Yo Barack...can You Spell Kobani?

[Moonglow]

Hooray for our side, the IS attack on Khobani failed and they are at it again....

 

[NotfooledbyW]

10262399

Foo's stubborn fascination with 2003 and 2008 allows him to ignore the debacle of 2014.

I can understand why you need to ignore the underlying root causes of the IS terrorists attack in Sunni inhabited Iraq this year. But it was Spare_Change who brought up some kind of Bush winkin' and noddin' back in 2008 that he/she is using to undermine the current president's policy in dealing with the situation today. You of all people should appreciate what Obama is doing because I thought you agreed you don't want American ground troops going back in to do the fighting and dying for the 'democratization' and nation building after the great Bush 43 invasion to 'liberate and provide freedom and democracy in Iraq.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

4) As a result, despite the strong advice of DoD, Obama painted us in the corner that forced us to pull our troops out before their government was stable, their constitutional structure was defined, and their military was ready to protect their country.

Not so according to the US General in charge of Iraq from the Bush Administration General Ray Odierno:

However, Odierno gave a vote of confidence to the Iraqi forces who had taken over security for Baghdad after U.S. forces handed over control. "The Iraqis wanted to be in charge; they wanted the responsibilities; and they have demonstrated that they are capable," he said.

- source CNN.com - 4,000 U.S. troops expected to leave Iraq in October, CNN, September 30, 2009.

Are you saying Obama should have defied what the "Iraqis wanted" and the US General overseeing the war who said in 2009 in public that the Iraq military has demonstrated that they are capable. How does Obama negotiate or persuade Iraqis that they have suddenly become 'less capable' or incapable two years after Odierno tells them that they are?

Bush started this war and had five years to get it right. Now you want to blame Obama because Bush didn't get it right. How convenient of you.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

As a result, Iraqi politicians say, the likelihood is for the two sides to devise an interim pact extending the presence of American troops in Iraq in some mutually acceptable form for a limited amount of time."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03iraq.html?pagewanted=print

I asked you "What interim agreement was in place?. Agreement among whom?" - and you cited the above reference to something of an interim pact "for he two sides to devise" priorto July 31, 2008. You proved this too ""In the United States, President Bush has pushed hard for a deal to be completed by July 31. But Democrats in Congress are reluctant to sign off on an agreement before the presidential elections, and Republicans are split."


'll ask again "What interim agreement was in place?. Agreement among whom?

You will have to do better than to cite a reference to something TO BE DEVISED without providing any detail as to whether an Interim pact was ever devised. Many things in life are to be devised Spare_Change. I does not mean that they actually are.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

As a result, Iraqi politicians say, the likelihood is for the two sides to devise an interim pact extending the presence of American troops in Iraq in some mutually acceptable form for a limited amount of time."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03iraq.html?pagewanted=print

From your NYTimes link:

Noting that the United States cannot stay in Iraq without legal authorization, Mr. Zebari cited three options: “Either we conclude a status of forces agreement; or we have an interim agreement until a SOFA can be completed; or we go back to the Security Council at the end of the year and ask for another extension.”

I believe the explanation for your confusion is contained in the very same link to the NYTimes report that you provided.

It involves your apparent lack of understanding the use of the words "either" and "or" in this sentence:

"“Either we conclude a status of forces agreement; or we have an interim agreement until a SOFA can be completed; or we go back to the Security Council at the end of the year and ask for another extension.”

Only one of those three 'either/or" Scenarios panned out, it was not the interim pact. It was not the UN mandate.

 

[Spare_change]

As a result, Iraqi politicians say, the likelihood is for the two sides to devise an interim pact extending the presence of American troops in Iraq in some mutually acceptable form for a limited amount of time."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03iraq.html?pagewanted=print

I asked you "What interim agreement was in place?. Agreement among whom?" - and you cited the above reference to something of an interim pact "for he two sides to devise" priorto July 31, 2008. You proved this too ""In the United States, President Bush has pushed hard for a deal to be completed by July 31. But Democrats in Congress are reluctant to sign off on an agreement before the presidential elections, and Republicans are split."

'll ask again "What interim agreement was in place?. Agreement among whom?

You will have to do better than to cite a reference to something TO BE DEVISED without providing any detail as to whether an Interim pact was ever devised. Many things in life are to be devised Spare_Change. I does not mean that they actually are.

I notice you provide no counter-evidence, other than your unwillingness to properly interpret what you read.

But, in the interest of furthering your education .....

1) US military were opposed to deserting Iraq, expressed same to the administration, and had every expectation that they would be able to stay and finish the job.

Army planners have privately acknowledged they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000, but maybe as high as 70,000, for a substantial time beyond 2011. Pentagon planners say those currently counted as combat troops could be "re-missioned" and that their efforts could be redefined as training and support for the Iraqis.[40] Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen has also said "three years is a long time. Conditions could change in that period of time".[41]


In a letter to U.S. military personnel about new rules of engagement, Gen. Ray Odierno said that U.S. forces would reduce their visibility but that this does not mean "any reduction in our fundamental ability to protect ourselves". Odierno wrote that U.S. forces would coordinate "operations with the approval of the GoI (Government of Iraq), and we will conduct all operations by, with, and through the Iraqi Security Forces...Despite some adjustments to the way we conduct operations, the agreement simply reinforces transitions that are already underway, and I want to emphasize that our overarching principles remain the same", he further wrote.[42]


General Raymond Odierno said that some U.S. forces would remain at local security stations as training and mentoring teams past the June 2009 deadline specified in the status of forces agreement. In contrast, Robert Gates estimated U.S. troops will be "out of cities and populated areas" by June 30. "That's the point at which we will have turned over all 18 provinces to provincial Iraqi control", he predicted.[43] A spokesman for Odierno, Lt. Col. James Hutton, reiterated that the soldiers staying in cities would not be combat forces but rather "enablers," who would provide services such as medical care, air-traffic control and helicopter support that the Iraqis cannot perform themselves.[44] Odierno's comments sparked outrage among some Iraqi lawmakers who say the United States is paving the way for breaching the interim agreement.[45]

U.S. Iraq Status of Forces Agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

2) Obama directly contributed to the failure of the SOFA negotiations, in order to further his anti-war agenda:

National Review's Lowry: Obama "Abandoned The War In Iraq." On the August 10 edition of NBC's Meet The Press, National Review editor Rich Lowry blamed President Obama for ISIS' uprising in Iraq and not leaving residual troops after the U.S. ended military action in the country. Lowry clamed "Obama never ended the war in Iraq as he said, he abandoned the war in Iraq." [NBC, Meet The Press, 8/10/14]

Weekly Standard's McCormack: Obama "Didn't Want To Leave Troops In Iraq." In an August 9 blog for the Weekly Standard, John McCormack argued that Obama wasn't successful at attaining a SOFA because he "wasn't seriously pushing for one":

The truth is a bit complicated. The administration's public position was that a few thousand troops should be left in Iraq. But many foreign policy experts have argued that the status of forces agreement fell apart because the Obama administration wasn't seriously pushing for one.


When President Obama announced in October of 2011 that no U.S. troops would be left in Iraq, he said he was fulfilling a campaign promise. That's certainly at odds with how he now portrays the decision to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq. [The Weekly Standard, 8/9/14]

National Review's Goldberg: "Obama Chose To Pull Troops Out Of Iraq As Quickly As Possible." National Review editor-at-large Johah Goldberg accused Obama of presiding over the chaos in Iraq because of his decisions "directly or indirectly," which have negatively impacted the region:

Let us stipulate -- at least for the sake of argument -- that the First Cause of Iraq's unraveling was the Iraq War. That doesn't change the fact that the second, third, fourth, fifth, and nth causes of the chaos are the result, directly or indirectly, of President Obama's decisions (or indecisions). Obama chose to pull troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible. Obama chose to dismiss ISIS as the "jayvee squad" this year. Obama chose to issue a "red line" ultimatum, then chose to say "never mind." The guy has been president for five years. And yet to listen to him and his defenders he's been utterly powerless to undo his predecessors' mistakes, real or alleged. It's like these people think the twice-elected president of the United States is still new to the job. [National Review Online, 8/9/14]

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I notice you provide no counter-evidence, other than your unwillingness to properly interpret what you read.

If there is any misinterpretation of the NYTimes report that YOU cited, you need to explain that. You claimed that there was some kind of interim agreement in effect as a big part of your phony case against Obama. No such interim pact ever came into existence. You foolishly cited the NYTimes because it used the words 'interim pact' in a Report from 2008. That interim pact was NEVER devised.

So now you want to go to what the US military 'wanted' to do in Iraq. That's more of an attempted fraud than your fake interim agreement fraud.

The US Military top brass any more don't have one lick of jurisdiction of what Iraq does with regard to foreign troops occupying their territory. That refrain that the US military 'wanted' to do something in Iraq is good political soundbite for US conservatives but it bears no relationship to reality.


I see you have chosen thus far not to respond to this:

I believe the explanation for your confusion is contained in the very same link to the NYTimes report that you provided.

It involves your apparent lack of understanding the use of the words "either" and "or" in this sentence:

"“Either we conclude a status of forces agreement; or we have an interim agreement until a SOFA can be completed; or we go back to the Security Council at the end of the year and ask for another extension.”

Only one of those three 'either/or" Scenarios panned out, it was not the interim pact. It was not the UN mandate.

And I see from your last post that you refuse to discuss the legal immunity required for our troops. If you want to go off quoting what the US military wanted to do in a Iraq, you must also quote their collective agreement with Obama in the end that if Iraq was not willing to grant immunity then there is no way they would recommend that US troops could be there any time past January 1. 2012.

You are so wrong on immunity, its ridiculous that you are trying to make your argument at all. And the way you botched the fake interim deal ploy is making this a very excellent example of Republican failure to ever get Iraq right.

And in this argument you are suggesting that the Bush/ Petraeus surge in 2007 didn't really work.

That is quite an admission from a Republican.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10265805

Let us stipulate -- at least for the sake of argument -- that the First Cause of Iraq's unraveling was the Iraq War.

Why do you put your faith in Pundits who claim that Iraq has unraveled. Iraq has not unraveled. Iraq has been attacked by an evil sub-human menace but Iraq has not unraveled. And to their credit Iraq has constitutionally succeeded in a transfer of power from it's polarizing PM from the Bush era who was getting close to becoming a Shiite Saddam Hussein to a new government and PM that is working to be more inclusive with Iraq's Sunni population.

That is not unraveling.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NF 10261237

I wrote "(B) Obama Push was for legal immunity for our troops - no American politician and no American uniformed or civilian military leader stand for anything less that want Obama pursued." and you respond with this:

SC 10260837

Wrong - so very wrong. That is exactly what a SOFA agreement is - protection for our troops. Iraq was ready to sign and extension - Obama pulled the rug out from under the negotiations.

SC 10261356

Do you have a source showing where Iraq was ready to sign onto an agreement that granted legal immunity to troops stationed in Iraq after 2011

You are wrong - I am right about immunity. If you want proof, read the Wikipedia link that you posted. The part you didn't quote.

As reported on Saturday, October 15, 2011, the Obama Administration proceeded with the plan to withdraw American forces from Iraq (barring some last-minute move in the Iraqi parliament when they were to return from a break in late November 2011, shortly before the end-of-the-year withdrawal date) because of concerns that they would not be given immunity from Iraqi courts. This was a concern of American commanders in the field who had to worry about the Sadrist response should troops stay and about the general state of Iraq's readiness for transfer of power.[68]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

 

[Spare_change]

NF 10261237

I wrote "(B) Obama Push was for legal immunity for our troops - no American politician and no American uniformed or civilian military leader stand for anything less that want Obama pursued." and you respond with this:

SC 10260837

Wrong - so very wrong. That is exactly what a SOFA agreement is - protection for our troops. Iraq was ready to sign and extension - Obama pulled the rug out from under the negotiations.

SC 10261356

Do you have a source showing where Iraq was ready to sign onto an agreement that granted legal immunity to troops stationed in Iraq after 2011

You are wrong - I am right about immunity. If you want proof, read the Wikipedia link that you posted. The part you didn't quote.

As reported on Saturday, October 15, 2011, the Obama Administration proceeded with the plan to withdraw American forces from Iraq (barring some last-minute move in the Iraqi parliament when they were to return from a break in late November 2011, shortly before the end-of-the-year withdrawal date) because of concerns that they would not be given immunity from Iraqi courts. This was a concern of American commanders in the field who had to worry about the Sadrist response should troops stay and about the general state of Iraq's readiness for transfer of power.[68]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

Nobody ever questioned a minor point like immunity ... THAT is the primary function of SOFA.

Doesn't change the main point that Obama sabotaged the SOFA negotiations for political gain.

 

[Spare_change]

SC 10265805

Let us stipulate -- at least for the sake of argument -- that the First Cause of Iraq's unraveling was the Iraq War.

Why do you put your faith in Pundits who claim that Iraq has unraveled. Iraq has not unraveled. Iraq has been attacked by an evil sub-human menace but Iraq has not unraveled. And to their credit Iraq has constitutionally succeeded in a transfer of power from it's polarizing PM from the Bush era who was getting close to becoming a Shiite Saddam Hussein to a new government and PM that is working to be more inclusive with Iraq's Sunni population.

That is not unraveling.

Have a nice day. Clearly, you are more interested in shaping the argument so you can be proven right, rather than actually exploring the facts in order to come to the correct solution.

It is futile to try to discuss reality with you .... you choose to distort it in order to serve your own self aggrandizement.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Let us stipulate -- at least for the sake of argument -- that the First Cause of Iraq's unraveling was the Iraq War. That doesn't change the fact that the second, third, fourth, fifth, and nth causes of the chaos are the result, directly or indirectly, of President Obama's decisions (or indecisions).

Look at the language from right wing pundits that Spare_Change apparently believes in:

(A) "the First Cause of Iraq's unraveling was the Iraq War"

(B) "the second, third, fourth, fifth, and nth causes of the chaos"

Notice that Bush is credited (A) with taking (no war & peaceful UN inspections in Iraq) to start the Iraq War. Bush made the lone decision to end UN inspections and start a war instead. After five years of fumbling the handling of the war - Bush negotiated the end date of "his" War. That end date was midnight December 31, 2011.

Obama is credited with creating "chaos" that followed the chaos and unresolved hostilities of the war that Bush created in the first place. Obama is accused of ending US military involvement in the Iraq war on Bush's timetable to end US military involvement.

I see nothing improper or wrong-headed in ending Bush's war by Bush's SOFA deadline and no sooner.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I

SC 10265805

Let us stipulate -- at least for the sake of argument -- that the First Cause of Iraq's unraveling was the Iraq War.

Why do you put your faith in Pundits who claim that Iraq has unraveled. Iraq has not unraveled. Iraq has been attacked by an evil sub-human menace but Iraq has not unraveled. And to their credit Iraq has constitutionally succeeded in a transfer of power from it's polarizing PM from the Bush era who was getting close to becoming a Shiite Saddam Hussein to a new government and PM that is working to be more inclusive with Iraq's Sunni population.

That is not unraveling.

Have a nice day. Clearly, you are more interested in shaping the argument so you can be proven right, rather than actually exploring the facts in order to come to the correct solution.

It is futile to try to discuss reality with you .... you choose to distort it in order to serve your own self aggrandizement.

There is very little reality in your argument. If any,

I knew you would be forced to run away. You made too many blunders and they were blunders that you cannot overcome except to admit that you were wrong.

You knew nothing about the immunity sticking point to the 2011 SOFA negotiations and you certainly made up the story about some kind of interim deal being in place.

You quote General Odierno from something he said in 2009, but pay no attention to what he said in 2011.

 

[Spare_change]

I

SC 10265805

Let us stipulate -- at least for the sake of argument -- that the First Cause of Iraq's unraveling was the Iraq War.

Why do you put your faith in Pundits who claim that Iraq has unraveled. Iraq has not unraveled. Iraq has been attacked by an evil sub-human menace but Iraq has not unraveled. And to their credit Iraq has constitutionally succeeded in a transfer of power from it's polarizing PM from the Bush era who was getting close to becoming a Shiite Saddam Hussein to a new government and PM that is working to be more inclusive with Iraq's Sunni population.

That is not unraveling.

Have a nice day. Clearly, you are more interested in shaping the argument so you can be proven right, rather than actually exploring the facts in order to come to the correct solution.

It is futile to try to discuss reality with you .... you choose to distort it in order to serve your own self aggrandizement.

There is very little reality in your argument. If any,

I knew you would be forced to run away. You made too many blunders and they were blunders that you cannot overcome except to admit that you were wrong.

You knew nothing about the immunity sticking point to the 2011 SOFA negotiations and you certainly made up the story about some kind of interim deal being in place.

You quote General Odierno from something he said in 2009, but pay no attention to what he said in 2011.

LOL --- now THAT is funny, I don't care who you are.

I am amazed, but not surprised, at your inability to grasp truth and your ability to distort truth in order to support your preconceived notions.

Know nothing about the 2011 SOFA negotiations? Since I was an adjunct contractor to the House Select Committee on Intelligence from 2006 - 2012, I think it's fair to say I know a LITTLE. But, you'll also know, that I have not drawn on my exposure, but rather, on documented fact.

But ... live in your own little world. It will make you feel ever so much more important.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10270116

I have not drawn on my exposure, but rather, on documented fact.

What documented fact? I asked for this:

NF 10262658

I asked you "What interim agreement was in place?. Agreement

In response you provided a NYTimes report that mentioned an 'interim pact' from July 2008 that was going to be devised. It was not devised as further inside the same report it was explained by the President of Iraq at the time.

I have no way to respect what you refer to as 'documented fact' having seen what you have provided on this thread.

And you provided nothing to document your claim that the Iraqis were ready in 2011 to sign a SOFA deal that granted immunity for troops staying in Iraq after midnight December 31, 2011. Nothing. You provide nothing. Why can't you provide any documented fact for what you claim as fact in order to attack Obama?

 

[HenryBHough]

Aw hell, Our Kenyan Emperor will sit quietly when the ISIS tanks destroy the White House Sharecrop Garden - because they'e MUSLIM tanks and Muslims are all about peace.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Nobody ever questioned a minor point like immunity ... THAT isu the primary function of SOFA.

You are not believable at all. The editor of US Veterans News says exactly the opposite of you absolutely bogus unfounded statement.

Post-2011 Military Presence in Iraq Falters on Question of Immunity
Published on October 10th, 2011
Written by: Editor

Here's a link:

Post-2011 Military Presence in Iraq Falters on Question of Immunity Veterans News Now

Second, they want that training mission to be totally confined to Iraqi bases, and they are unwilling to grant any US forces in the country immunity from prosecutions for any violations of Iraqi law. This was a key, if not they key, element of the negotiations on a post-2011 presence. And the flat refusal from the Iraqi government has the US sidescrambling.

Here's more:

.
Since Tuesday, when Iraqi leaders formally requested that U.S. military training continue into next year, military and diplomatic officials in Washington and Baghdad have been sketching alternative proposals that could place training in the hands of private security contractors or NATO, entities that can be legally covered some other way.
[/QUOTE

And Leon Panetta:

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panettastipulated Thursday that any remaining U.S. troops must have immunity. A State Department official said Saturday that while Iraq is not likely to budge on its resistance to military immunity, there are other paths to continuing the U.S. training mission in the country.

Just like I said.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Nobody ever questioned a minor point like immunity

Spare_Change has to be the only person on the planet that believes that no Iraqis ever questioned immunity for US troops or that it is a minor point.

Across the political spectrum from far left to far right everyone knows the Iraqis wouid not grant immunity after 2011.


"The American Conservative" dissagrees with Spare-Change too.

Like the Iraqis, the Afghans will have a say in their future and might not like the idea of continuing to grant legal immunity to a foreign occupying force..

The Forever Wars of Frederick Kimberly Kagan The American Conservative

 

[Spare_change]

Nobody ever questioned a minor point like immunity

Spare_Change has to be the only person on the planet that believes that no Iraqis ever questioned immunity for US troops or that it is a minor point.

Across the political spectrum from far left to far right everyone knows the Iraqis wouid not grant immunity after 2011.


"The American Conservative" dissagrees with Spare-Change too.

Like the Iraqis, the Afghans will have a say in their future and might not like the idea of continuing to grant legal immunity to a foreign occupying force..

The Forever Wars of Frederick Kimberly Kagan The American Conservative

Your ignorance is only exceeded by your ability to misinterpret reality.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NF 10270933

Post-2011 Military Presence in Iraq Falters on Question of Immunity
Published on October 10th, 2011
Written by: Editor.

SC 10272366

Your ignorance is only exceeded by your ability to misinterpret reality

SC is reduced to hurling meaningless childish insults as he flees the scene of one of the most disastrous conservative flurries of anti-Obama posts in recent memory. He/she has surpassed EconChick in public displays of ignorance and flat out dishonesty on the subject of why US troops were forced to leave Iraq after midnight on December 31 2011. That set date in time was George Bush's exit date for US troops, not President Obama's.

The entire world knows (incuding the editor of "Veterans News" cited again above) that the main and perhaps only reason a new SOFA could not be negotiated and signed and passed by Iraq's Parliament was because the Iraqis refused to continue the policy of granting immunity to US troops as they did for the 2009 through 2011 Bush/Maliki SOFA.


A more untrue statement on the critical issue of immunity within the SOFA negotiations of 2011 could not be made than this one by Soare_Change in post number 10268419:

Nobody ever questioned a minor point like immunity ...