Trump pulls out of Syria then lies about defeating Isis

[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.

"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!

Faun is not clueless -you are.

I just posted three posts showing you that in Hillary’s speech you just cited it proves that Hillary did NOT vote to invade.

Quite stupid of you to post a speech that proves that Faun was absolutely correct and you were wrong.

And then you you accuse us of being clueless.

When you are not lying you are an idiot.

I see why you admire Trumpo so much.

Birds of a feather.

Here is a part of Senator Clinton’s speech that you did not cite

“If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.”

A golden oldie: Hillary's floor speech to invade Iraq

This was no vote to invade.

“If we get the [UN] resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. “

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

So you ARE accusing Leon Panetta of lying? Amusing stuff, Not Fooled! Panetta tells the truth about what was happening back then...is perfectly candid about what was going on with negotiations for a new SOFA and why it never had a chance of happening...and because that candid explanation makes it clear that Barry made a political decision based on what he thought would get him reelected instead of one that was based on the advice of his military leaders...you have to accuse Leon Panetta...about as well respected a man as we've had in Washington in a long time...of being a liar too!

Keep on spamming your bullshit...you seem to think volume will overcome content!

 

[Oldstyle]

So now you on the left are claiming that Clinton really DIDN'T vote to give George W. Bush the go ahead to attack Iraq? That's as big a lie as the one you've been telling that Barack Obama DID try and get a new SOFA!

Clinton’s Iraq War Vote Still Appalls

 

[NotfooledbyW]

So you ARE accusing Leon Panetta of lying?

No the liar us you. You have re-arranged your wording again but it remains your flat out lie regarding what Panetta said.

Panetta tells the truth about what was happening back then...is perfectly candid about what was going on with negotiations for a new SOFA and why it never had a chance of happening...

You claim Panetta tells the truth that a new SOFA never had a chance of happening..

That is not true. Panetta said that the Obama White House......
11130720

.....seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one,.......

So you are lying. The truth according to Panetta is that Obama did not stand in the way or block attempts a write a new SOFA. That is truth. You need to learn that telling the truth is very important specifically when it comes to truth written in words, when someone like Panetta is selling his book.

When you decide to quit lying about what Panetta actually said I will discuss Panetta’s opinion as he self-promoted himself that he in 20-20 hindsight was correct that Obama should have begged and threatened the Iraqis and advocated more strongly in person to keep combat troops there.

I am not calling Panetta a liar for expressing an opinion in 2014 that he didnt express to a Senate hearing when he had the chance in 2011.

I’m saying Panetta’s opinion is wrong. There is plenty of history out there to make that call.

But the truth in 2019 is that ISIS did not erase a single ‘gain’ that the US military achieved when it finally was extricated from the quagmire of a war that a Republican President led us into like a blindfolded drunken fool on a pier.

Obama famously said it would be a dumb war if Bush were to invade Iraq and that opinion prior to the tragic events that followed is the strongest and leading opinion about the Iraq invasion that deserved universal respect.

Had Bush only listened to a wiser young man.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21534039

So now you on the left are claiming that Clinton really DIDN'T vote to give George W. Bush the go ahead to attack Iraq?

Changing your language again, liar are you?

I’m claiming Clinton and all Senators voted to authorize the use of force if Bush could not succeed as he was at the time stating he would first go to the UN to achieve a new Resolution to force a new tougher inspection regime that would determine once for all the disarmament status of Iraq’s WMD activities.

So if you were capable of understanding the meaning of two words, “IF NECESSARY “ you would realize that did not really give Bush the go ahead to attack Iraq.

Bush promised to go to the UN to avoid a military attack and war to disarm Saddam Hussein and he did. And inspections resumed.

Hillary did not give the go ahead to attack Iraq while inspections under UN supervising were engaged.

Her mistake was taking Bush at his word that he wanted to avoid war unless it was absolutely necessary.

Many fault her for that but I don’t, I think her bite was correct and it at least forced inspections. That puts the total blame for the invasion on the DECIDER and the decider alone.

The inspections should have been allowed to continue as Hillary stated before the invasion.

So deal with it like a man Oldstyle. The Iraq quagmire was unleashed by a Republican President,

And your Trumpo said that Bush lied to justify the invasion.

That means Bush lied to Hillary too.

The shame is on him.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21534039

That's as big a lie as the one you've been telling that Barack Obama DID try and get a new SOFA!

According to Panetta Obama did try to get a SOFA. That is what Panetta and State were doing for months. In the end The Iraqis did not see the need for a continued troop presence with immunity and there was never an Iraqi request for any troops to remain.

So you are the only liar here. That is irrefutable.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21534017

Keep on spamming your bullshit...you seem to think volume will overcome content!

My content is solid. You have not challenged one single fact that has been presented to you.

You lied four years ago about this. Your post that I dug up is not spam. You cannot deny that you lied with several others when ISIS began its rampage across the Sunni population of Iraq. You said Maliki could not refuse to keep 10,000 US Troops in Iraq if Obama insisted.

Why did you lie like that and today have no remorse.

If you lie once, you will likely lie again. And you have.

 

[Oldstyle]

So you ARE accusing Leon Panetta of lying?

No the liar us you. You have re-arranged your wording again but it remains your flat out lie regarding what Panetta said.

Panetta tells the truth about what was happening back then...is perfectly candid about what was going on with negotiations for a new SOFA and why it never had a chance of happening...

You claim Panetta tells the truth that a new SOFA never had a chance of happening..

That is not true. Panetta said that the Obama White House......
11130720

.....seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one,.......

So you are lying. The truth according to Panetta is that Obama did not stand in the way or block attempts a write a new SOFA. That is truth. You need to learn that telling the truth is very important specifically when it comes to truth written in words, when someone like Panetta is selling his book.

When you decide to quit lying about what Panetta actually said I will discuss Panetta’s opinion as he self-promoted himself that he in 20-20 hindsight was correct that Obama should have begged and threatened the Iraqis and advocated more strongly in person to keep combat troops there.

I am not calling Panetta a liar for expressing an opinion in 2014 that he didnt express to a Senate hearing when he had the chance in 2011.

I’m saying Panetta’s opinion is wrong. There is plenty of history out there to make that call.

But the truth in 2019 is that ISIS did not erase a single ‘gain’ that the US military achieved when it finally was extricated from the quagmire of a war that a Republican President led us into like a blindfolded drunken fool on a pier.

Obama famously said it would be a dumb war if Bush were to invade Iraq and that opinion prior to the tragic events that followed is the strongest and leading opinion about the Iraq invasion that deserved universal respect.

Had Bush only listened to a wiser young man.

Speaking of "rearranging" words...why did you provide only part of what Panetta said and fail to provide the rest? Because it disputes what you now claim?

You now state that Panetta was stating an opinion that was "wrong" yet who better than he to understand the dynamics of why there was no new SOFA attained by the Obama Administration! The difference between his public comments earlier and his public comments later? When he spoke to the Senate he was a cabinet member of the Obama Administration and appearing before the Senate to present the Obama Administration's version of the truth. When he wrote his book as a private citizen he was giving HIS opinion on what took place!

I'm curious...do you think spamming that I "lie" repeatedly somehow makes it so? What did Goebbels say about that?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Speaking of "rearranging" words...why did you provide only part of what Panetta said and fail to provide the rest? Because it disputes what you now claim?

I didnt rerarange any words you liar.

 

[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.

"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!

Lying con tool, here’s what Hillary voted for...

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.​

... she did not vote to invade Iraq, as you falsely claimed; she voted to leave the decision to do so up to Bush.

 

[Faun]

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.

So you ARE accusing Leon Panetta of lying? Amusing stuff, Not Fooled! Panetta tells the truth about what was happening back then...is perfectly candid about what was going on with negotiations for a new SOFA and why it never had a chance of happening...and because that candid explanation makes it clear that Barry made a political decision based on what he thought would get him reelected instead of one that was based on the advice of his military leaders...you have to accuse Leon Panetta...about as well respected a man as we've had in Washington in a long time...of being a liar too!

Keep on spamming your bullshit...you seem to think volume will overcome content!

No, not only is he accusing you of lying, not Panetta; he’s highlighting your lies.

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

Ever???

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21536722

You now state that Panetta was stating an opinion that was "wrong" yet who better than he to understand the dynamics of why there was no new SOFA attained by the Obama Administration!

You have been lying about what Panetta said. Let’s be clear about that. Had you expressed your opinion based upon Panetta’s opinion I would have dealt with that sooner.

We can’t have a discussion with someone like you who lies about something the person you are citing said.

I don’t lie about what people say in writing. You do. It’s a problem. When you admit that Panetta never said that Obama was never going to accept a SOFA if Panetta and State were successful at achieving one.

Do you take back that lie?

 

[Faun]

So now you on the left are claiming that Clinton really DIDN'T vote to give George W. Bush the go ahead to attack Iraq? That's as big a lie as the one you've been telling that Barack Obama DID try and get a new SOFA!

Clinton’s Iraq War Vote Still Appalls

Lying con tool, we are saying Hillary gave Bush the authorization to invade if he believed it was necessary.

She didn’t vote to invade. You lied when you falsely claimed she did. And her vote scared Hussein into allowing U.N. inspectors back into Iraq; reducing the need for us to invade.

Do you ever stop lying?

Ever???

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21536722,

When he wrote his book as a private citizen he was giving HIS opinion on what took place!

You also said in 2011 Panetta was giving the Obama version of the truth when testifying before Congress.

An important aspect of that testimony was that the Obama ‘truth’ at that time according to Panetta was that the SOFA negotiators were neither pressuring or begging the Iraqis to keep troops in Iraq.

So Okdstyle was Panetta lying in his testimony to Congress in 2011 or not. Please don’t run from answering this question.


Interesting posts from 2014.

And here is Petraeus answering what would it have happened if we had had 25,000 troops still on the ground?

"No one knows whether forces there would have given us an influence. That’s the question for the ages. They were out of combat, out of the cities and out of the advising."

Petraeus says "NO ONE KNOWS.....
Oldstyle tells us he KNOWS....

Petraeus says know one knows "whether forces there would have given us an influence"
Oldstyle tells us he KNOWS that ...forces there would have given us an influence"

Petraeus says our troops were out of combat, out of the cities and out of the advising.
Oldstyle tells us that troops out of combat, out of the cities and out of the advising could make a difference.

Petraeus says he would have loved it even more if he knew that remaining troops were going to have a mission that would allow them to continue to contribute to the sustainment of the progress - meaning he doesn't know if Maliki would have allowed that to happen.

Oldstyle tells us that he knows that Maliki would have allowed that to happen.


So who is it going to be? Petraeus former Bush's top general in Iraq and CIA Director when ISIL was gaining strength in Syria?

Or is it the keyboard commando who manufactures this kind of false realities with nearly every single post:

What you refuse to admit is that Barack Obama held huge sway over Iraq's policies because we were subsidizing the Maliki regime with billions of dollars in aid. If Obama had WANTED to play hardball with Maliki then he could have gotten just about any concession he wanted by threatening to cut off that aid.

Maliki was not the only party that Obama had to force concessions upon. Maliki was in power as a result of the Sadrists who are led by Muqtada al Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric who would discard US aid in a heartbeat. Bush had no sway over Sadr or his militia turned political party.

So how does Obama persuade the Sadrists who were needed in the Parliament to extend the stay of US troops after December 31 2011?

"Petraeus says our troops were out of combat, out of the cities and out of the advising."

Well...duh! The REASON they were out of combat, out of the cities and out of advising was because they were being withdrawn! Petraeus then goes on to express, rather plaintively I thought, how he wished we hadn't given away so easily what so many Americans died for.

I’ll have some comments on things you said back then when you tell me if you think Panetta lied in 2011 before Congress.

 

[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. That's exactly what Leon Panetta described after leaving the White House but you can't admit that because then you'd have to admit that Barack Obama caused the humanitarian crisis that followed for political reasons.

If Maliki recognized the danger of a premature withdrawal of US troops then why wouid the Obama Administration need to threaten Maliki to get him to try to persuade Iraqi leaders to vote to keep the additional troops there

Why do what you said to do four years ago?!

Oldstyle, post: 9765984

What you refuse to admit is that Barack Obama held huge sway over Iraq's policies because we were subsidizing the Maliki regime with billions of dollars in aid. If Obama had WANTED to play hardball with Maliki then he could have gotten just about any concession he wanted by threatening to cut off that aid. Obama didn't DO that however because he wanted to be out of Iraq. That was HIS decision.

Were you suggesting cutting off $13 billion of US military sales to Iraq as well?

The OSC-I will help fill these gaps by managing a $13 billion Foreign Military Sales program, training the ISF on weapons systems, carrying out joint U.S.-Iraqi military exercises, and implementing military exchange and professionalization programs. Some analogue to the OSC-I will likely be considered in Afghanistan in the coming years (a similar office already exists in the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan).
https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/The_United_States_in_Iraq.pdf

Think about that, idiot.

.
The Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program is a form of security assistance authorized by the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), as amended [22 U.S.C. 2751, et. seq.] and a fundamental tool of U.S. foreign policy.

Under Section 3, of the AECA, the U.S. may sell defense articles and services to foreign countries and international organizations when the President formally finds that to do so will strengthen the security of the U.S. and promote world peace.

Under FMS, the U.S. Government and a foreign government enter into a government-to-government agreement called a Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA).

 

[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!

Lying con tool, here’s what Hillary voted for...

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.​

... she did not vote to invade Iraq, as you falsely claimed; she voted to leave the decision to do so up to Bush.

What a crock of shit that is! You both know that Hillary was giving Bush the go ahead to invade Iraq but the two of you are too dishonest to admit it! You're as clueless about Hillary's vote as you are about Obama's desire to get a new SOFA!

 

[Oldstyle]

Keep on spamming the same nonsense...it doesn't change Obama's decision to pull combat troops that gave ISIS the opportunity to rape, murder and terrorize a vast swath of the Middle East! Nor will it ever change Hillary Clinton's vote to let Bush invade Iraq!

Gee, I wonder what the innocent civilians that were abused by ISIS animals think about Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize? Talk about someone being given something because a bunch of liberals in Oslo thought he was going to be wonderful but instead he turned out to be a disaster of biblical proportions for the Middle East! Think it's too late to get that prize back?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You both know that Hillary was giving Bush the go ahead to invade Iraq but the two of you are too dishonest to admit it!

You cannot call me dishonest since Clinton voted to give Bush the go ahead to invade Iraq if the UN and Saddam Hussein did not resume inspections.

You posted parts of Hillary’s Iraq vote speech where she explains that very clearly.

When she voted in October 2002 there were no inspectors in Iraq.

When Bush decided to invade Iraq in March 2003 the inspectors were in Iraq.

When you simply state Hillary voted to invade Iraq as if the decision to invade was made on the date she voted it is a lie.

That’s how it works. Language matters .

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21545969

it doesn't change Obama's decision to pull combat troops that gave ISIS the opportunity to rape, murder and terrorize a vast swath of the Middle East!

It was not OBAMA’s decision to pull combat troops from Iraq. It was Maliki’s decision (according to Maliki a year before the deadline for troops to leave arrived) that US troops were not needed after 2011.

Maliki made no request for troops so Obama had no decision to make.

Only liars claim withdrawing troops from Iraq was Obama’s decision. It was not.

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

From the WSJ interview:


"The last American soldier will leave Iraq" as agreed, Nouri al-Maliki said in an extensive interview with The Wall Street Journal. "This agreement is not subject to extension, not subject to alteration. It is sealed."

"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.


Maliki’s quote is on the record. You cannot rely on the record to back up your conspiracy theory. You have to claim that Maliki was lying in public to the WSJ because he really wanted thousands of troops to stay.

When the Prime Minister of Iraq tells a US Newspaper that the SOFA is not subject to extension, not subject to alteration. It is sealed he has shown the Iraqi people a year before the withdrawal deadline that Iraq is secure and nothing can persuade them that foreign combat are needed.

The decision was made by Maliki. He published his decision boldly and on the record.

Live with it and quit lying.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Gee, I wonder what the innocent civilians that were abused by ISIS animals think about Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize?

As if you actually care about terrorists killing Muslims.

If you wish to learn what really caused the fall of Mosul read this:

General factors behind the fall of Mosul in 2014 are:
 Sectarian policies: Marginalisation of the Sunni minority following the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq fostered anger and resentment. De-Ba’athification policies and the dissolution of the Iraqi army made Mosul a fertile recruiting ground for extremist groups like ISIL.
 Lack of a post-2003 roadmap: The US’ lack of a post-2003 plan for Iraq also contributed to the rise of ISIL.
 Political system: The deeply flawed political system in Iraq was arguably a key factor behind the fall of Mosul.

Proximate factors behind the fall of Mosul are:
 Former Prime Minister Maliki’s consolidation of his personal power base: There is general consensus in the literature on the fall of Mosul, that Maliki’s emphasis on expanding his own personal power base at the expense of the effectiveness of state institutions was one of the factors leading to the rapid fall of Mosul in the face of the ISIL onslaught.
 Sectarian policies: The violent suppression of Sunni protestors, and the disbanding of the Sahwa2 fostered anger and resentment among the Sunni community, making them more open to recruitment by extremist groups.
 The state of the armed forces and ISIL fighters: While some argue that the ferocity and commitment of ISIL fighters led to their success in Mosul, there is a general consensus in the literature that the Iraqi armed forces’ ineptitude and lack of equipment was a more significant factor behind the city’s fall to ISIL.
 The international community’s shortcomings: The international community’s unwavering support for Maliki also contributed to fall of Mosul, as they failed to push for political reform.

https://assets.publishing.service.g..._Factors_behind_the_fall_of_Mosul_in_2014.pdf


No one blames Obama for respecting Iraq’s sovereignty and withdraw troops by the Bush/Maliki deadline.