Taliban leader admits tough Obama will win the war that Bush failed

[NotfooledbyW]

Is he the same guy who came up with the failed surge?

What 'failed surge'? Listen to Obama's West Point speech where he announced the second surge and set July 2011 for that surge to start winding down. The goal was to buy time to train and build up Afghan security forces to 300,000 si they could take the lead against the insurgency. Check. That had been done.


I don't think Votel had anything to do with any surge.

As a colonel he led the 75th Ranger Regiment — the Army’s elite light-infantry Rangers — as its members parachuted into Afghanistan on Oct. 19, 2001, to set up what would become Camp Rhino, the first U.S. base established in the country.

The swift, quiet rise of Lt. Gen. Joseph Votel, Special Operations commander - The Washington Post

I see no reason you should suspect him of lying to be promoted with the resume he already has in serving our country.

 

[Kosh]

one thing this thread proves beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the far left and the Taliban are one and the same.

 

[EconChick]

Might have been but I just knew the minute our troops were gone so was Iraq.

As soon as the last of our troops pull out of Stan then the Taliban will be right back in control of the country as Karsai and his army will never hold it.

The withdrawals were all planned on Bush's agenda and that fuck in the Wh is just following those plans. Doubt any of the jihadist dirtbags think he's any tougher that Bush or any other leader in America.

Claudette, I agree with your instincts about Iraq and Afghanistan! Just one modification to your post, though. We've been talking about it at length in the "Putin Kills 298 People..." thread for some reason. It was never Bush's plan to leave NO troops there. That's been widely distorted by the entire dumbass press.

It was a placeholder that served multiple purposes. One was to put pressure on Maliki (as in we'll pull completely out and leave you in a lurch if you don't do what we need), another was because they couldn't negotiate it completely until someone knew what the conditions were going to be under the next president, but most of all, it was a placeholder never meant to be final.

You can read statements by numerous key Bush military, diplomatic, and legislative allies that indicated indeed they WERE negotiating to leave around 30,000 troops. But they couldn't complete it since Bush's team wouldn't be in power when 2012 hit.

So though the "placeholder" document read a certain way, people were working pretty hard behind the scenes to keep as close to 30K troops there as possible.

They even had a tentative agreement with Maliki.

But then President DumbFuck rolls in, and drops the entire ball. Not only did he (his team)not even negotiate hard, they didn't want to negotiate hard. It was all about his pacifist fucking campaign promise to get all troops out.

Sooooo, what's he do, he tells Maliki - who wanted a lot of troops left to assist him - that he could only have about 3,000 troops AND President DumbFuck inserts a POISON PILL. He requires that the Iraqi Legislature had to approve the agreement. Well a) that's difficult for a western legis but especially for one as messy as this one but b) that has never been a requirement in any of the 40 other SOFA agreements we have with other nations.

We held a LOT of cards and he could've gotten immunity if he wanted it - like his lying ass did two weeks ago - but with the impossible requests to Maliki, Maliki told him that fighting to just get 3000 troops wasn't worth it the hoops he had to jump through.

Obama sabotaged the negotiations. But OUR FUCKING WORTHLESS IGNORANT CORRUPT PRESS IS TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND COMPLEX NEG'S and ARE JUST AS PACIFIST.

Because of Obama's sabotage of SOFA, we were forced to leave Iraq vulnerable and many of us predicted - just as you have Claudette - that Iraq would collapse.


So please folks, anyone interested in dealing in truth, please help override the corrupt press and WH and get the actual truth out to the public. Which is already happening on Twitter and other parts of the internet.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

He isnt a liar. But he is telling the president what he wants to hear. Recall what happened to McChrystal when he told the truth.

Your point was that he would not testify what he truly believes to Congress to please Obama. That is lying and you have accused him of lies that could put troops under his command in jeopardy soley for personal gain and promotion.

You should be ashamed of yourself for such a kneejerk assessment of a fine military officer.

 

[EconChick]

So why did Obama allow that to happen in Iraq, with predicted results?
Why is Obama following the same script in Afghanistan?

The pull out had been negotiated and signed. He admitted many times, much to the distress of his anti-war followers, that he was willing to leave behind a residual force but, like his predecessor was not willing to subject them to the local laws.

"President Obama announced on Tuesday a plan to leave a residual force of 9,800 service members in Afghanistan beyond 2014. By 2016, most troops will be out of the country."

"All of this, Obama said, will only be possible if the Afghan government signs a bilateral security agreement."

Obama Plans To Leave Residual Force Of 9,800 In Afghanistan : The Two-Way : NPR

Yes, we know Obama failed to negotiate a stay behind force. Obama has failed to negotiate anything without coming out like the rube.
And now he is repeating the same failure in Afghanistan, leaving behind a force totally inadequate to the task, after he authorized a failed surge that was totally inadequate to the task.

Spot on, Rabbi.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

. President DumbFuck inserts a POISON PILL. He requires that the Iraqi Legislature had to approve the agreement. Well a) that's difficult for a western legis but especially for one as messy as this one but b) that has never been a requirement in any of the 40 other SOFA agreements we have with other nations.

So please folks, anyone interested in dealing in truth, please help override the corrupt press and WH and get the actual truth out to the public. Which is already happening on Twitter and other parts of the internet.

To deal in truth, you would have to tell the truth and your big point is a lie. Obama did not insert a poison pill. Your ability to be factual and truthful is non-existent.

Ratification by Iraqi Parliament
On November 27, 2008, the Iraqi Parliament ratified a Status of Forces Agreement with the United States, establishing that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, but allowing for further negotiation if the Iraqi Prime Minister believes Iraq is not stable enough. The pact requires criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and requires a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that are not related to combat.[1] U.S. contractors will be subject to Iraqi criminal law. If U.S. forces commit still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they will be subject to the still undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certifies the forces were off-duty.[1][2][3][4] A referendum of Iraqis will be held in mid-2009 on the pact, which may require Coalition forces to leave by the middle of 2010.[34] Parliament also passed another U.S.-Iraqi bilateral pact called the Strategic Framework Agreement, aimed at ensuring minority Sunni interests and constitutional rights.[8]

In Iraq's Parliament, the pact was supported by 149 of 275 members (~54%) from SCIRI, Dawa, the two Kurdish parties and members of the Sunni-based Iraqi Accord Front.[35] The pact was opposed by 35 members, mostly from the Sadrist bloc.[36] 91 members did not vote, fearing for their future if they said yes, others fearing the same if they said no.[10]

U.S.?Iraq Status of Forces Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And the Sadrists threatened to resume targeting of US troops if all did not leave by the end date of 2011 of the Bush negotiated SOFA. Is that what you wanted too?

 

[Claudette]

If memory serves me seem that the current fuck in the WH is following the plan Bush left as far as removal of our troops.

Your memory serves you poorly or you have no clue what you are talking about.

Bush had no plan when he dumped the Afghanistan mess on Obama. Upon taking office in 2009 Obama authorized the largest, since Vietnam, US Marines Air to Ground invasion into the Taliban stronghold of Helmand and Kandahar Provinces.

Then Obama ordered newly appointed General McChrystal to come up with a new plan and that plan was modified and executed on the battlefield. Our troops have carried out the mission with heroism patriotism and professionalism, and I am proud of them.

Well your right about Stan as Barry rejected Bush's plan but Iraq was Bush.

Republicans Blame Obama For Iraq When It Was Bush Who Signed The Agreement to Leave

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Well your right about Stan as Barry rejected Bush's plan but Iraq was Bush.

Yes I am right about 'Stan' and I agree with you that the Iraq SOFA was indeed Bush's timetable to withdraw.

 

[The Rabbi]

He isnt a liar. But he is telling the president what he wants to hear. Recall what happened to McChrystal when he told the truth.

Your point was that he would not testify what he truly believes to Congress to please Obama. That is lying and you have accused him of lies that could put troops under his command in jeopardy soley for personal gain and promotion.

You should be ashamed of yourself for such a kneejerk assessment of a fine military officer.

That isnt lying. Being a lib you dont understand what lying is. You should be ashamed of yourself for wasting everyone's time with your bullshit posts.

 

[The Rabbi]

. President DumbFuck inserts a POISON PILL. He requires that the Iraqi Legislature had to approve the agreement. Well a) that's difficult for a western legis but especially for one as messy as this one but b) that has never been a requirement in any of the 40 other SOFA agreements we have with other nations.

So please folks, anyone interested in dealing in truth, please help override the corrupt press and WH and get the actual truth out to the public. Which is already happening on Twitter and other parts of the internet.

To deal in truth, you would have to tell the truth and your big point is a lie. Obama did not insert a poison pill. Your ability to be factual and truthful is non-existent.

Ratification by Iraqi Parliament
On November 27, 2008, the Iraqi Parliament ratified a Status of Forces Agreement with the United States, establishing that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, but allowing for further negotiation if the Iraqi Prime Minister believes Iraq is not stable enough. The pact requires criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and requires a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that are not related to combat.[1] U.S. contractors will be subject to Iraqi criminal law. If U.S. forces commit still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they will be subject to the still undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certifies the forces were off-duty.[1][2][3][4] A referendum of Iraqis will be held in mid-2009 on the pact, which may require Coalition forces to leave by the middle of 2010.[34] Parliament also passed another U.S.-Iraqi bilateral pact called the Strategic Framework Agreement, aimed at ensuring minority Sunni interests and constitutional rights.[8]

In Iraq's Parliament, the pact was supported by 149 of 275 members (~54%) from SCIRI, Dawa, the two Kurdish parties and members of the Sunni-based Iraqi Accord Front.[35] The pact was opposed by 35 members, mostly from the Sadrist bloc.[36] 91 members did not vote, fearing for their future if they said yes, others fearing the same if they said no.[10]

U.S.?Iraq Status of Forces Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And the Sadrists threatened to resume targeting of US troops if all did not leave by the end date of 2011 of the Bush negotiated SOFA. Is that what you wanted too?

So Obama knuckled under to terrorists. What's new?

 

[EconChick]

. President DumbFuck inserts a POISON PILL. He requires that the Iraqi Legislature had to approve the agreement. Well a) that's difficult for a western legis but especially for one as messy as this one but b) that has never been a requirement in any of the 40 other SOFA agreements we have with other nations.

So please folks, anyone interested in dealing in truth, please help override the corrupt press and WH and get the actual truth out to the public. Which is already happening on Twitter and other parts of the internet.

To deal in truth, you would have to tell the truth and your big point is a lie. Obama did not insert a poison pill. Your ability to be factual and truthful is non-existent.

Ratification by Iraqi Parliament
On November 27, 2008, the Iraqi Parliament ratified a Status of Forces Agreement with the United States, establishing that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, but allowing for further negotiation if the Iraqi Prime Minister believes Iraq is not stable enough. The pact requires criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and requires a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that are not related to combat.[1] U.S. contractors will be subject to Iraqi criminal law. If U.S. forces commit still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they will be subject to the still undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certifies the forces were off-duty.[1][2][3][4] A referendum of Iraqis will be held in mid-2009 on the pact, which may require Coalition forces to leave by the middle of 2010.[34] Parliament also passed another U.S.-Iraqi bilateral pact called the Strategic Framework Agreement, aimed at ensuring minority Sunni interests and constitutional rights.[8]

In Iraq's Parliament, the pact was supported by 149 of 275 members (~54%) from SCIRI, Dawa, the two Kurdish parties and members of the Sunni-based Iraqi Accord Front.[35] The pact was opposed by 35 members, mostly from the Sadrist bloc.[36] 91 members did not vote, fearing for their future if they said yes, others fearing the same if they said no.[10]

U.S.?Iraq Status of Forces Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And the Sadrists threatened to resume targeting of US troops if all did not leave by the end date of 2011 of the Bush negotiated SOFA. Is that what you wanted too?

Your ability to use critical thinking skills is non-existent. The last source I'd use to prove a point would be Wikipedia, even if it were my point. Please tell me who crowd sourced that submission???? You don't know who really did it. You don't know what their background is or what their agenda is....regardless of what's printed. It is not reliable.

This is how we managed to put such a loser in office. I've never seen a less critical-thinking group of voters in my lifetime. Yes, I know our worthless education system encourages you to use it. Rot can be found everywhere.

Pretty soon some idiot is going to show me a Wikipedia article showing the Soviet Union won the Cold War and America lost it. And millions of Americans will eat it right up.

Hell, even Orwell didn't see this level of gullibility coming....

 

[EconChick]

Well your right about Stan as Barry rejected Bush's plan but Iraq was Bush.

Republicans Blame Obama For Iraq When It Was Bush Who Signed The Agreement to Leave

I don't understand your comment. And I certainly don't understand why you'd use a rag as stupid as "Politicus USA, Real Liberal Politics" to try to prove it.

Why do you keep disseminating liberal talking points??

 

[9thIDdoc]

So...the Taliban would rather fight Obama than Bush. Big surprise.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The last source I'd use to prove a point would be Wikipedia, even if it were my point.

What is your source that tells you that the 2008 SOFA between Iraq and the US was not voted upon in the Iraq Parliament as Wikipedia tells the entire world that it was voted on by the Parliament?

Surely one so wise could find a source that says the vote in Iraq's Parluament never took place.

So lets see what you got.

I can find all kinds of sources that confirm that Iraq's Parliament voted to accept the SOFA in 2008.

Here's just one from Fox News:

If the Cabinet passes the draft agreement Sunday, the 275-seat parliament could follow suit because the political blocs in al-Maliki's government dominate the legislature. The agreement needs a simple majority to pass in parliament.

Iraq's Cabinet Set for Vote on Security Pact With U.S. | Fox News

So you were absolutely incorrect to state that Obama inserted a poison pill because he wanted the Parliament in Iraq to pass the SOFA after Bush's deadline for withdrawal ran out.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

So...the Taliban would rather fight Obama than Bush. Big surprise.

Not really. Admiral Mullen referred to the Bush policy in Afghanistan as 'endless drift. The Taliban thrived while Bush and the US military was preoccupied with the quagmire in Iraq.

Obama ended the years of endless drift by sending more troops and launching the largest air to ground military assault since Vietnam into Taliban strongholds in the south. And Obama oversaw the training and equipping if the 300,000 ANA and ANP to the point where Afghans are in the lead in fighting the insurgency.

Why don't you know the facts about this war and the great achievements made by our brave men and women in uniform over there?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Why do you keep disseminating liberal talking points??

Why did you make up that story about Obama and the poison pill and the Iraq Legislature? Don't you apply standards of factual integrity to what you write? If you go around scolding others you should at least hold yourself accountable for the inflammatory and proven untrue things that you write. The poison pill was a doozy.

 

[9thIDdoc]

So...the Taliban would rather fight Obama than Bush. Big surprise.

Not really. Admiral Mullen referred to the Bush policy in Afghanistan as 'endless drift. The Taliban thrived while Bush and the US military was preoccupied with the quagmire in Iraq.

Obama ended the years of endless drift by sending more troops and launching the largest air to ground military assault since Vietnam into Taliban strongholds in the south. And Obama oversaw the training and equipping if the 300,000 ANA and ANP to the point where Afghans are in the lead in fighting the insurgency.

Why don't you know the facts about this war and the great achievements made by our brave men and women in uniform over there?

I have great respect and appreciation for our men and women and the job they have done in Iraq and Afghanistan. So much so that I believe they deserve a real CinC instead of one that doesn't even seem to have a clue what side he's supposed to be on. Obama seems much more interested in arming and funding rabid muslim extremists than our own troops.

 

[Geaux4it]

By Rob Crilly, Islamabad
12:00PM BST 21 Jul 2014
Agha Jan Motasim says withdrawal of Nato forces this year will also make it harder for militants to justify their war

A veteran Taliban leader has offered a startling view of Afghanistan's conflict, saying militants no longer have the support they need to overrun the country when Nato combat forces leave.

In an interview with Pakistan’s Express Tribune newspaper, Agha Jan Motasim also said the withdrawal of occupying troops would rob the insurgency of its legitimacy and repeated his earlier calls for a negotiated settlement.

The Taliban cannot retake Afghanistan, says senior insurgent leader - Telegraph

This soundly dismisses the right wing talking points that Obama is weak. Our troops and our allies and the ANP and ANA have turned around the failed military policy of Bush and Cheney that left such a mess in Afghanistan in 2008 when the Taliban operated unchallenged in 80% of Afghanistan.

Like minded terrorist? Muslims stick together like the left sticks to Odumbo

-Geaux

 

[mudwhistle]

By Rob Crilly, Islamabad
12:00PM BST 21 Jul 2014
Agha Jan Motasim says withdrawal of Nato forces this year will also make it harder for militants to justify their war

A veteran Taliban leader has offered a startling view of Afghanistan's conflict, saying militants no longer have the support they need to overrun the country when Nato combat forces leave.

In an interview with Pakistan’s Express Tribune newspaper, Agha Jan Motasim also said the withdrawal of occupying troops would rob the insurgency of its legitimacy and repeated his earlier calls for a negotiated settlement.

The Taliban cannot retake Afghanistan, says senior insurgent leader - Telegraph

This soundly dismisses the right wing talking points that Obama is weak. Our troops and our allies and the ANP and ANA have turned around the failed military policy of Bush and Cheney that left such a mess in Afghanistan in 2008 when the Taliban operated unchallenged in 80% of Afghanistan.

I guess you've never heard of reverse psychology.


The Taliban wants to do in Afghanistan what ISIS is currently doing in Iraq, and yet you think they won't, just cuz they told you they won't.

Jeesus, what a tool.

 

[EconChick]

Why do you keep disseminating liberal talking points??

Why did you make up that story about Obama and the poison pill and the Iraq Legislature? Don't you apply standards of factual integrity to what you write? If you go around scolding others you should at least hold yourself accountable for the inflammatory and proven untrue things that you write. The poison pill was a doozy.

Here ya go. From Michael Gordon of the NY Times in fact. You know.....that bastion of conservatism?


Reporting by The New York Times' Michael Gordon paints a more complicated picture of U.S. incompetence and disengagement. Most notably, the Obama administration's insistence that any Status of Forces Agreement be ratified by Iraq's parliament set the stage for the inevitable failure of any agreement.

Simply put, while a number of Iraqi political leaders may have privately wished for continued American involvement to serve as a buffer and broker between both domestic rivals and neighboring regimes, far fewer were willing to support this position in a public, contentious debate. No one wants to be regarded as an American stooge in the prideful arena of Iraqi politics. Backing parliamentarians into a corner by demanding public ratification doomed a new SOFA to failure.