the border in Syria...

So your argument sympathetic to Bush and antagonistic to Obama is based purely on speculation with 20/20 hindsight.

Maliki demonstrated his sectarian style of governing while Bush was still in office. Why didn't Bush force an end to that behavior prior to agreeing to withdraw àll troops by the end of 2011.

You put the onus on Obama to change Maliki's behavior but there is no whining from you when Bush kicked the Maliki can down the road and guaranteed to Maliki exactly when US troops would be gone.

The time to change Maliki was 2007 and 2008. By 2009 there was no change coming.

That's what gets you to Obama's wiser policy. That is, the refusal for the US to become Maliki's Shiite anti-Sunni Air Force.

Are you saying Bush wouid have allowed the US to become a pro-Shia Air Force?

 

[EconChick]

Here ya go looking stupid. I actually worked for and briefed Petraeus in Iraq...and you have no idea what you're talking about.

Then you should know as a matter of fact that the reality that Bush strapped his successor with the mandate by the sovereign government of Iraq that all US troops had to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. You should know that there is no such thing as a placeholder in the 2008 SOFA that Bush, Maliki and Iraq's Parliament agreed to last December. Why don't you?

International law and treaties dealing with sovereignty do not work according to your elaborate scheme to deny the reality that Bush strapped his successor with the mandate by the sovereign government of Iraq that all US troops had to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011 unless the Iraqis had a change of mind. The Iraqis could also tell Bush to get out the day after it was signed if they wanted to.

I've told you about 20 fucking times, idiot, that the 2008 SOFA WASSSSSSSSSSSSSSS a placeholder for the one that was supposed to be completed when they left. I can't help you have reading comprehension problems.

And strapped his successor?????????? What a fucking moron. He left plenty of wiggle room for anyone that had any competence at negotiating.

But that person had to WANT to negotiate and your boy didn't.

Surely in or after those 20 times someone asked you where this placeholder agreement was agreed too and signed.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20081119_SOFA_FINAL_AGREED_TEXT.pdf

Boo, we have SOFAs with 40 other countries. None of them were handled the way this one has been handled, because none of them have the same complications Iraq has.

The 2008 SOFA was not meant to be final. When done in other countries, they wait till they're finalized and there is just ONE for that time period.

By placeholder, I'm saying the 2008 was never meant to be final. The intent was always that this was a tentative SOFA until a final one that would be negotiated when the next president came in and finalized the number of troops to be left. Obama has even confirmed that, so I don't know what keeps confusing you people. He confirms there was supposed to be a better SOFA, he just claims he couldn't win the negotiation. Let me repeat this again, even O acknowledges what you and NotFooled keep denying.

I don't know why you people keep having a hard time with that concept.

The Sequester was never suppose to happen either. Many on the left complained that Obama was renegotiating the agreement to keep troops in Iraq. If the Iraqis had agreed to the immunity portion of the agreement with President Bush the matter would have been settled then. It wasn't and the Iraqis never offered to allow our troops immunity. So imo, the premise that President Obama didn't want to leave a residual force is false.

Boo, here is an example of the fallacy of your thinking.

Bush knew that because of the timeline of events -- i.e. he knew it couldn't be completed on his watch -- that he could not and did not want to completely commit the next president, whoever that was going to be, to 100% of the 2008 SOFA. So he negotiated a tentative or placeholder SOFA to accommodate certain political goals (for him AND Maliki) addressing immunity for current troops and contractors, for example, and then left lots of wiggle room for the next president to do what they needed to do depending on conditions on the ground to negotiate the final SOFA.

In other words, why would a president who knows the next president had to take up the mantel, hem that president in when in fact they are giving that president room to maneuver. This is how all most all presidents have handled foreign policy...and shocked you don't know how it's done.