Trump pulls out of Syria then lies about defeating Isis

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21520982

Maliki was a leader who recognized the danger that a premature withdrawal of US combat troops presented. He was willing to deal...negotiators at State and the Defense Department were trying to get a deal...the hold up was that Obama and his inner circle at the White House never wanted a deal and were actively resisting anything that was proposed.

You are a liar.

You wrote that Maliki ‘was willing to deal”

Here is the truth which you cannot deny:

(A) Maliki was willing to deal without granting immunity. So Maliki was not willing to deal since his terms were not acceptable to the chain of command at the Pentagon, Panetta, Congress, all the way up to the White House and legal advisers.

You wrote: “Obama and his inner circle at the White House never wanted a deal and were actively resisting anything that was proposed.”

Here is the truth which you cannot deny:

(B) Obama would have left troops in Iraq as negotiated had the Iraqis granted them immunity.

(C) Obama and his inner circle did not resist or reject keeping trainers in Iraq. They rejected troops stationed in Iraq without immunity. Same as your precious Panetta did that you keep misquoting.

(D) Obama and his inner circle, according to Panetta that you cite, wouid have been content to accept a deal if Panetta’s team could get one. So when you keep lying by saying Obama never wanted a deal it makes you an aggregiius, self deluded, pathological, deplorable liar.

We must presume you are so overcome with hatred against Obama you cannot constrain yourself.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

special SWAT forces which report directly to Maliki came in the morning of April 23 and gunned down 44 protesters. April 2013 the protesters were unarmed Sunnis - nothing to do with ISIS invading from Syria.


tinydancer, post: is 21524823.

The invasion of Iraq was launched from Syria. Of course certain Sunnis in Iraq joined ISIS but for the most part ISIS was made up of Sunni jihadists from over 80 countries. These weren't civil wars.

You are an idiot.

The history of the Iraqi Sunni protests that began in January 2013 would take some reading on your part. That is if you desire to not be an idiot on this subject.


“Near a protest site in Huwija, a Sunni Arab area of Kirkuk province, gunmen killed a soldier following a Friday sermon that could best be described as an incitement to war. The site was controlled by the Baathist JRTN, and the soldier killed was a Sunni, a local recruit — so if Maliki had handled it properly, it was a great opportunity. Instead, after the site had been encircled by an army unit for days without incident, special SWAT forces which report directly to Maliki came in the morning of April 23 and gunned down 44 protesters. While they were all no doubt JRTN supporters, they appeared to have been entirely unarmed. Sunnis, and quite a few Shiites, were outraged, and called for accountability.”

Maliki’s Anbar Blunder


ISIS slowly infiltrated this civil war in Anbar - there was no invasion by ISIS from Syria into a somewhat peaceful well functioning Iraq.

From the Maliki’s Anbar Blunder link, here is when the ISiS involvement in Iraq’s civil war was first reported on an international level.

2014.... on January 1, the government announced an arrest warrant for Sheikh Muhammad Taha Hamdun, the Samarra imam who has been the protest’s de facto leader since August 2013. On January 12, Muhammad Radwan al-Hadidi, a Mosul imam, was assassinated, a killing which Sunnis blame on Shiite militias.

The biggest beneficiary of the chaos was ISIS. Its high-profile convoys with Toyota trucks carrying men with automatic weapons and black flags coming into the two cities were a propaganda coup, albeit one exaggerated by international media’s focus on "the return of al Qaeda." In both Ramadi and Fallujah ISIS ran convoys into the city, taking over government buildings and police stations. On January 3, ISIS gunmen surrounded the main mosque in Fallujhah’s city center and after Friday prayers took the podium, raised their trademark black flag, and declared an Islamic emirate.

A range of international media outlets reported ISIS’s dramatic return as "al Qaeda Seizes Fallujah," but inflated the situation since the gunmen only controlled limited sections of the city. The mischaracterization appears to have been based on the government habit of calling all hostile gunmen "al Qaeda," since the entire city had indeed fallen to insurgents. More realistic was a security statement on January 2 that the total number of ISIS gunmen was about 600, and that "ISIS controls about half of Fallujah, and the other half is controlled by tribal gunmen fighting the government since the shutdown of the Ramadi site."

ISIS had an advantage in organization and training and may well have controlled half the government buildings at one point, but it quickly began to lose control and within a week the "emirate" had disappeared. Six hundred militants, however well organized, were not going to hold a city of 350,000 people, full of armed tribesmen.

 

[tinydancer]

special SWAT forces which report directly to Maliki came in the morning of April 23 and gunned down 44 protesters. April 2013 the protesters were unarmed Sunnis - nothing to do with ISIS invading from Syria.


tinydancer, post: is 21524823.

The invasion of Iraq was launched from Syria. Of course certain Sunnis in Iraq joined ISIS but for the most part ISIS was made up of Sunni jihadists from over 80 countries. These weren't civil wars.

You are an idiot.

The history of the Iraqi Sunni protests that began in January 2013 would take some reading on your part. That is if you desire to not be an idiot on this subject.


“Near a protest site in Huwija, a Sunni Arab area of Kirkuk province, gunmen killed a soldier following a Friday sermon that could best be described as an incitement to war. The site was controlled by the Baathist JRTN, and the soldier killed was a Sunni, a local recruit — so if Maliki had handled it properly, it was a great opportunity. Instead, after the site had been encircled by an army unit for days without incident, special SWAT forces which report directly to Maliki came in the morning of April 23 and gunned down 44 protesters. While they were all no doubt JRTN supporters, they appeared to have been entirely unarmed. Sunnis, and quite a few Shiites, were outraged, and called for accountability.”

Maliki’s Anbar Blunder


ISIS slowly infiltrated this civil war in Anbar - there was no invasion by ISIS from Syria into a somewhat peaceful well functioning Iraq.

From the Maliki’s Anbar Blunder link, here is when the ISiS involvement in Iraq’s civil war was first reported on an international level.

2014.... on January 1, the government announced an arrest warrant for Sheikh Muhammad Taha Hamdun, the Samarra imam who has been the protest’s de facto leader since August 2013. On January 12, Muhammad Radwan al-Hadidi, a Mosul imam, was assassinated, a killing which Sunnis blame on Shiite militias.

The biggest beneficiary of the chaos was ISIS. Its high-profile convoys with Toyota trucks carrying men with automatic weapons and black flags coming into the two cities were a propaganda coup, albeit one exaggerated by international media’s focus on "the return of al Qaeda." In both Ramadi and Fallujah ISIS ran convoys into the city, taking over government buildings and police stations. On January 3, ISIS gunmen surrounded the main mosque in Fallujhah’s city center and after Friday prayers took the podium, raised their trademark black flag, and declared an Islamic emirate.

A range of international media outlets reported ISIS’s dramatic return as "al Qaeda Seizes Fallujah," but inflated the situation since the gunmen only controlled limited sections of the city. The mischaracterization appears to have been based on the government habit of calling all hostile gunmen "al Qaeda," since the entire city had indeed fallen to insurgents. More realistic was a security statement on January 2 that the total number of ISIS gunmen was about 600, and that "ISIS controls about half of Fallujah, and the other half is controlled by tribal gunmen fighting the government since the shutdown of the Ramadi site."

ISIS had an advantage in organization and training and may well have controlled half the government buildings at one point, but it quickly began to lose control and within a week the "emirate" had disappeared. Six hundred militants, however well organized, were not going to hold a city of 350,000 people, full of armed tribesmen.

This was the invasion. And one more time it was not a civil war. Sunni jihadists who had nothing to do with freaking Maliki came to Syria and Iraq from over 80 countries to fight for ISIS.

Northern Iraq offensive (June 2014) - Wikipedia

 

[NotfooledbyW]

tinydancer, post: 21524926

special SWAT forces which report directly to Maliki came in the morning of April 23 and gunned down 44 protesters. April 2013 the protesters were unarmed Sunnis - nothing to do with ISIS invading from Syria.


tinydancer, post: is 21524823.

The invasion of Iraq was launched from Syria. Of course certain Sunnis in Iraq joined ISIS but for the most part ISIS was made up of Sunni jihadists from over 80 countries. These weren't civil wars.

You are an idiot.

The history of the Iraqi Sunni protests that began in January 2013 would take some reading on your part. That is if you desire to not be an idiot on this subject.


“Near a protest site in Huwija, a Sunni Arab area of Kirkuk province, gunmen killed a soldier following a Friday sermon that could best be described as an incitement to war. The site was controlled by the Baathist JRTN, and the soldier killed was a Sunni, a local recruit — so if Maliki had handled it properly, it was a great opportunity. Instead, after the site had been encircled by an army unit for days without incident, special SWAT forces which report directly to Maliki came in the morning of April 23 and gunned down 44 protesters. While they were all no doubt JRTN supporters, they appeared to have been entirely unarmed. Sunnis, and quite a few Shiites, were outraged, and called for accountability.”

Maliki’s Anbar Blunder


ISIS slowly infiltrated this civil war in Anbar - there was no invasion by ISIS from Syria into a somewhat peaceful well functioning Iraq.

From the Maliki’s Anbar Blunder link, here is when the ISiS involvement in Iraq’s civil war was first reported on an international level.

2014.... on January 1, the government announced an arrest warrant for Sheikh Muhammad Taha Hamdun, the Samarra imam who has been the protest’s de facto leader since August 2013. On January 12, Muhammad Radwan al-Hadidi, a Mosul imam, was assassinated, a killing which Sunnis blame on Shiite militias.

The biggest beneficiary of the chaos was ISIS. Its high-profile convoys with Toyota trucks carrying men with automatic weapons and black flags coming into the two cities were a propaganda coup, albeit one exaggerated by international media’s focus on "the return of al Qaeda." In both Ramadi and Fallujah ISIS ran convoys into the city, taking over government buildings and police stations. On January 3, ISIS gunmen surrounded the main mosque in Fallujhah’s city center and after Friday prayers took the podium, raised their trademark black flag, and declared an Islamic emirate.

A range of international media outlets reported ISIS’s dramatic return as "al Qaeda Seizes Fallujah," but inflated the situation since the gunmen only controlled limited sections of the city. The mischaracterization appears to have been based on the government habit of calling all hostile gunmen "al Qaeda," since the entire city had indeed fallen to insurgents. More realistic was a security statement on January 2 that the total number of ISIS gunmen was about 600, and that "ISIS controls about half of Fallujah, and the other half is controlled by tribal gunmen fighting the government since the shutdown of the Ramadi site."

ISIS had an advantage in organization and training and may well have controlled half the government buildings at one point, but it quickly began to lose control and within a week the "emirate" had disappeared. Six hundred militants, however well organized, were not going to hold a city of 350,000 people, full of armed tribesmen.

This was the invasion. And one more time it was not a civil war. Sunni jihadists who had nothing to do with freaking Maliki came to Syria and Iraq from over 80 countries to fight for ISIS.

Northern Iraq offensive (June 2014) - Wikipedia

From your link:

“By this time, insurgents surged into Mosul, sleeper cells hiding in the city had been activated and neighbourhoods rallied to them. The insurgents bombed a police station in the al-Uraybi neighbourhood and charged into the area around the Mosul Hotel, on the western bank of the Tigris, where a battle post was set up for 30 police SWAT members.[89]”

It’s not a foreign invasion when sleeper cells and neighborhoods are in place to rally to the invaders.

That’s a civil war taking assistance from foreign Fighters.

Around 1500 ISIS fighters came into Mosul in pick up trucks with light arms against a defending local army of 15,000.

That is why you are an idiot believing this had nothing to do with Maliki’s war against Iraq Sunnis.

Iraqi Sunni tribal fighters had been trying to fight both ISiS that had infiltrated into Iraq for over a year before Mosul fell, but they were fighting Maliki too.

If you don’t think that enabled non-Iraqi terrorists to take over the Sunni parts of Iraq you have to be an idiot.

Why do you insist that this was a completely foreign invasion that started in June 2014?

What is your motive?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21500088

Obama was trying his best to cover his little bony ass after misjudging ISIS badly!

The truth is more importantly that Obama didn’t misjudge Mallki.

Maliki was the Prime Minister of Iraq, He alone is responsible for allowing the rise of ISIS in Sunni areas of Iraq. But a hater like you would not try to comprehend the impact of Maliki’s program against Iraq’s Sunni populace. There was nothing about ISIS to be misjudged because Maliki set Iraq on the path where ISIS used violence and terror against Muslims. Obama was correct to not get Americans killed and wounded in the coalition he organized to help the Iraqis rid themselves of the terror group.

Maliki had to go as part of the commitment by the US to join the fight.

It’s hard to believe you have compassion for Muslims being killed by those who commit terror in the name of Islam.

Bullshit. The invasion of Iraq was launched from Syria. Of course certain Sunnis in Iraq joined ISIS but for the most part ISIS was made up of Sunni jihadists from over 80 countries. These weren't civil wars.

They were fucking invasions. Backed by the Gulf States with our help in the west of course.

By the way my point was that Maliki’s secret police forces were engaged in battles with protesting Iraqi Sunnis tribal fighters for over a year prior to foreign ISIS fighters taking over Mosul in June 2014.

I write Maliki set Iraq on the path where ISIS used violence and terror against Muslims.”

In that post I did not refer to the violence between Maliki and Iraqi Sunnis as a civil war. And I do not deny that foreign fighters from around the world took advantage of the Sunni Shiite unrest and violence that became deadly when Maliki’s special police force gunned down 44 unarmed citizens in Iraq?


Are you defending Maliki?

What the hell are you doing?

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21520982

Maliki was a leader who recognized the danger that a premature withdrawal of US combat troops presented. He was willing to deal...negotiators at State and the Defense Department were trying to get a deal...the hold up was that Obama and his inner circle at the White House never wanted a deal and were actively resisting anything that was proposed.

You are a liar.

You wrote that Maliki ‘was willing to deal”

Here is the truth which you cannot deny:

(A) Maliki was willing to deal without granting immunity. So Maliki was not willing to deal since his terms were not acceptable to the chain of command at the Pentagon, Panetta, Congress, all the way up to the White House and legal advisers.

You wrote: “Obama and his inner circle at the White House never wanted a deal and were actively resisting anything that was proposed.”

Here is the truth which you cannot deny:

(B) Obama would have left troops in Iraq as negotiated had the Iraqis granted them immunity.

(C) Obama and his inner circle did not resist or reject keeping trainers in Iraq. They rejected troops stationed in Iraq without immunity. Same as your precious Panetta did that you keep misquoting.

(D) Obama and his inner circle, according to Panetta that you cite, wouid have been content to accept a deal if Panetta’s team could get one. So when you keep lying by saying Obama never wanted a deal it makes you an aggregiius, self deluded, pathological, deplorable liar.

We must presume you are so overcome with hatred against Obama you cannot constrain yourself.

You really might be the most clueless poster on this board! Obama was NEVER going to leave combat troops in Iraq no matter what Maliki did! He and his inner circle had already decided that he'd be running for reelection with the message that he'd fulfilled his campaign promise to bring combat troops home from Iraq. Would you like me to show video of Barry using that message in his campaign speeches? THAT is what Leon Panetta was pointing out in his book! His regret that they couldn't get a deal done with Maliki because the President of the United States wasn't supporting the effort and Maliki knew it. Panetta knows full well that the pain and suffering that ISIS subsequently inflicted upon millions of people in the Middle East could have been prevented if the Administration he was working for had cared as much about stability in Iraq as they did about a campaign message!

 

[Oldstyle]

tinydancer, post: 21524926

special SWAT forces which report directly to Maliki came in the morning of April 23 and gunned down 44 protesters. April 2013 the protesters were unarmed Sunnis - nothing to do with ISIS invading from Syria.


tinydancer, post: is 21524823.

The invasion of Iraq was launched from Syria. Of course certain Sunnis in Iraq joined ISIS but for the most part ISIS was made up of Sunni jihadists from over 80 countries. These weren't civil wars.

You are an idiot.

The history of the Iraqi Sunni protests that began in January 2013 would take some reading on your part. That is if you desire to not be an idiot on this subject.


“Near a protest site in Huwija, a Sunni Arab area of Kirkuk province, gunmen killed a soldier following a Friday sermon that could best be described as an incitement to war. The site was controlled by the Baathist JRTN, and the soldier killed was a Sunni, a local recruit — so if Maliki had handled it properly, it was a great opportunity. Instead, after the site had been encircled by an army unit for days without incident, special SWAT forces which report directly to Maliki came in the morning of April 23 and gunned down 44 protesters. While they were all no doubt JRTN supporters, they appeared to have been entirely unarmed. Sunnis, and quite a few Shiites, were outraged, and called for accountability.”

Maliki’s Anbar Blunder


ISIS slowly infiltrated this civil war in Anbar - there was no invasion by ISIS from Syria into a somewhat peaceful well functioning Iraq.

From the Maliki’s Anbar Blunder link, here is when the ISiS involvement in Iraq’s civil war was first reported on an international level.

2014.... on January 1, the government announced an arrest warrant for Sheikh Muhammad Taha Hamdun, the Samarra imam who has been the protest’s de facto leader since August 2013. On January 12, Muhammad Radwan al-Hadidi, a Mosul imam, was assassinated, a killing which Sunnis blame on Shiite militias.

The biggest beneficiary of the chaos was ISIS. Its high-profile convoys with Toyota trucks carrying men with automatic weapons and black flags coming into the two cities were a propaganda coup, albeit one exaggerated by international media’s focus on "the return of al Qaeda." In both Ramadi and Fallujah ISIS ran convoys into the city, taking over government buildings and police stations. On January 3, ISIS gunmen surrounded the main mosque in Fallujhah’s city center and after Friday prayers took the podium, raised their trademark black flag, and declared an Islamic emirate.

A range of international media outlets reported ISIS’s dramatic return as "al Qaeda Seizes Fallujah," but inflated the situation since the gunmen only controlled limited sections of the city. The mischaracterization appears to have been based on the government habit of calling all hostile gunmen "al Qaeda," since the entire city had indeed fallen to insurgents. More realistic was a security statement on January 2 that the total number of ISIS gunmen was about 600, and that "ISIS controls about half of Fallujah, and the other half is controlled by tribal gunmen fighting the government since the shutdown of the Ramadi site."

ISIS had an advantage in organization and training and may well have controlled half the government buildings at one point, but it quickly began to lose control and within a week the "emirate" had disappeared. Six hundred militants, however well organized, were not going to hold a city of 350,000 people, full of armed tribesmen.

This was the invasion. And one more time it was not a civil war. Sunni jihadists who had nothing to do with freaking Maliki came to Syria and Iraq from over 80 countries to fight for ISIS.

Northern Iraq offensive (June 2014) - Wikipedia

From your link:

“By this time, insurgents surged into Mosul, sleeper cells hiding in the city had been activated and neighbourhoods rallied to them. The insurgents bombed a police station in the al-Uraybi neighbourhood and charged into the area around the Mosul Hotel, on the western bank of the Tigris, where a battle post was set up for 30 police SWAT members.[89]”

It’s not a foreign invasion when sleeper cells and neighborhoods are in place to rally to the invaders.

That’s a civil war taking assistance from foreign Fighters.

Around 1500 ISIS fighters came into Mosul in pick up trucks with light arms against a defending local army of 15,000.

That is why you are an idiot believing this had nothing to do with Maliki’s war against Iraq Sunnis.

Iraqi Sunni tribal fighters had been trying to fight both ISiS that had infiltrated into Iraq for over a year before Mosul fell, but they were fighting Maliki too.

If you don’t think that enabled non-Iraqi terrorists to take over the Sunni parts of Iraq you have to be an idiot.

Why do you insist that this was a completely foreign invasion that started in June 2014?

What is your motive?

All you've done with this post is underline how pitifully unready Iraqi forces were to withstand attacks from ISIS when they did occur...which is EXACTLY why Barack Obama's military leaders were advising him to leave a combat force of American troops of at least 30,000 to provide stability!

 

[Faun]

eagle1462010, post: 21476222

I was very surprised when we didn't find them........and in that regards the Dems including Billy Boy and Hillary all chanted the same message......

Both Hillary Clinton and Bill urged Bush to give the inspectors more time - do not invade.

So you have swallowed a right wing lie in that regard.

And yet Hillary voted to invade? Have your cake and eat it too...Not Fooled?

Do you ever stop lying, ya lyin’ con tool?

Ever???

There was never a vote to invade. There was only ever a vote to leave such a decision in the hands of the president and based on certain criteria being met. Bush was the decider.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21525738

Obama was NEVER going to leave combat troops in Iraq no matter what Maliki did!

Why do you ignore what Panetta said when you cited him? It’s not me, Panetta himself in his own words exposes you for the liar that you are. According to your own source (that you have twisted his words into your lies) Obama was ‘content’ to honor whatever deal Panetta could get.

How do you translate what your source explicitly tells you, into Obama ‘would NEVER honor a deal?’

How do you lie like that? How do you live with yourself when you lie like that?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

eagle1462010, post: 21476222

I was very surprised when we didn't find them........and in that regards the Dems including Billy Boy and Hillary all chanted the same message......

Both Hillary Clinton and Bill urged Bush to give the inspectors more time - do not invade.

So you have swallowed a right wing lie in that regard.

And yet Hillary voted to invade? Have your cake and eat it too...Not Fooled?

Do you ever stop lying, ya lyin’ con tool?

Ever???

There was never a vote to invade. There was only ever a vote to leave such a decision in the hands of the president and based on certain criteria being met. Bush was the decider.

And according to Trumpo, Bush lied to Eagle and to Hillary and to all of us about why he decided to invade.

Hillary urged Bush to not invade and give the inspectors more time. But Bush could not give the peaceful means of disarming Hussein more time because he was running on borrowed time with his lies.

Just ask Trumpo.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21525738

He and his inner circle had already decided that he'd be running for reelection with the message that he'd fulfilled his campaign promise to bring combat troops home from Iraq.

Of course that was Obama’s message.

Obama did indeed fulfil his promise to bring ‘combat’ troops home from Iraq In 2010,
Obama Declares an End to Combat Mission in Iraq
Aug 31, 2010 · Obama Declares End of Combat in Iraq AUG. 31, 2010 .... “Operation Iraqi Freedom is over,” Mr. Obama said

There were still 47,000 troops in Iraq at the time acting as advisers and facilitating the withdrawal that Bush negotiated. The combat mission was over.

Obama didn’t promise to bring every single ‘trainer and adviser’ out of Iraq and politically it wouid not have mattered if a few thousand non-combat troops remained behind if they were to be granted immunity.

I can say no polltical impact because Obama surged 30,000 troops into Afghanistan in a combat role prior to declaring an end to the combat role in Iraq.

President Obama orders 30000 troops to Afghanistan in major escalation of war

Dec 2, 2009 · President Barack Obama has ordered a major but temporary escalation of the war in Afghanistan, sending an additional ...

That surge cost Obama dearly with his base. Keeping a few thousand trainers in Iraq in a support role would have had virtually zero impact on the hardcore anti war left had the Iraqis requested that and granted immunity.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21509382

You just can't admit that Obama screwed up on ISIS...

That’s because Obama did not screw up on ISIS. And you can’t tell me what the screw up was without lying about something.

It was not the USA’s decision whether or not to keep US troops in Iraq unless there was a request by Iraq to keep a specific number there after 2011.

Maliki gave the final word on Iraq’s decision.

NotfooledbyW, post: 9688184,

Above is reality. Here is reality in the WSJ No less.

""This agreement is not subject to extension, not subject to alteration. It is sealed."

Iraqi Prime Minister Says U.S. Forces Must Leave On Time - WSJ"

In the face of reality the propagandists will defer to ambiguity. The friend of liars.

Obama did not screw up. He could not screw up a decision that was not his decision to make.

Here’s your lie from two years ago, Oldstyle.

Oldstyle, post: 9690756

Bottom line is this, little buddy...if the President of the United States had insisted on keeping a force of 10,000 US troops in Iraq as was the plan under Bush and what our military leaders were advising...then Maliki would not have had a choice but to comply.

Back then you said Obama’s insistence would have left Maliki no choice but to comply - and somehow get Parliament and Muqtada al Sadr to comply.

You’ve been lying about Obama for a long time.

You screwed up Oldstyle. You can’t keep your lies straight.

 

[depotoo]

U.S. says no timeline for Syria withdrawal as fighting continues

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21520982

Maliki a leader who recognized the danger that a premature withdrawal of US combat troops presented.

No he didn’t. You are lying.

You make this crap up in your hate driven head.

You must try to explain why your lame brained fantasies should be accepted as truth over what Maliki actually said at the time history was being made.


Iraqi prime minister: U.S. troop departure by end of 2011 'sealed'

From the WSJ interview:

Mr. Maliki played down Iraq's need for any major help from the U.S. military, even while acknowledging serious deficiencies in areas including control of airspace and borders. He said the days when ethnic or sectarian-based militias roamed the streets of Iraq and operated above the law were over.

"Not a single militia or gang can confront Iraqi forces and take over a street or a house," said Mr. Maliki. "This is finished; we are comfortable about that."

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21509382

You just can't admit that Obama screwed up on ISIS...

That’s because Obama did not screw up on ISIS. And you can’t tell me what the screw up was without lying about something.

It was not the USA’s decision whether or not to keep US troops in Iraq unless there was a request by Iraq to keep a specific number there after 2011.

Maliki gave the final word on Iraq’s decision.

NotfooledbyW, post: 9688184,

Above is reality. Here is reality in the WSJ No less.

""This agreement is not subject to extension, not subject to alteration. It is sealed."

Iraqi Prime Minister Says U.S. Forces Must Leave On Time - WSJ"

In the face of reality the propagandists will defer to ambiguity. The friend of liars.

Obama did not screw up. He could not screw up a decision that was not his decision to make.

Here’s your lie from two years ago, Oldstyle.

Oldstyle, post: 9690756

Bottom line is this, little buddy...if the President of the United States had insisted on keeping a force of 10,000 US troops in Iraq as was the plan under Bush and what our military leaders were advising...then Maliki would not have had a choice but to comply.

Back then you said Obama’s insistence would have left Maliki no choice but to comply - and somehow get Parliament and Muqtada al Sadr to comply.

You’ve been lying about Obama for a long time.

You screwed up Oldstyle. You can’t keep your lies straight.

You've been trying to excuse Obama's poor judgment for a long time, Not Fooled! It's obvious to anyone that listens to what Leon Panetta says that Barack Obama didn't want to get a new Status of Forces Agreement and that EVERYONE involved in the negotiations understood that! Panetta knew it. Maliki knew it. The expiring SOFA was going to be Barry's excuse to go against his military leaders counsel and pull out the remaining US combat troops. If I'm "lying" then so is Leon Panetta! Care to make that charge?

 

[Oldstyle]

eagle1462010, post: 21476222

I was very surprised when we didn't find them........and in that regards the Dems including Billy Boy and Hillary all chanted the same message......

Both Hillary Clinton and Bill urged Bush to give the inspectors more time - do not invade.

So you have swallowed a right wing lie in that regard.

And yet Hillary voted to invade? Have your cake and eat it too...Not Fooled?

Do you ever stop lying, ya lyin’ con tool?

Ever???

There was never a vote to invade. There was only ever a vote to leave such a decision in the hands of the president and based on certain criteria being met. Bush was the decider.

"I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20,000 people...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security...

This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. Perhaps my decision is influenced by my 8 years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our Nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war."

Hillary Clinton's speech on the Senate floor before casting her vote to approve an invasion of Iraq. Library of Congress transcript. You're even more clueless than Not Fooled, Faun!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21532671

! It's obvious to anyone that listens to what Leon Panetta says that Barack Obama didn't want to get a new Status of Forces Agreement and that EVERYONE involved in the negotiations understood that! Panetta knew it. Maliki knew it.

It is obvious that it is a liar who wouid read that Panetta said Obama wouid have accepted whatever Panetta could negotiate and then say, lying through their teeth, that Obama wouid not accept what Panetta could negotiate.

That is so obvious a lie that it’s hard to believe that you are so deprived of moral character that you think endless repetition of a lie somehow makes it true.

I have posted ever so much more proof that you have been lying about this since 2014 when your original claim (prior to Panetta’s self promoting book tour) was that if Obama insisted on keeping ten thousand combat troops in Iraq after 2011 that Maliki “had no choice” but to take them.

Please explain to us why you have abandoned your original 2014 lie in favor of lying about what Panetta wrote two years after Maliki has been quoted in an interview with the WSJ saying he saw no need to keep American troops in Iraq after 2011.

You didn’t know in 2014 that it was Maliki’s sovereign and political choice whether to request a US troop presence after 2011 or not.

You did not know that Maliki’s refusal or inability to continue the immunity with any request for troops was a unanimous deal breaker on the US side of the negotiations.

You have somehow absorbed those two facts into your hate filled head but instead of admitting you are wrong you have twisted the facts even further into your current lie that Obama deliberately sent a negotiating team to Baghdad to negotiate a deal with Maliki for a continued troop presence but if a deal was achieved Obama didn’t really want one so he wouid have pulled the rug from the deal and not kept a single soldier in Iraq after 2011 so he could have a campaign slogan through the up coming election.

You have abandoned your original lie which was based upon ignorance of certain facts for a totally fabricated and absurd lie that makes no sense on its own and has less chance to be true than the first one.

You are the energizer bunny of liars. You keep going and going and going.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21532723

Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction.

You idiot. You are citing Hillary Clinton’s Iraq War vote speech explaining “Any vote that may lead to war” in support of your misunderstanding that there was a “vote to invade Iraq’ in October 2002 when there were no UN inspectors on Iraqi soil and Bush was saying he wanted them in to avoid war,

Apparently in ignorance of the facts you stated that Hillary voted to invade.

Oldstyle, post: 21500067

And yet Hillary voted to invade?

So why are you pointing out that Hillary did not vote to invade?

You cite her speech where she used the phrase that her vote “may” lead to war. How was her vote for an invasion that she understood at the time may not happen?

Please explain.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21532723

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.

You idiot. You are citing Hillary Clinton’s Iraq War vote speech explaining “It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue........ “ in support of your misunderstanding that there was a “vote to invade Iraq’ in October 2002 when there were no UN inspectors on Iraqi soil and Bush was saying he wanted them in to avoid war,

Apparently in ignorance of the facts you stated that Hillary voted to invade.

Oldstyle, post: 21500067

And yet Hillary voted to invade?

So why are you pointing out that Hillary did not vote to invade?

You cite her speech where she used the phrase “ .. if left unchecked”. How was her vote for an invasion when she understood at the time that Saddam Hussein’s regime would not be “unchecked” if UN inspectors could be ‘forced to return’ and they would be allowed to finish their work.

Please explain.

And please acknowledge that you recognize the fact that Iraq was not left unchecked when UN inspectors returned to Iraq in December 2002 and were conducting inspections until Bush, not Saddam Hussein, forced them to leave before completing their work.

Hillary’s vote was a vote for the resumption of inspections in order to avert the need to invade.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21532723

I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war."

You idiot. You are citing Hillary Clinton’s Iraq War vote speech explaining “I want this President,.. , to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war.“ in support of your misunderstanding that there was a “vote to invade Iraq’ in October 2002 when there were no UN inspectors on Iraqi soil and Bush was saying he wanted them in to avoid war,

Apparently in ignorance of the facts you stated that Hillary voted to invade.

Oldstyle, post: 21500067

And yet Hillary voted to invade?

So why are you pointing out that Hillary did not vote to invade?

You cite her speech where she used the phrase that her vote was for Bush to .. lead our country in the United Nations or in war.“ ”. How was her vote for an invasion since she understood at the time that Bush was stating his preference was to go through the United Nations in order to avoid war.

Please explain.

And please acknowledge that you recognize the fact that an invasion of Iraq was not necessary because UN inspectors returned to Iraq in December 2002 and were conducting inspections until Bush, not Saddam Hussein, forced them to leave before completing their work.

Hillary’s vote was a vote first of all to force Saddam Hussein and the United Nations to resume inspections in order to avert the need to invade.