Trump pulls out of Syria then lies about defeating Isis

[Oldstyle]

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,

You're so naïve it's laughable, Not Fooled! Barry pretended to negotiate for a new SOFA but as Panetta revealed in his book...it was actually people in the Department of Defense that were trying to make that happen...and Obama and his inner circle at the White House were "pushing back" on whatever they proposed! Panetta described the conflict as "heated"! So you've got one group trying to get a new SOFA because they grasp how important it is to keep combat troops in Iraq to provide stability...and you've got another group fighting against that taking place because they've wanted to pull out US combat troops all along and the expiring SOFA gives them an excuse for doing so! That isn't a "lie"...that's the truth of what happened! You've chosen to believe the lie that the Obama White House put out to cover up what they were really doing!

 

[Oldstyle]

“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.

How do I explain it? Why would I have to? Panetta did so for me! The Obama White House was saying one thing publicly...that they wanted to keep combat troops in Iraq...while at the same time opposing that in private. So you're either calling Panetta a liar or you're admitting that the Obama White House was less than honest with what they were REALLY doing when it came to negotiating a new SOFA!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21451866,

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..

No he did not. You are lying. By saying ‘quite clearly’ you make your lie all the more aggregious.

You cannot make your case by piling lie on top of lie and then repeating them over and over again.

I already pointed out why you are lying when you say ‘Obama didnt ‘want’ a new SOFA because in 2014, while selling a book, Panetta said “Officials there (White House) 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.”


Oldstyle, post: 21452965

The Obama White House was saying one thing publicly...that they wanted to keep combat troops in Iraq...while at the same time opposing that in private.

That is a flat out lie. You have no basis for that outrageous lie. Panetta never said that. In fact he said the opposite. You ignore your own link to Panetta’s book promotion.

Let’s be clear. The Obama Adminstration publically offered to keep ten thousand troops in Iraq and was committed to do that if the Iraqis submitted a request for them. Your charge is preposterous that Obama’s was offering to keep those troops but if the Iraqis made the request and granted them immunity just like they did through 2011 then Obama you claim was going to pull his offer right from under them,

You are a sick pathetic liar. You have no basis whatsoever to make that claim.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21452965

So you're either calling Panetta a liar or you're admitting that the Obama White House was less than honest with what they were REALLY doing when it came to negotiating a new SOFA!

No. You are lying about what Panetta said.

You claim to know that Obama was negotiating in bad faith and never would keep troops in Iraq even if the negotiations succeeded. That’s a lie. And you have to know you are lying by now.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You've chosen to believe the lie that the Obama White House put out to cover up what they were really doing!

Do you have one shred of evidence that will show that Obama would have refused to send as many troops that Iraq requested had they extended the same exact immunity that existed under the 2008 SOFA.

If you can’t find a source that describes your outrageous conspiracy theory that Obama offered to keep troops in Iraq but secretly never intended to send a single one, then you need to shut this lie down.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21452938

Barry pretended to negotiate for a new SOFA but as Panetta revealed in his book...it was actually people in the Department of Defense that were trying to make that happen...and Obama and his inner circle at the White House were "pushing back" on whatever they proposed!

The White House did not “Push Back” on anything that we know of according to Panetta in 2014 except using a threat against the Iraqis as part of the negotiations. Panetta is also on record as not using that tactic as well in 2011,

So why did you lie that Obama’s pushed back on ‘whatever’ they proposed.

 

[Faun]

“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.

How do I explain it? Why would I have to? Panetta did so for me! The Obama White House was saying one thing publicly...that they wanted to keep combat troops in Iraq...while at the same time opposing that in private. So you're either calling Panetta a liar or you're admitting that the Obama White House was less than honest with what they were REALLY doing when it came to negotiating a new SOFA!

Lying con tool, do you ever stop lying?

Ever???

 

[Uncensored2008]

Trump pulls out of Syria that surprises his military generals, then lies about defeating Isis and throws US policy in turmoil. Trump has single handedly strengthened Russia and Isis in one stroke.

He truly is a Donald Dumbass.



Trump shocks allies and advisers with plan to pull US troops out of Syria

Comrade, your army is indeed defeated. Queer Barry's ISIS is crushed.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21451866,

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..

No he did not. You are lying. By saying ‘quite clearly’ you make your lie all the more aggregious.

You cannot make your case by piling lie on top of lie and then repeating them over and over again.

I already pointed out why you are lying when you say ‘Obama didnt ‘want’ a new SOFA because in 2014, while selling a book, Panetta said “Officials there (White House) 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.”


Oldstyle, post: 21452965

The Obama White House was saying one thing publicly...that they wanted to keep combat troops in Iraq...while at the same time opposing that in private.

That is a flat out lie. You have no basis for that outrageous lie. Panetta never said that. In fact he said the opposite. You ignore your own link to Panetta’s book promotion.

Let’s be clear. The Obama Adminstration publically offered to keep ten thousand troops in Iraq and was committed to do that if the Iraqis submitted a request for them. Your charge is preposterous that Obama’s was offering to keep those troops but if the Iraqis made the request and granted them immunity just like they did through 2011 then Obama you claim was going to pull his offer right from under them,

You are a sick pathetic liar. You have no basis whatsoever to make that claim.

I'm a liar? The person that's played fast and lose with the truth about the SOFA has ALWAYS been Barack Obama! Do you remember his response to Mitt Romney at their debate in 2012 on whether he wanted a SOFA that would keep US combat troops in Iraq?

"With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should be a status of forces agreement," Romney told Obama as the two convened on the Lynn University campus in Boca Raton, Fla., that October evening. "That’s not true," Obama interjected. “Oh, you didn't want a status of forces agreement?” Romney asked as an argument ensued. “No,” Obama said. “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”

Obama had no intention of leaving combat troops in Iraq and he ADMITTED JUST THAT IN THAT DEBATE!

 

[Oldstyle]

The "truth" is that Barry claimed it was HIS idea to withdraw troops from Iraq...right up until ISIS started conquering vast swaths of territory in Iraq and he began to start taking heat for the decision not to keep a residual force in Iraq! THEN the narrative changed to it being the Iraqis who forced him to withdraw all combat troops!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

“And on that basis, we left. We had offered to leave additional troops.” President Obama’s.



Oldstyle, post: 21455994

Obama had no intention of leaving combat troops in Iraq and he ADMITTED JUST THAT IN THAT DEBATE!

You bring up a debate that really does not help
your case Oldstyle.

You again are posting reports that are not dealing with the real time of the events in 2011.

Are you saying that Iraq’s leadership during 2011 could see a year into the future?

The negotiations were over when this debate took place for god’s sake.

All the commentary and fact-checking in the aftermath of that debate confirms that Obama was negotiating to keep troops in Iraq.

Read this link: Obama’s Revisionist History on Ending the Iraq War: A Lesson from the 3rd Presidential Debate | Foreign Policy Journal

Everybody said Romney was right and Obama was wrong in that part of the debate;

Regarding Obama’s campaign promise to withdraw troop by May 2011;

“Obama not only did not keep that promise, but his administration sought since as early as September 2010 to obtain a new agreement with Iraq under which 15,000 to 20,000 combat troops would remain beyond the deadline at the end of 2011; but “Obama insisted that it could only happen if Maliki requested it”, wrote investigative historian and journalist Gareth Porter, since the White House “was worried about losing support from the Democratic Party’s anti-war base as Congressional mid-term elections approached”. The Wall Street Journal similarly pointed out that “Mr. Obama could face a political backlash at home if he doesn’t meet his campaign pledge to bring troops home from Iraq”, and by April 2011, the U.S. had dropped the number of troops it sought to keep in Iraq down to 10,000. The discussions over a new agreement “face political obstacles in both countries,” the Journal also noted, “and have faltered in recent weeks because of Iraqi worries that a continued U.S. military presence could fuel sectarian tension and lead to protests similar to those sweeping other Arab countries”.”


Obama was wrong in that debate. You might be the only dumbass that believes what he said was correct. That must be a first for you.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21456014

The "truth" is that Barry claimed it was HIS idea to withdraw troops from Iraq...right up until ISIS started conquering vast swaths of territory in Iraq and he began to start taking heat for the decision not to keep a residual force in Iraq! THEN the narrative changed to it being the Iraqis who forced him to withdraw all combat troops!

The Iraqis did force the US to withdraw on Bush’s deadline. That is not just a narrative that Obama created in 2014. That was the narrative on January 2, 2012.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

False Comparisons: Obama’s Military Withdrawal from Iraq and Trump’s Syria Disengagement
For future reference!

“And on that basis, we left. We had offered to leave additional troops.” President Obama.

Oldstyle, post: 21452965

Obama had no intention of leaving combat troops in Iraq and he ADMITTED JUST THAT IN THAT DEBATE!

No he didn’t - he would not leave 10,000 troops in Iraq when the Iraqis didn’t request them,

A reporter asks if Obama regretted his decision to pull all trooos oh of Iraq.

THE PRESIDENT: What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision. Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government. In order for us to maintain troops in Iraq, we needed the invitation of the Iraqi government and we needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a firefight with Iraqis, that they wouldn’t be hauled before an Iraqi judicial system.

And the Iraqi government, based on its political considerations, in part because Iraqis were tired of a U.S. occupation, declined to provide us those assurances. And on that basis, we left. We had offered to leave additional troops. So when you hear people say, do you regret, Mr. President, not leaving more troops, that presupposes that I would have overridden this sovereign government that we had turned the keys back over to and said, you know what, you’re democratic, you’re sovereign, except if I decide that it’s good for you to keep 10,000 or 15,000 or 25,000 Marines in your country, you don’t have a choice -- which would have kind of run contrary to the entire argument we were making about turning over the country back to Iraqis, an argument not just made by me, but made by the previous administration.

So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were -- 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.”

Statement by the President on Iraq

If you want to take Obama’s word as gospel. Here is your chance.

 

[Oldstyle]

False Comparisons: Obama’s Military Withdrawal from Iraq and Trump’s Syria Disengagement
For future reference!

“And on that basis, we left. We had offered to leave additional troops.” President Obama.

Oldstyle, post: 21452965

Obama had no intention of leaving combat troops in Iraq and he ADMITTED JUST THAT IN THAT DEBATE!

No he didn’t - he would not leave 10,000 troops in Iraq when the Iraqis didn’t request them,

A reporter asks if Obama regretted his decision to pull all trooos oh of Iraq.

THE PRESIDENT: What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision. Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government. In order for us to maintain troops in Iraq, we needed the invitation of the Iraqi government and we needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a firefight with Iraqis, that they wouldn’t be hauled before an Iraqi judicial system.

And the Iraqi government, based on its political considerations, in part because Iraqis were tired of a U.S. occupation, declined to provide us those assurances. And on that basis, we left. We had offered to leave additional troops. So when you hear people say, do you regret, Mr. President, not leaving more troops, that presupposes that I would have overridden this sovereign government that we had turned the keys back over to and said, you know what, you’re democratic, you’re sovereign, except if I decide that it’s good for you to keep 10,000 or 15,000 or 25,000 Marines in your country, you don’t have a choice -- which would have kind of run contrary to the entire argument we were making about turning over the country back to Iraqis, an argument not just made by me, but made by the previous administration.

So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were -- 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.”

Statement by the President on Iraq

If you want to take Obama’s word as gospel. Here is your chance.

Obama's word as gospel? Now THAT is amusing since Obama was claiming that it was his idea to pull combat troops and that he didn't want a new SOFA with Iraq when he was debating Mitt Romney back in 2012 and it was only after ISIS rose to power and conquered vast areas of Iraq that he changed his story and declared that he actually WANTED to keep troops in Iraq but didn't have a choice because Iraq wouldn't let him keep them there! Obama's "word" on what took place back then depends on when it was given! So was his "word" good when he was declaring that he wanted a new SOFA publicly but opposed it privately back in 2010...or was it good when he declared that he didn't want a new SOFA at all and never had any intention of leaving troops in Iraq when he debated Mitt Romney two years later...or was it good after ISIS took control of a good chunk of the Middle East a year later and he changed the narrative and declared that it was Iraq that kept him from keeping troops there but that he wanted to?

Barry's "word" is pretty much whatever is politically convenient at the time!

 

[Oldstyle]

“And on that basis, we left. We had offered to leave additional troops.” President Obama’s.



Oldstyle, post: 21455994

Obama had no intention of leaving combat troops in Iraq and he ADMITTED JUST THAT IN THAT DEBATE!

You bring up a debate that really does not help
your case Oldstyle.

You again are posting reports that are not dealing with the real time of the events in 2011.

Are you saying that Iraq’s leadership during 2011 could see a year into the future?

The negotiations were over when this debate took place for god’s sake.

All the commentary and fact-checking in the aftermath of that debate confirms that Obama was negotiating to keep troops in Iraq.

Read this link: Obama’s Revisionist History on Ending the Iraq War: A Lesson from the 3rd Presidential Debate | Foreign Policy Journal

Everybody said Romney was right and Obama was wrong in that part of the debate;

Regarding Obama’s campaign promise to withdraw troop by May 2011;

“Obama not only did not keep that promise, but his administration sought since as early as September 2010 to obtain a new agreement with Iraq under which 15,000 to 20,000 combat troops would remain beyond the deadline at the end of 2011; but “Obama insisted that it could only happen if Maliki requested it”, wrote investigative historian and journalist Gareth Porter, since the White House “was worried about losing support from the Democratic Party’s anti-war base as Congressional mid-term elections approached”. The Wall Street Journal similarly pointed out that “Mr. Obama could face a political backlash at home if he doesn’t meet his campaign pledge to bring troops home from Iraq”, and by April 2011, the U.S. had dropped the number of troops it sought to keep in Iraq down to 10,000. The discussions over a new agreement “face political obstacles in both countries,” the Journal also noted, “and have faltered in recent weeks because of Iraqi worries that a continued U.S. military presence could fuel sectarian tension and lead to protests similar to those sweeping other Arab countries”.”


Obama was wrong in that debate. You might be the only dumbass that believes what he said was correct. That must be a first for you.

He was "wrong" in the debate? Is that another way of saying he wasn't honest? Or is that he wasn't honest back when he publicly said he wanted a new SOFA but fought against one privately? Or is it that he wasn't honest AFTER 2012 when it became obvious that ISIS was NOT the JV team and that he'd seriously miscalculated when he made the political decision to withdraw all combat troops?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Trump pulls out of Syria that surprises his military generals, then lies about defeating Isis and throws US policy in turmoil. Trump has single handedly strengthened Russia and Isis in one stroke.

He truly is a Donald Dumbass.



Trump shocks allies and advisers with plan to pull US troops out of Syria

Russia and Syria have nearly wiped out ISIS, knucklehead....There's no call for Murica to be there in yet another undeclared war.

That is not what US Intelligence is saying. Nothing wrong with pulling troops out of harms way, but there is a reason our allies, the intelligence communities and Republicans in general are all upset over this move.

I dislike Trump but I am happy we are removing our Troops.

Why are we there?

Syria is Russia, China and Iran problem and not ours. Unless the violence spills over into Israel we have no purpose in Syria and should allow Assad back into power.

He is the lesser of Two evils and let Russia waste their money supporting their puppet Dictator like they have before.

Syria Civil War has never been our war and we should not waste resources to fight it.

 

[Hellokitty]

Trump pulls out of Syria that surprises his military generals, then lies about defeating Isis and throws US policy in turmoil. Trump has single handedly strengthened Russia and Isis in one stroke.

He truly is a Donald Dumbass.



Trump shocks allies and advisers with plan to pull US troops out of Syria

Wait Turkish president Erdogan has also said ISIS has been defeated, so is he lying as well? Also how is it established ISIS has been defeated? Surely Mattis and all the generals whining about TRUMP's decision have a clear definition of what determines a defeated ISIS , so I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding it and posting.

Also who exactly are our allies involved in Syria?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21456685,

He was "wrong" in the debate? Is that another way of saying he wasn't honest?

I’m not like you - a mind reader. All I know is that the entire world from the right and left admonished him in print because Obama was on record as one President who truly offered to keep troops in Iraq after 2011.

I have not researched all that was happening in October 2012 but Obama got the last word on that exchange when he said something about Romney still wanting to keep troops in Iraq three weeks before the debate. It’s as if the President was reiterating his exact position that he had more clearly addressed at other venues that he wouid not have kept 10,000 or 100 troops in Iraq if Iraq didn’t request them and give them immunity.

I don’t know. You can call Obama a liar all you want. I’m sure you often do. But my point is his words came out wrong and unclear and they do not undermine the thousands of pages of evidence that Obama would have left troops in Iraq after 2011 if the Iraqis put in a request.

Obama has said he offered Iraq to keep troops upon their request. I posted that for you. That is consistent with Panetta and Romney and Maliki and 99% of all reporters, politicians on both sides, military and diplomatic experts and pundits around the world.

You can run with the 1% that accuse Obama of lying about his offer because if the Iraqis had accepted immunity and put in the request you say Obama wouid have flipped them the bird and told them sorry dudes I’m running for re-election.

Do you see how absurd you 1% ters are?

Merry Christmas .

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21456685,

He was "wrong" in the debate? Is that another way of saying he wasn't honest?

I’m not like you - a mind reader. All I know is that the entire world from the right and left admonished him in print because Obama was on record as one President who truly offered to keep troops in Iraq after 2011.

I have not researched all that was happening in October 2012 but Obama got the last word on that exchange when he said something about Romney still wanting to keep troops in Iraq three weeks before the debate. It’s as if the President was reiterating his exact position that he had more clearly addressed at other venues that he wouid not have kept 10,000 or 100 troops in Iraq if Iraq didn’t request them and give them immunity.

I don’t know. You can call Obama a liar all you want. I’m sure you often do. But my point is his words came out wrong and unclear and they do not undermine the thousands of pages of evidence that Obama would have left troops in Iraq after 2011 if the Iraqis put in a request.

Obama has said he offered Iraq to keep troops upon their request. I posted that for you. That is consistent with Panetta and Romney and Maliki and 99% of all reporters, politicians on both sides, military and diplomatic experts and pundits around the world.

You can run with the 1% that accuse Obama of lying about his offer because if the Iraqis had accepted immunity and put in the request you say Obama wouid have flipped them the bird and told them sorry dudes I’m running for re-election.

Do you see how absurd you 1% ters are?

Merry Christmas .

Oh, so Obama was "wrong and unclear" when he was asked if he wanted a SOFA back in 2010 and answered "No." How are you "unclear" with No? You don't really have a comeback for what Obama stated quite CLEARLY in that debate...do you, Not Fooled?

That was what Panetta was working with back in 2010...a President who had no intention to keep combat troops in Iraq because he was already starting to use the line that he was the President who promised to end combat operations in Iraq and he was the President who was fulfilling that promise! What you can't seem to grasp is that it was always about politics with Barry and his little Chicago cadre in the White House. They couldn't have cared less about Iraq! That was Bush's war. They just wanted it to be over and to claim it as a victory by them! So they went against the advice of their military leaders and fought every proposal brought to them by the people negotiating at State and the Department of Defense to get a new SOFA. THAT is what frustrated Leon Panetta so much!

 

[Oddball]