Trump pulls out of Syria then lies about defeating Isis

[Oldstyle]

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.

Once again...Leon Panetta disagrees with you and he was in a better position to know what really happened than you were! Panetta says a new SOFA was never going to agreed on because Barack Obama didn't want a new SOFA because he wanted to pull combat troops out of Iraq and the expiring SOFA gave him the out he wanted! It's why Obama declared in his debate with Romney that he wasn't trying to work out a deal because he didn't want the troops to stay. You and Faun are attempting to rewrite history because Obama's decision to take out all of the combat troops (going against the advice of his military advisors) now looks so ill advised because of how badly he misjudged ISIS.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21547267

Once again...Leon Panetta disagrees with you and he was in a better position to know what really happened than you were! Panetta says a new SOFA was never going to agreed on because Barack Obama didn't want a new SOFA because he wanted to pull combat troops out of Iraq and the expiring SOFA gave him the out he wanted!

Your claim:

“Panetta says a new SOFA was never going to agreed on ....

Is a lie.

Panetta said Obama wouid be “content” to accept an agreed on SOFA as long as it had immunity for the troops.

Quit lying about what Panetta said.

 

[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.

Once again...Leon Panetta disagrees with you and he was in a better position to know what really happened than you were! Panetta says a new SOFA was never going to agreed on because Barack Obama didn't want a new SOFA because he wanted to pull combat troops out of Iraq and the expiring SOFA gave him the out he wanted! It's why Obama declared in his debate with Romney that he wasn't trying to work out a deal because he didn't want the troops to stay. You and Faun are attempting to rewrite history because Obama's decision to take out all of the combat troops (going against the advice of his military advisors) now looks so ill advised because of how badly he misjudged ISIS.

“You and Faun are attempting to rewrite history because Obama's decision to take out all of the combat troops (going against the advice of his military advisors) now looks so ill advised because of how badly he misjudged ISIS”

Explain how it was Obama’s decision in view of the fact that Iraq did not request troops to stay.

Panetta said Obama did not endorse threatening the Iraqis in order to force a request for troops to remain.

That is not the same as turning down a request for troops by the Iraqis.

So you are still lying.

 

[Faun]

eagle1462010, post: 21476222 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!

Lying con tool, you never stop lying.

Bush said the resolution did not mean we were necessarily going to war; that the resolution was intended to get Hussein to comply with the U.N.

”Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.”

Which Hillary echoed...

Mrs. Clinton said she had concluded that bipartisan support would make the president's success at the United Nations ”more likely and, therefore, war less likely.”

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Once again...Leon Panetta disagrees with you and he was in a better position to know what really happened than you were! Panetta says a new SOFA was never going to agreed on because Barack Obama didn't want a new SOFA because he wanted to pull combat troops out of Iraq and the expiring SOFA gave him the out he wanted! It's why Obama declared in his debate with Romney that he wasn't trying to work out a deal because he didn't want the troops to stay. You and Faun are attempting to rewrite history because Obama's decision to take out all of the combat troops (going against the advice of his military advisors) now looks so ill advised because of how badly he misjudged ISIS.

“You and Faun are attempting to rewrite history because Obama's decision to take out all of the combat troops (going against the advice of his military advisors) now looks so ill advised because of how badly he misjudged ISIS”

Explain how it was Obama’s decision in view of the fact that Iraq did not request troops to stay.

Panetta said Obama did not endorse threatening the Iraqis in order to force a request for troops to remain.

That is not the same as turning down a request for troops by the Iraqis.

So you are still lying.

What part of this concept can't you grasp? Maliki wasn't going to give his political opposition in Iraq ammunition to use against him by requesting a small force of American combat troops remain to stabilize Iraq if he knew that the President of the United States had no intention of letting those troops stay! Maliki knew that was the case because Obama was already running for office using a stump speech in which he boasted about keeping his promise to bring combat troops home!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21549246

What part of this concept can't you grasp? Maliki wasn't going to give his political opposition in Iraq ammunition to use against him by requesting a small force of American combat troops remain to stabilize Iraq if he knew that the President of the United States had no intention of letting those troops stay!

Maliki gave his political opposition and supporters all they needed when in December 2010, one year before the withdrawal deadline, he went public for all the world to know, (except you Oldstyle) that a continued US troop presence was not needed and there would be no extension of the 2008 SOFA.

And you want me to accept your bullshit explanation that what Maliki really thought in private was that US troops were desperately needed and if Obama personally begged or threatened to cut off support that Maliki was gong to go to his people and explain that he was lying to the WSJ and never meant a word of that.

Your lies are not only deplorable and despicable - the are about as absurd as you can get.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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!

Lying con tool, you never stop lying.

Bush said the resolution did not mean we were necessarily going to war; that the resolution was intended to get Hussein to comply with the U.N.

”Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.”

Which Hillary echoed...

Mrs. Clinton said she had concluded that bipartisan support would make the president's success at the United Nations ”more likely and, therefore, war less likely.”

In addition to those facts there is the not so often mentioned Colin Powell interview with George Strephanopolis around the end of the year 2002 where Powell stated that the invasion and war was not inevitable because Iraq was cooperating with inspectors.

Powell said we see if that cooperation continues.

Don’t know what happened to Powell after that because Iraq’s cooperation continued to improve.

Cheney must have had Powell water boarded to put an end to that war ain’t gonna happen talk.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21549246

What part of this concept can't you grasp? Maliki wasn't going to give his political opposition in Iraq ammunition to use against him by requesting a small force of American combat troops remain to stabilize Iraq if he knew that the President of the United States had no intention of letting those troops stay!

Maliki gave his political opposition and supporters all they needed when in December 2010, one year before the withdrawal deadline, he went public for all the world to know, (except you Oldstyle) that a continued US troop presence was not needed and there would be no extension of the 2008 SOFA.

And you want me to accept your bullshit explanation that what Maliki really thought in private was that US troops were desperately needed and if Obama personally begged or threatened to cut off support that Maliki was gong to go to his people and explain that he was lying to the WSJ and never meant a word of that.

Your lies are not only deplorable and despicable - the are about as absurd as you can get.

You don't have to accept my word for it...you can take Leon Panetta's word for it!

 

[Faun]

Oldstyle, post: 21549246

What part of this concept can't you grasp? Maliki wasn't going to give his political opposition in Iraq ammunition to use against him by requesting a small force of American combat troops remain to stabilize Iraq if he knew that the President of the United States had no intention of letting those troops stay!

Maliki gave his political opposition and supporters all they needed when in December 2010, one year before the withdrawal deadline, he went public for all the world to know, (except you Oldstyle) that a continued US troop presence was not needed and there would be no extension of the 2008 SOFA.

And you want me to accept your bullshit explanation that what Maliki really thought in private was that US troops were desperately needed and if Obama personally begged or threatened to cut off support that Maliki was gong to go to his people and explain that he was lying to the WSJ and never meant a word of that.

Your lies are not only deplorable and despicable - the are about as absurd as you can get.

You don't have to accept my word for it...you can take Leon Panetta's word for it!

What a pity you can’t actually quote Panetta saying the words you ascribe to him.

 

[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.

Once again...Leon Panetta disagrees with you and he was in a better position to know what really happened than you were! Panetta says a new SOFA was never going to agreed on because Barack Obama didn't want a new SOFA because he wanted to pull combat troops out of Iraq and the expiring SOFA gave him the out he wanted! It's why Obama declared in his debate with Romney that he wasn't trying to work out a deal because he didn't want the troops to stay. You and Faun are attempting to rewrite history because Obama's decision to take out all of the combat troops (going against the advice of his military advisors) now looks so ill advised because of how badly he misjudged ISIS.

“You and Faun are attempting to rewrite history because Obama's decision to take out all of the combat troops (going against the advice of his military advisors) now looks so ill advised because of how badly he misjudged ISIS”

Explain how it was Obama’s decision in view of the fact that Iraq did not request troops to stay.

Panetta said Obama did not endorse threatening the Iraqis in order to force a request for troops to remain.

That is not the same as turning down a request for troops by the Iraqis.

So you are still lying.

What part of this concept can't you grasp? Maliki wasn't going to give his political opposition in Iraq ammunition to use against him by requesting a small force of American combat troops remain to stabilize Iraq if he knew that the President of the United States had no intention of letting those troops stay! Maliki knew that was the case because Obama was already running for office using a stump speech in which he boasted about keeping his promise to bring combat troops home!

All your bull crap and you still cannot explain how ending the troop deployment in Iraq was Obama’s decision.

That’s what I asked. I don’t care about speculating on Maliki's political drama.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21550923

You don't have to accept my word for it...you can take Leon Panetta's word for it!

I am taking Panetta’s word for it. He said Obama wouid have kept troops in Iraq if Panetta and the others could get a request from the Iraqis that included immunity.

Panetta’s words are how I know that those who claim Obama was never going to keep troops in Iraq after the Bush deadline are liars.

You think Panetta is god’s gift to truth when selling a book, so I don’t understand why the fact that Obama was willing to keep troops in Iraq if Iraq requested them cannot get through that thick lying skull of yours.

Just admit it. You are not being truthful when you claim that Obama would NEVER keep troops in Iraq after 2011.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21550923

You don't have to accept my word for it...you can take Leon Panetta's word for it!

Panetta does not mention in the quote you provided the fact that Maliki was on record at the WSJ a year before the deadline very strongly stating that Iraq did not need US troops after 2011.

After that very 2010 clear closing of the door on a residual force, I don’t see how Maliki goes to his most important support in Parliament (fiery anti-American cleric Muqtada al Sadr) to explain that Obama was threatening Iraq’s lawmakers so Maliki is newly convinced that Iraq, under US threat, needs US troops to stay because Iraq’s police and soldiers are still not ready to defend the state.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21550923

You don't have to accept my word for it...you can take Leon Panetta's word for it!

I am taking Panetta’s word for it. He said Obama wouid have kept troops in Iraq if Panetta and the others could get a request from the Iraqis that included immunity.

Panetta’s words are how I know that those who claim Obama was never going to keep troops in Iraq after the Bush deadline are liars.

You think Panetta is god’s gift to truth when selling a book, so I don’t understand why the fact that Obama was willing to keep troops in Iraq if Iraq requested them cannot get through that thick lying skull of yours.

Just admit it. You are not being truthful when you claim that Obama would NEVER keep troops in Iraq after 2011.

I think Panetta was far more forthcoming about what took place once he had left the Obama Administration and was simply a private citizen speaking about a topic rather than a representative of a White House who was sent out to deliver a message to the public. Obama was NEVER going to keep troops in Iraq no matter WHAT Maliki requested! Panetta admits that. Obama admitted as much when he was debating Romney! You can't admit that NOW however because of how bad it makes Obama look given how much damage ISIS did after his withdrawal of combat troops.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21550923

You don't have to accept my word for it...you can take Leon Panetta's word for it!

Panetta does not mention in the quote you provided the fact that Maliki was on record at the WSJ a year before the deadline very strongly stating that Iraq did not need US troops after 2011.

After that very 2010 clear closing of the door on a residual force, I don’t see how Maliki goes to his most important support in Parliament (fiery anti-American cleric Muqtada al Sadr) to explain that Obama was threatening Iraq’s lawmakers so Maliki is newly convinced that Iraq, under US threat, needs US troops to stay because Iraq’s police and soldiers are still not ready to defend the state.

Sadr was Maliki's support in Parliament? God, your ignorance of what took place in Iraq back then is staggering!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21555266

Sadr was Maliki's support in Parliament? God, your ignorance of what took place in Iraq back then is staggering!

You dumbass. Sadr is the most virulent anti-American leader in Iraq. His militia used to kill American soldiers in opposition to the occupation.

If Maliki even thought about succumbing to US threats to demand a continued troop presence, Sadr would be Maliki’s strongest opposition.

If the Sadrist bloc in Parliament walked out on Maliki, that would be the end of his Prime Ministership

We were talking about opposition in Iraq to keeping troops. Sadr is that last Iraqi that would have extended the 2008 SOFA.

So you can think Sadr wouid support long term troop presence with immunity. How can you be that stupid.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21555260

I think Panetta was far more forthcoming about what took place once he had left the Obama Administration and was simply a private citizen speaking about a topic rather than a representative of a White House who was sent out to deliver a message to the public.

I was talking about you lying about what Panetta said when he was selling his book. Panetta said as a private citizen that Obama would have kept troops in Iraq if a new security arrangement could get done that included immunity.

That’s how I know you are lying when you accuse Obama of never ever going to approve a residual force in Iraq following the Bush quagmire there.

Panetta as a private citizen says Obama would have left troops in Iraq. You continue to claim that Obama would never have left troops in Iraq.

You sir, are lying.

 

[bendog]

Well it appears Dancing Donald is changing his tune on the Kurds

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21555260

I think Panetta was far more forthcoming about what took place once he had left the Obama Administration and was simply a private citizen speaking about a topic rather than a representative of a White House who was sent out to deliver a message to the public.

I was talking about you lying about what Panetta said when he was selling his book. Panetta said as a private citizen that Obama would have kept troops in Iraq if a new security arrangement could get done that included immunity.

That’s how I know you are lying when you accuse Obama of never ever going to approve a residual force in Iraq following the Bush quagmire there.

Panetta as a private citizen says Obama would have left troops in Iraq. You continue to claim that Obama would never have left troops in Iraq.

You sir, are lying.

You can't even keep the Obama talking points straight at this point, Not Fooled! When in doubt spam that the other side is "lying"?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21558153

You can't even keep the Obama talking points straight at this point, Not Fooled!

What’s not straight? I have explicitly described your lie and why it is a lie using your own source.

Your source says Obama wouid have kept troops in Iraq. You quote him and say Obama would never have kept troops in Iraq.

How are you not lying?

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21558153

You can't even keep the Obama talking points straight at this point, Not Fooled!

What’s not straight? I have explicitly described your lie and why it is a lie using your own source.

Your source says Obama wouid have kept troops in Iraq. You quote him and say Obama would never have kept troops in Iraq.

How are you not lying?

Panetta said one thing while he was working in the Obama Administration and then filled us in on what he really thought happened once he was no longer Secretary of Defense and being a good soldier. Obama himself said he didn't intend to keep troops in Iraq and wasn't seeking a SOFA when he debated Mitt Romney only to change that narrative LATER when the rise of ISIS became a source of embarrassment for his administration! It's why I say that you can't keep your talking points straight! You can't because they changed so dramatically from one moment in the Obama Presidency to another!