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

[EconChick]

Ummm, since you didn't know what a poison pill was, NotFooled, I thought I'd edjamacate you.

 

[EconChick]

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.

How many times do I have to explain it was a placeholder till the President who was actually in office during the 2012 withdrawal could modify Bush's and negotiate a Final SOFA.

When LBJ came into office, did he not modify anything JFK had put in place, or Reagan modify what Carter put in place in for policy, or Bush modify what Clinton had put in place??? What's so hard to understand?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

How many times do I have to explain it was a placeholder till the President who was actually in office during the 2012 withdrawal could modify Bush's and negotiate a Final SOFA.

When LBJ came into office, did he not modify anything JFK had put in place, or Reagan modify what Carter put in place in for policy, or Bush modify what Clinton had put in place??? What's so hard to understand?

He was fooled by everyone BUT W.

 

[EconChick]

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:




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.

how many times do i have to explain it was a placeholder till the president who was actually in office during the 2012 withdrawal could modify bush's and negotiate a final sofa.

When lbj came into office, did he not modify anything jfk had put in place, or reagan modify what carter put in place in for policy, or bush modify what clinton had put in place??? What's so hard to understand?

he was fooled by everyone but w.

lol
lol
lol
lol
lol

 

[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.

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.

A SOFA does not guarantee airtight immunities for our troops while in Iraq if not approved by the legislature just as the 2008 SOFA was so subjected.

The following comes from Michael Gordan's oped:

"But the White House wanted airtight immunities for any troops staying in Iraq, which American government lawyers, the Iraqi chief justice and James F. Jeffrey, the American ambassador in Baghdad, insisted would require a new agreement that was endorsed by the Iraqi Parliament."

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/09/2...-last-months-in-iraq.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

As Commander in Chief Obama did not have an option to send troops to a combat zone without airtight protection.

You cons care less about our troops well being than you own hate-filled political agenda.

If the Iraqi Chief Justice says it must go through parliament to be law and US legal advisers concur, that is not Obama inserting a poison pill - it is the law.

And the story you made up was that the Iraq Parliament did not pass the 2008 SOFA.

I asked you for a source for that and you do not appear to be able to find one.

"Surely one so wise could find a source that says the vote in iraq's parliament never took place. "

You wrote this story didnt you?

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.

It was required in 2008 unless you can prove otherwise.

 

[1776]

The Taliban is just waiting for us to leave....thanks to Obama telling them we are going to leave.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The Taliban is just waiting for us to leave....thanks to Obama telling them we are going to leave.

We are not leaving. Anyway, the Taliban have to contend with 300,000 ANA and ANP that have taken over security operations for over a year now. Many of the 'waiting' Taliban will be waiting in Hell, because that is where the ANA and ANP are putting them.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The Taliban is just waiting for us to leave....thanks to Obama telling them we are going to leave.

Are you a proponent of never leaving and our troops fighting and dying instead of Afghan's fighting for themselves?

 

[deltex1]

Hey Foo...I hear that Putin admits that tough obama will take Crimea back and route the Ukrainian rebels...those MREs must be dyNomite!!!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It was never Bush's plan to leave NO troops there.

Bush had no authority or legal standing in 2008 to enforce his plan to keep troops in Iraq.

Maliki chose to end the US military occupation of Iraq.

"But in late 2007, Maliki asked the Security Council to extend the mandate "for the last time.""

Negotiations for a status of forces agreement with Iraq were initiated to replace the UN mandate authorizing foreign forces set to expire at the end of 2008.

Several months after the U.S.-led toppling of Saddam Hussein's government in 2003, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1511, officially recognizing the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and authorizing a multinational force to bring stability to the country. But included in the resolution was the requirement that the security mandate be reviewed one year from implementation. Every year since, the United Nations has extended the mandate at the request of the Iraqi government. But in late 2007, Maliki asked the Security Council to extend the mandate "for the last time."

.

U.S. Security Agreements and Iraq - Council on Foreign Relations

What did it matter what Bush wanted in 2008. The Iraqis decided to establish sovereignty and demand that all troops be gone by 2012.

Maliki and Iraq in general decided that the CPA authorized by the UN had succeeded in bringing sufficient stability in Iraq and the belief that they would handle security on without foreign troops remaing after 2011.

 

[EconChick]

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.

A SOFA does not guarantee airtight immunities for our troops while in Iraq if not approved by the legislature just as the 2008 SOFA was so subjected.

The following comes from Michael Gordan's oped:

"But the White House wanted airtight immunities for any troops staying in Iraq, which American government lawyers, the Iraqi chief justice and James F. Jeffrey, the American ambassador in Baghdad, insisted would require a new agreement that was endorsed by the Iraqi Parliament."

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/09/2...-last-months-in-iraq.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

As Commander in Chief Obama did not have an option to send troops to a combat zone without airtight protection.

You cons care less about our troops well being than you own hate-filled political agenda.

If the Iraqi Chief Justice says it must go through parliament to be law and US legal advisers concur, that is not Obama inserting a poison pill - it is the law.

And the story you made up was that the Iraq Parliament did not pass the 2008 SOFA.

I asked you for a source for that and you do not appear to be able to find one.

"Surely one so wise could find a source that says the vote in iraq's parliament never took place. "

You wrote this story didnt you?

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.

It was required in 2008 unless you can prove otherwise.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not talking about the 2008 SOFA...that was a placeholder....as I've said a million times it feels like between this thread and on the 295 dead thread.

That was not supposed to be the Final SOFA. I keep saying that over and over. Bush left negotiating room in the 2008 one to be updated.

Even if he didn't leave negotiating room, a prior president can't decide what the next president is going to do on HIS watch. The troops were withdrawn on O's watch.




Alsoooooooooooo, the 2008 SOFA breezed through the Iraqi Legislature because it stated ZERO troops.

The Iraqis couldn't believe it. No resistance at all?

It was a placeholder meant to get other things done and to have the actual number of troops negotiated in 2012 when Bush was no longer in power.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

For the umpteenth time, I'm not talking about the 2008 SOFA...that was a placeholder...

Of course you don't want to talk about the 2008 SOFA because you were caught making a false claim that it has never been a requirement for the Iraq SOFA to be approved by the Iraq legislature. Here is your error:

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

You entire rant against Obama falls apart because of your undeniable error.

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama very strong!!

Here he lift 5lbs weights!! OVER HIS HEAD!!!!

Like watching Don Knotts working out.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Here ya go. From Michael Gordon of the NY Times in fact.

Why didn't you Quote Michael Gordon Direct? Who were you quoting?

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.

Gordon did not say that Obama insisted that any Status of Forces Agreement be ratified by Iraq's Parliament.


Gordon wrote this;

"But the White House wanted airtight immunities for any troops staying in Iraq, which American government lawyers, the Iraqi chief justice and James F. Jeffrey, the American ambassador in Baghdad, insisted would require a new agreement that was endorsed by the Iraqi Parliament."

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/09/23...anted=all&_r=0

Why do you think you can fool anyone with these tricks?

If there was a poison pill it came from Iraq's Chief Justice, not Obama.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It was a placeholder meant to get other things done and to have the actual number of troops negotiated in 2012 when Bush was no longer in power.

Whether your meaningless designation of the 2008 SOFA (that you claim you are not talking about) as a 'placeholder' is valid or not, the truth of the matter is that the Chief Justice in Iraq continues to insist that approval of a new SOFA to replace Bush's 2008 (placeholder) would have to be approved by their legislature. Your complaint against Obama who did the right thing is riddled with pitiful logic, weak reason and a complete misunderstanding and recognition of the facts.

Do you want to explain again why you are so upset with the News Media for not purifying American minds with your non-reality based hysterical delusion that Obama INSERTED a poison pill into the 2012 SOFA negotiations?

I've given you many reasons why credible news agencies should never ever pay attention to such sloppy and partisan 'thinkers' as you've shown your self to be one. And one of the sloppiest around here is a matter that should be emphasized.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Once our troops were gone I knew Iraq would be taken over by those Sharia law jihadists.

Did you know they would only take over less than 10% of Iraq's population and only in Sunni areas? Your forecast and pre-knowledge is at the moment only ten percent accurate. All of Iraq has not fallen and its not likely that it ever will.

 

[Mojo2]

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.

The Obama presidency has been decided. You aren't going to save it with your posts.

Obama is the worst POTUS.

Get used to it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The Obama presidency has been decided.

Decided by whom? If its been decided by the likes of EconChick that is rather meaningless don't you think? Did you support Bush taking military action in Afghanistan after the attacks on US Soil on September 11, 2001?

 

[Mojo2]

The Obama presidency has been decided.

Decided by whom? If its been decided by the likes of EconChick that is rather meaningless don't you think? Did you support Bush taking military action in Afghanistan after the attacks on US Soil on September 11, 2001?

Show me a loyal, red-blooded, patriotic American who DID NOT support military action to go after OBL in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks!

Obama has decided the Obama presidency.

Yes, the die has been cast already. By Obama himself.

What we will have left of his handiwork to discover and leisurely regale ourselves with over the next two or three generations will be the too lately deciphered clues to his ultimate act of political treason and sabotage.

An act he is sure to have awaiting US.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Show me a loyal, red-blooded, patriotic American who DID NOT support military action to go after OBL in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks.

Was going after OBL the only reason Bush told loyal red blooded patriotic Americans why we were taking military action in Afghanistan in 2002?