Trump pulls out of Syria then lies about defeating Isis

[LaDexter]

WHO is really behind ISIS???


Shock claim top ISIS leader is 'Israeli spy'

 

[easyt65]

ISIS has been reduced to 1% of the territory in Syria, which Egypt's forces already in Syria can take care of. There is no reason to keep troops in Syria.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21443861

Barack Obama was not keeping combat troops in Iraq! The expiring SOFA gave him the out he needed and he took it.

Everything you posted to support your lie contradicts your lie. Both sides were negotiating for nearly a year. If the expiring SOFA gave Obama an out there wouid have been no negotiating with Obama to keep as many troops there that Iraq would approve.

Obama would have left troops in Iraq if they were granted immunity. The immunity was not solely Obama’s demand it was Leon Panetta and the Joint Chiefs’ as well.

You are telling lie after lie to build your false case against Obama and you cannot justify one single lie individually and on its own merit.

It’s like whack a lyin mole with you.

What I "posted" was Leon Panetta's explanation about why a new SOFA wasn't reached! It didn't happen because Obama and his circle in the White House didn't want it to happen! Panetta and the Joint Chiefs wanted it and they tried their best to work out a deal to make it happen. What Panetta correctly points out however is that there never was going to be a deal as long as the President didn't support it...and Barack Obama DIDN'T! So when you call me a liar...what you're really doing is calling Barack Obama's Secretary of Defense a liar! You can say a lot of things about Leon Panetta but he's not know for being dishonest nor is he known for being a partisan. What he related in his book is probably the best description of what really took place that I've yet seen.

 

[Oldstyle]

The foundation for another 9/11? Is that OK?

Israel did 911. If you had an IQ over 10, you'd understand.... To you, this is a "757." To someone with an IQ of at least 50, this is a CRUISE MISSILE...

Except for the fact that thousands of people saw the 757 fly over them at low altitude and strike the Pentagon? I'm sorry but as conspiracy theories go...this one was a loser from the get go.

 

[easyt65]

Oldstyle, post: 21443861

Barack Obama was not keeping combat troops in Iraq! The expiring SOFA gave him the out he needed and he took it.

Everything you posted to support your lie contradicts your lie. Both sides were negotiating for nearly a year. If the expiring SOFA gave Obama an out there wouid have been no negotiating with Obama to keep as many troops there that Iraq would approve.

Obama would have left troops in Iraq if they were granted immunity. The immunity was not solely Obama’s demand it was Leon Panetta and the Joint Chiefs’ as well.

You are telling lie after lie to build your false case against Obama and you cannot justify one single lie individually and on its own merit.

It’s like whack a lyin mole with you.

What I "posted" was Leon Panetta's explanation about why a new SOFA wasn't reached! It didn't happen because Obama and his circle in the White House didn't want it to happen! Panetta and the Joint Chiefs wanted it and they tried their best to work out a deal to make it happen. What Panetta correctly points out however is that there never was going to be a deal as long as the President didn't support it...and Barack Obama DIDN'T! So when you call me a liar...what you're really doing is calling Barack Obama's Secretary of Defense a liar! You can say a lot of things about Leon Panetta but he's not know for being dishonest nor is he known for being a partisan. What he related in his book is probably the best description of what really took place that I've yet seen.

Barak Obama did something no other President had done to ensure the failure if the SOFA agreement. The President had agreed to the terms, but Obama demanded the committee leaders / tribal leaders unanimously agree, which they did not.

Funny and hypocritical how Obama suggested that another country's President could not make a decision for his country but instead needed the unanimous approval of his 'Congress'.

 

[JLW]

Now the indecisive Trump is backing down. He calling for a "slow" withdrawal. What slow means is anyone's guess. Trump should have thought out his position before acting emotionally. Now he has to backtrack again.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018...-slow-military-pull-syria-181223180900749.htm

 

[easyt65]

So now Democrats, who are bashing Trump for bringing troops home are bashing Trump for not bringing them home fast enough!

Bwuhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

[JLW]

So now Democrats, who are bashing Trump for bringing tools home, are bashing Trump for not bringing them home fast enough!

Bwuhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I like his reversal. If that is what he is going to do. The US can't abandon its allies. Who knows with Trump because he could wake up constipated tomorrow and change his mind.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

21443861, member: 31215"

My information came from Leon Panetta!

I know. Panetta told you he was involved with the negotiating team for the Obama administration to keep troops beyond the deadline. In the end he told Senators in a hearing that when the Iraqis would not grant immunity he and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff advised Obama to pull all the troops out. It was the Iraqis decision.

Yet you continue to repeat your lie that Obama never negotiated for a new SOFA . However Panetta tells you that Obama negotiated until the Iraqis held firm on the immunity deadlock. At that point Panetta told Senators on Capitol Hill that he recommended to Obama to pull all the troops out.

Yet you lie that Obama never negotiated for a new SOFA.

21443861, member: 31215"

Barry NEVER negotiated for a new SOFA...he gave that ZERO backing from his White House and Maliki and the Iraqi leadership knew it!

You lie that Panetta said Obama never gave backing to negotiating a new SOFA. That is a lie. Panetta in his book was shuffling around talking about some idea on threatening to withhold reconstruction funding as if it is a drawn out conclusion that Panetta’s hairbrained threat would work. That is what Obama didn’t back.

You can’t claim to be presenting facts when your conclusion is drawn from a hypothetical scheme that more than likely would not change the hardest known fact that Iraq’s Parliament would not grant immunity under a threat.

The threat, as Panetta wanted, likely would have pissed Muqtada al Sadr off even more.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21448646

What Panetta correctly points out however is that there never was going to be a deal as long as the President didn't support it...and Barack Obama DIDN'T!

You are a liar. Panetta never said that. If you think he did, post it.


On the contrary from the link you posted Panetta said; the White House “seemed content to endorse an agreement”

“To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them. Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away. The deal never materialized. “

Why would you fabricate such a lie that “there never was going to be a deal as long as the President didn't support it”

Yet you posted the link that quotes Panetta writing that Obama “seemed content to endorse an agreement”.

And you continue to ignore what Panetta said when he was the Secretary of Defense in 2011 such as his recommendation that Obama pull all the troops out. There was no other choice.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

“The White House is 'offering' to keep up to 10,000 troops in Iraq in 2012, despite opposition not only from Iraqis but also key Democratic Party allies“


Oldstyle, post: 21448646, member: 31215"]

What I "posted" was Leon Panetta's explanation about why a new SOFA wasn't reached! It didn't happen because Obama and his circle in the White House didn't want it to happen!

Sorry Oldstyle, your lie is fully exposed:

US 'offering' to keep troops in Iraq? More like begging for permission to stay.
The US appears desperate to keep troops in Iraq beyond this year's deadline. The Iraqis? Not so much.

By Dan Murphy, Staff writer/ July 6, 2011

In this May 6 file photo, President Obama greets military personnel prior to addressing troops at Fort Campbell, Ky. The White House is 'offering' to keep up to 10,000 troops in Iraq in 2012, despite opposition not only from Iraqis but also key Democratic Party allies who demand that President Obama bring home the US military as he promised as a candidate.

Charles Dharapak/AP/File

The Associated Press reported late yesterday (citing the ever-popular White Houses "sources" – that is, officials probably authorized to speak and plant a message in the press but granted anonymity anyways) that the Obama administration is "offering" to keep 10,000 troops in Iraq in 2012, beyond the agreed deadline with the Iraqis to withdraw all troops.”

US 'offering' to keep troops in Iraq? More like begging for permission to stay.


How do you explain the White House offering in public to keep 10,000 troops in Iraq past the Bush deadline.

 

[Faun]

The foundation for another 9/11? Is that OK?

Israel did 911. If you had an IQ over 10, you'd understand.... To you, this is a "757." To someone with an IQ of at least 50, this is a CRUISE MISSILE...

 

[NotfooledbyW]

My information came from Leon Panetta!

I can cite Panetta’s testimony:

“Actually as Director of the CIA, I had talked with Prime Minister Maliki regarding this issue, and then when I became Secretary of Defense, I had a number of conversations with him as well in which I made very clear, along with General Austin and Ambassador Jeffrey, that it was extremely important that we needed to have a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), that we needed to have immunities for our troops, that we needed to have that protection. He believed that there was possibly a way to do this that did not involve having to go to the parliament, to their council for approval.

It was very clear, among all the attorneys here, that we absolutely had to have their approval through their parliament if we were going to have a SOFA that provided the kind of immunities we needed. I cannot tell you how many times we made that clear. I believe the Prime Minister understood that, and it was at the point where he basically said I cannot deliver it, I cannot get it through the parliament that we were then left with the decisions that were made.”

Panetta v. Panetta: Former Defense Secretary's conflicting accounts of the Iraq withdrawal

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21440757

Leon Panetta: How the White House Misplayed Iraqi Troop Talks

That Op Ed by Leon Panetta sums up what happened rather succinctly...

So...did you want to call Panetta a "liar" as well?

No, we just have to compare one statement he chose to express in his op-ed in 2014 when he was selling a book to what he told a Senate hearing on the Iraq withdrawal in 2011.

2014 Panetta selling a book: “I privately and publicly advocated for a residual force that could provide training and security for Iraq’s military.”

Panetta v. Panetta: Former Defense Secretary's conflicting accounts of the Iraq withdrawal

2011 Panetta testifies at Senate hearing: Panetta and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, said officials made every effort to strike an agreement with the Iraqi government. But, they said, when the Iraqis refused to grant immunity to U.S. military personnel after Dec. 31, they had no choice but to recommend a full withdrawal to President Obama.

On Iraq pullout, Panetta faces skeptical lawmakers

So you can see Oldstyle that in 2014 Panetta was not lying when he said he advocated for keeping troops in Iraq after 2011, but he left out that in the end, it was Iraq that controlled the decision therefore Panetta also advocated for Obama to pull all the troops out because POLITICALLY Iraq could not give them immunity.

It’s not that Panetta was lying although he was very deceptive in his op/ed, it is that you jumped on a book promotion and drew your false conclusion.

When the facts were pointed out to you, you continue to repeat your lies

That op-ed by Panetta does NOT sum up what happened rather succinctly. That mindset got you started on your trail of lies.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21440757

Leon Panetta: How the White House Misplayed Iraqi Troop Talks

That Op Ed by Leon Panetta sums up what happened rather succinctly...

So...did you want to call Panetta a "liar" as well?

No, we just have to compare one statement he chose to express in his op-ed in 2014 when he was selling a book to what he told a Senate hearing on the Iraq withdrawal in 2011.

2014 Panetta selling a book: “I privately and publicly advocated for a residual force that could provide training and security for Iraq’s military.”

Panetta v. Panetta: Former Defense Secretary's conflicting accounts of the Iraq withdrawal

2011 Panetta testifies at Senate hearing: Panetta and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, said officials made every effort to strike an agreement with the Iraqi government. But, they said, when the Iraqis refused to grant immunity to U.S. military personnel after Dec. 31, they had no choice but to recommend a full withdrawal to President Obama.

On Iraq pullout, Panetta faces skeptical lawmakers

So you can see Oldstyle that in 2014 Panetta was not lying when he said he advocated for keeping troops in Iraq after 2011, but he left out that in the end, it was Iraq that controlled the decision therefore Panetta also advocated for Obama to pull all the troops out because POLITICALLY Iraq could not give them immunity.

It’s not that Panetta was lying although he was very deceptive in his op/ed, it is that you jumped on a book promotion and drew your false conclusion.

When the facts were pointed out to you, you continue to repeat your lies

That op-ed by Panetta does NOT sum up what happened rather succinctly. That mindset got you started on your trail of lies.

Panetta obviously had a clue what WOULD work if you really wanted a new SOFA! Threatening to withhold funding would have worked because Maliki could have used that threat to motivate the Iraqi Parliament to vote for a new SOFA. Iraq desperately needed our money to rebuild the country's infrastructure. What Panetta stated quite clearly in his book was that there was never going to be a SOFA if the President of the United States didn't want it...and Barack Obama and his inner circle at the White House DIDN'T WANT ONE! Panetta doesn't "shuffle around" with that idea...he's quite clear that's the way it went down! But you can't admit that...can you, Not Fooled!

Which account by Panetta rings true? What he told the Senate when he was working in the Obama White House? Or what he told us all once he was no longer employed as the Secretary of Defense? It's quite obvious that Panetta was going along with the company line that they had no choice but to pull out combat troops if Iraq wouldn't agree to a new SOFA but it's also quite obvious from what he relates in his book that Barack Obama never really TRIED to get a new SOFA! The expiring SOFA was ALWAYS going to be the card that Obama and his group in the White House were going to use as their excuse for getting combat troops out of Iraq.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21451866

Panetta obviously had a clue what WOULD work if you really wanted a new SOFA! Threatening to withhold funding would have worked because Maliki could have used that threat to motivate the Iraqi Parliament to vote for a new SOFA.

A threat to withhold funding would be considered “pressuring the Iraqi lawmakers” would it not?

Here is what Panetta was saying about applying pressure in 2011.

“Finally, Panetta addressed the next steps in the security partnership. A 2008 agreement between the United States and Iraq calls for all U.S. troops to be out of Iraq by the end of this year.

“The secretary made it clear that we are neither pressuring nor pleading for U.S. troops to remain here, and that we are continuing to withdraw our forces under the agreement,”

Wilson said. “He made it very clear … that time is running out for a decision and that the United States needs to know if there is going to be a request, [and] that such a request needs to made sooner, rather than later, because the logistics and economics of a … reversal cannot turn on a dime.””

http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=6463

The reason we were not “pressuring” the Iraqis was because the Iraqis were not in any kind of mood to be threatened or intimidated by their former (Christian Nation) occupiers and they were moving closer and closer to Iran which was eager to offer reconstruction aid and in fact were already doing so.

Read orher reports during that period of US Iraq relations and you would find that applying that threat likely would have created consequences more than change the Iraqi lawmakers minds about immunity.

Of course you don’t weigh all the facts because your primary purpose is to lie about Obama.

Your claim is bogus anyway when you rely on speculative statements such as this:

“Panetta obviously had a clue what WOULD work”.

It’s not ‘obvious’ at all that threatening the Iraqis wouid work. Other minds equally had a clue that it wouid backfire and push Shiite run Iraq into the Shiite Ayatollahs Arms.

There was a delicate tightrope the US was.

Quit the lie Oldstyle. You are shirt on facts and reason.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21451866, member: 31215

It's quite obvious that Panetta was going along with the company line that they had no choice but to pull out combat troops if Iraq wouldn't agree to a new SOFA but it's also quite obvious from what he relates in his book that Barack Obama never really TRIED to get a new SOFA!

“Barack Obama never really TRIED to get a new SOFA!”

Panetta never said in 2011 or 2014 that Obama never really tried to get a new SOFA. That is your lie. You can’t make a case if you need to keep lying to support it.

 

[TheDude]

Dumb ass OP doesn't know we have beat ISIS, but you can NEVER exterminate all the rats.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21451866, member: 31215

It's quite obvious that Panetta was going along with the company line that they had no choice but to pull out combat troops if Iraq wouldn't agree to a new SOFA but it's also quite obvious from what he relates in his book that Barack Obama never really TRIED to get a new SOFA!

You do realize that “the company line that they had no choice but to pull out combat troops if Iraq wouldn't agree to a new SOFA “ is not just a company line - it is the fact of the matter.

That fact did not and cannot be changed from 2011 to 2014.

That fact confirms that your lies are in fact all a part of your big lie.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21451866

The expiring SOFA was ALWAYS going to be the card that Obama and his group in the White House were going to use as their excuse for getting combat troops out of Iraq.

No it wasn’t. Panetta and dozens of other sources tells you that Obama began negotiations offering to leave 10,000 troops and he most certainly wouid have if the Iraqis agreed to provide the same terms on immunity that they gave Bush in 2008,

Obama didn’t use the expiration of the SOFA as an excuse to pull out. You are lying and you need to quit. You should be ashamed of yourself repeating lies over and over and over again like that,