Another Rightwing Lie Exposed

[jc456]

In all fairness it was the Shia led Iraq Government who set the timetable. Neither Bush nor Obama had much of a choice but to pull the troops.

Maliki wanted the troops to stay. Obama offered him too few. Iraq wanted 20,000 and trainers.


Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said opponents are lying when they say the Iraqi government did not want a continued troop presence in the country when U.S. combat missions ended in 2011.

The Arizona senator has blamed the current militant Sunni uprising in Iraq on the failure of the United States to secure a status of forces agreement in 2011. He said some Democrats are trying to explain that away by inaccurately claiming the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not want troops to remain.

"Opponents and those who want to justify this colossal failure that has caused the greatest threat to United States's national security since the end of the Cold War, they're trying to justify it by saying that Maliki didn't want American troops there," he told PBS on Wednesday night.

And here is the key to how the negotiations fell apart. And the problem wasn't the Iraqis.

McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) were in direct talks with the Iraqi government at the time, McCain said, and Iraq was ready for a deal before the number of troops the United States proposed leaving fell sharply.

"What Senator Kaine is saying is just totally false," McCain said. "In fact, it's a lie, because Lindsey Graham and I were there."

"The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff himself said that the number of troops that we were proposing cascaded down to 3,000, when it had been recommended to be 20,000," McCain added.

He said Iraq, at that point, determined an agreement “wasn't worth the problem.”

https://thehill.com/policy/international/209887-mccain-opponents-lying-about-iraq-history

Ah jeeze McCain? Really? He was there, negotiating?

The same McCain.

A tweet from McCain's account in 2010 stated, "Last American combat troops leave Iraq. I think President George W. Bush deserves some credit for victory."

John McCain Contradicts Himself On Iraq Victory

As Paul Waldman of The Washington Post notes, there is reason to take McCain and other Republicans' criticism of Obama with a grain of salt: they were often wrong about Iraq when the case was being made for the invasion of 2003.

As Lurch from the Adam's family use to say....."ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"

 

[Dad2three]

Bush had agreement to leave troops in place too...How'd that work out? Was Obama locked in to it?

Horowitz said, that he was released "on Obama's watch", not that Obama personally let him out

Bush signed SOFA, which "lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq."


On November 17, 2008, US and Iraqi officials signed a Security Agreement, often referred to as a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), stating that "All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011." The agreement also called for all U.S. combat forces to withdraw from Iraqi cities "no later than June 30, 2009."

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

"Art 24 1. All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no
later than December 31, 2011.

This Agreement shall be effective for a period of three years

Signed in duplicate in Baghdad on this 17 th day of November, 2008, in the
English and Arabic languages, each text being equally authentic."

The document EXPIRED Nov 17, 2011.

So Obama had to enter into a new agreement

BZZ wrong

The agreement expired at midnight on December 31, 2011, even though the United States completed its final withdrawal of troops from Iraq on December 16, 2011

BBC News - US flag ceremony marks formal end of Iraq war role

 

[Dad2three]

Bush set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq


On November 17, 2008, US and Iraqi officials signed a Security Agreement, often referred to as a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), stating that "All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011." The agreement also called for all U.S. combat forces to withdraw from Iraqi cities "no later than June 30, 2009."


http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf




Bush praised agreement as "another sign of progress." Calling the SOFA "another sign of progress," President Bush said in a November 27, 2008, statement, "The Strategic Framework Agreement sets the foundation for a long-term bilateral relationship between our two countries, and the Security Agreement addresses our presence, activities, and withdrawal from Iraq."




Bush signed SOFA, which "lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq."

In all fairness it was the Shia led Iraq Government who set the timetable. Neither Bush nor Obama had much of a choice but to pull the troops.

Maliki wanted the troops to stay. Obama offered him too few. Iraq wanted 20,000 and trainers.


Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said opponents are lying when they say the Iraqi government did not want a continued troop presence in the country when U.S. combat missions ended in 2011.

The Arizona senator has blamed the current militant Sunni uprising in Iraq on the failure of the United States to secure a status of forces agreement in 2011. He said some Democrats are trying to explain that away by inaccurately claiming the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not want troops to remain.

"Opponents and those who want to justify this colossal failure that has caused the greatest threat to United States's national security since the end of the Cold War, they're trying to justify it by saying that Maliki didn't want American troops there," he told PBS on Wednesday night.

And here is the key to how the negotiations fell apart. And the problem wasn't the Iraqis.

McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) were in direct talks with the Iraqi government at the time, McCain said, and Iraq was ready for a deal before the number of troops the United States proposed leaving fell sharply.

"What Senator Kaine is saying is just totally false," McCain said. "In fact, it's a lie, because Lindsey Graham and I were there."

"The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff himself said that the number of troops that we were proposing cascaded down to 3,000, when it had been recommended to be 20,000," McCain added.

He said Iraq, at that point, determined an agreement “wasn't worth the problem.”

https://thehill.com/policy/international/209887-mccain-opponents-lying-about-iraq-history

[/QUOTE]


CHEERLEADERS FOR IRAQ WAR ARE TO BELIEVED?? lol

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence

And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it.

While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it.


Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.


Iraq?s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com

 

[Faun]

Obama: ignores his own laws but follows Bush's instructions to the letter

uh huh

While you righties might be OK with U.S. presidents unilaterally breaking agreements with other countries, it's not a wise practice. Once the U.S. establishes a reputation as a country which doesn't honor agreements it enters into, it won't be long before other countries refuse to enter into agreements with us.

 

[driveby]

The lie:

"The head of this band of savages, Abu al-Baghdadi, was released by the Obama administration and started ISIS one year later in 2010."
​

The truth:

This whopper has been all over Fox News. The reality is that the agreement to release Baghdadi was signed by President Bush in 2008 as part of the Status of Forces Agreement. In accordance with that agreement, Baghdadi was turned over to Iraqi authorities in 2009 and was further imprisoned in Iraq. Then the Iraqi government -- not Obama -- released Baghdadi from prison in 2010. Another account, uncovered by Politifact determined that Baghdadi might've been released in 2004, five years before Obama's inauguration.
​

If conservatives didn't lie they would have nothing to say.

Coming from someone who lies constantly. You even lied in this article you just posted.

Really, asshole? Please produce some of my "lies".

True or false. Obama was president when this guy was released?

Did Obama release him? That's the rightwing claim.

True or false?

Obama could have used his pen and phone to keep him in, true or false?

 

[Faun]

Bush had agreement to leave troops in place too...How'd that work out? Was Obama locked in to it?

Horowitz said, that he was released "on Obama's watch", not that Obama personally let him out

Bush signed SOFA, which "lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq."


On November 17, 2008, US and Iraqi officials signed a Security Agreement, often referred to as a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), stating that "All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011." The agreement also called for all U.S. combat forces to withdraw from Iraqi cities "no later than June 30, 2009."

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

"Art 24 1. All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no
later than December 31, 2011.

This Agreement shall be effective for a period of three years

Signed in duplicate in Baghdad on this 17 th day of November, 2008, in the
English and Arabic languages, each text being equally authentic."

The document EXPIRED Nov 17, 2011.

So Obama had to enter into a new agreement

Sure, if you're retarded enough to not understand this part of the agreement...

"This Agreement shall enter into force on January 1, 2009"

So no, the agreement did not terminate on November 17, 2011, as you ignorantly believe. Honestly, I don't know how rightards figure out how to turn on their computers?

 

[Synthaholic]

The lie:

"The head of this band of savages, Abu al-Baghdadi, was released by the Obama administration and started ISIS one year later in 2010."
​

The truth:

This whopper has been all over Fox News. The reality is that the agreement to release Baghdadi was signed by President Bush in 2008 as part of the Status of Forces Agreement. In accordance with that agreement, Baghdadi was turned over to Iraqi authorities in 2009 and was further imprisoned in Iraq. Then the Iraqi government -- not Obama -- released Baghdadi from prison in 2010. Another account, uncovered by Politifact determined that Baghdadi might've been released in 2004, five years before Obama's inauguration.
​

If conservatives didn't lie they would have nothing to say.

You monitor fox news that closely?...really?

Or is this the latest DNC email they sent to the operatives to push?

Did I forget the link? Appy-poly-logies: This Is One of the Craziest Fox News Rants Ever, and It's Not Hannity or O'Reilly*|*Bob Cesca

 

[Synthaholic]

You're trying to change the subject. It's not about policy, it's about the Status Of Forces Agreement that the Bush administration had just completed.

That's not something a new president is going to scuttle upon entering office. If you don't understand this, then you are naive about politics, and reality.

I'm trying to change the subject when you keep calling a libertarian a Republican? LOL. You're not bright enough to debate my views, so you throw out the talking points you know.

Do you have anything that refutes anything I said? I never argued that Obama should or shouldn't do anything or he did or didn't do anything. I pointed out that Fox takes the wrath of the left, NBC reports the same thing and doesn't. And it wasn't even FoxNews, it was a commentator. You may want to google what that means...

It boils down to you wanting to blame Obama for this fanatic's release, when it has been proven that he was released by the sovereign country of Iraq, under an agreement with President George W. Bush, Republican.

 

[kaz]

You're trying to change the subject. It's not about policy, it's about the Status Of Forces Agreement that the Bush administration had just completed.

That's not something a new president is going to scuttle upon entering office. If you don't understand this, then you are naive about politics, and reality.

I'm trying to change the subject when you keep calling a libertarian a Republican? LOL. You're not bright enough to debate my views, so you throw out the talking points you know.

Do you have anything that refutes anything I said? I never argued that Obama should or shouldn't do anything or he did or didn't do anything. I pointed out that Fox takes the wrath of the left, NBC reports the same thing and doesn't. And it wasn't even FoxNews, it was a commentator. You may want to google what that means...

It boils down to you wanting to blame Obama for this fanatic's release,

You keep attacking Fox, and I keep pointing out you are not attacking NBC for doing the same thing. Duh, dar, drool, that means you're blaming Obama!



OMG, you are just flat out stu-pid.

when it has been proven that he was released by the sovereign country of Iraq, under an agreement with President George W. Bush, Republican.

Which is irrelevant to every point I've ever made. Here's a cookie, you can go outside and play now Skippy.

You are not bright, LOL. I mean that was clear before, but you sure are hell bent to show that in every possible way.