Isis: In Iraq Because Of Obama

[PoliticalChic]

The order of responsibility imo. Bush, Maliki, Obama.

Don't be shy....the first on the list should be Obama voters.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.

You can decide if the reason was to support ISIS or some other reason....

But he could have avoided these barbarians taking over....




Who says so?

General Barbero, on CNN yesterday:


"BLITZER: The president's military plan to dismantle and ultimately destroy the terror group, ISIS, involves sending, at least for now, another 475 U.S. military advisors to Iraq, launching air strikes in Iraq and Syria, arming and training moderate Syrian rebels. Let's discuss. Joining me, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Barbaro. General, thanks very much for coming in.

LT. GEN. MICHAEL BARBERO, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: I want to get to that. But you were there. You were on active duty in Iraq, 2010, 2011 when they were trying to negotiate that Status of Forces -

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: -- Agreement that would have left a residual force, 5,000 or 10,000 U.S. troops, but you couldn't get immunity from Nuri al Maliki's government. Take us behind the scenes, clarify, who's right, John McCain or Jay Carney, in this debate.

BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, and took it to all the Iraqi leaders, Maliki, the other Shia leaders, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and said here is going to be the status of your security forces, what they cannot do, what they will be able to do, when we're schedule to leave. And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay. And my response was, you must make it easy for us. So I think Maliki did not make it easy for us and we did not try hard enough. So it's a -- both views. I think it could have been done though.

BLITZER: Because the U.S. -- the Pentagon position was, 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops staying -

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: For an indefinite amount of time.

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: But you wanted immunity from prosecution as part of the status of forces agreement. What happened then because the White House says Nuri al Maliki wouldn't give that immunity to any residual U.S. force.

BARBERO: I think we could have worked it and kept it from going through the parliament. I think we could have - we have immunity today, it didn't go through the parliament. So I think it could have been worked if we had tried harder.

BLITZER: You don't think the administration tried hard enough to get it?

BARBERO: I don't think so.

BLITZER: That's the McCain position, that could have been done but the White House didn't want it to be done. They wanted all U.S. troops.

BARBERO: I don't think we tried hard enough.

BLITZER: You think it was - it was definitely doable.

BARBERO: I think it was. BLITZER: There was another argument that the Pentagon wanted 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops to remain.

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: The White House said maybe 1,000 or 2,000 for a year and the Iraqis said well that's not good enough.

BARBERO: Right. No, and -

BLITZER: Was - is that true?

BARBERO: That is true. And we wanted them pulled back on these training sites where we're fielding military equipment to train the Iraqi, not in any kind of combat role at all."
CNN.com - Transcripts



Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.

You decide why.

It's amusing that the right got so pissed off when Obama wrongfully took the credit for the troops being completely out of Iraq.
Iraq War ends on Bush’s schedule, not Obama’s
Iraq War ends on Bush s schedule not Obama s RedState
Funny how history is now being re-written by ideologues.
Moving on:
The OP intentionally ignores the entire picture because the OP is 100% an ideologue.
GWB was warned prior to the invasion by two intelligence agencies that displacing Saddam could lead to a civil war between the Shiites and Sunni.
Once Malaki took the reins of the Iraqi government the Sunni became marginalized and were basically persecuted. Malaki's action certainly swelled the ISIS with disenchanted Iraqi Sunni. That is not just the US government's opinion, it is also the Iranian government's opinion, who happens to also be a huge ally of the Malaki government. Malaki erred so much that Iran thought Iraq was better off without their ally.
I also think Obama ignored the growing problem with Maliki's actions of alienation the Sunni, which simply strengthened the ISIS.
The above is what is called looking at the entire picture, not just a portion of the picture that enhances one's ideology position why ignoring the real fucking world.

As with so much of your posting.....it is untrue.

Bush left with a agreement that ended well into Obama's term....2012.

Here, from Time magazine, a verbal pie in your kisser:


"In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government thatset the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate."
Iraq 8217 s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com



And, having rectitude on my side, I felt no necessity to use your vulgar language.

 

[boedicca]

The order of responsibility imo. Bush, Maliki, Obama.

Don't be shy....the first on the list should be Obama voters.

Indeed. Voting for Pop Culture Fashion over experience has caused damage to American that will take decades to undo.

Thanks Obama Voters!

 

[kiwiman127]

As with so much of your posting.....it is untrue.

Bush left with a agreement that ended well into Obama's term....2012.

Here, from Time magazine, a verbal pie in your kisser:


"In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government thatset the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate."
Iraq 8217 s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com



And, having rectitude on my side, I felt no necessity to use your vulgar language.

But the Iraqi Parliament didn't want to give our troops immunity from the Iraqi judicial system. There was no way the Shiite majority in the Iraqi Parliament were going to pass giving the immunity to the US troops. (Well, that was until the ISIS became a major threat to their power.) It wasn't just Obama who wanted the troops to have immunity, both sides of the aisle felt the same way in the US.
So, in your OP you support bypassing the Iraqi Parliament and letting Maliki decide. Isn't that something like favoring an Executive Order by Maliki? There is no problem with Executive Orders when someone other than Obama issues them? Let's have some honesty and consistency here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As with so much of your posting.....it is untrue.

Bush left with a agreement that ended well into Obama's term....2012.

Here, from Time magazine, a verbal pie in your kisser:


"In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government thatset the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate."
Iraq 8217 s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com



And, having rectitude on my side, I felt no necessity to use your vulgar language.

But the Iraqi Parliament didn't want to give our troops immunity from the Iraqi judicial system. There was no way the Shiite majority in the Iraqi Parliament were going to pass giving the immunity to the US troops. (Well, that was until the ISIS became a major threat to their power.) It wasn't just Obama who wanted the troops to have immunity, both sides of the aisle felt the same way in the US.
So, in your OP you support bypassing the Iraqi Parliament and letting Maliki decide. Isn't that something like favoring an Executive Order by Maliki? There is no problem with Executive Orders when someone other than Obama issues them? Let's have some honesty and consistency here.

Wrong again.


Earlier post provided the proof:

a. "This month, Colin Kahl, the senior Pentagon official in charge of Iraq policy at the time, explained why the White House insisted on Iraq’s parliament approving the changes to the SOFA.

He wrote inPolitico Magazine that in 2011 Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, “told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections.

Yet this time around, Obama is willing to accept an agreement from Iraq’s foreign ministry on U.S. forces in Iraq without a vote of Iraq’s parliament. “We believe we need a separate set of assurances from the Iraqis,” one senior U.S. defense official told The Daily Beast on Sunday. This official said this would likely be an agreement or exchange of diplomatic notes from the Iraq’s foreign ministry. “We basically need a piece of paper from them,” another U.S. official involved in the negotiations told The Daily Beast. The official didn’t explain why the parliamentary vote, so crucial three years ago, was no longer needed.”

Obama Does a U-Turn on Immunity for U.S. Troops in Iraq - The Daily Beast

Obama rejected it.



The only question was the reason Obama didn't want US forces there to prevent ISIS from gaining ground....

...the preponderance of evidence is that this President wants a radicalized Middle East.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It's all very complex, but for those who have eyes to see: the Obama Administration wants a single-state solution in Iraq, essentially a regional Islamofascist caliphate joined at the hip with the radical Shiite regime of Iran to counter Israel.

The neocons, on the other hand, are well-meaning dreamers. A unified Iraq is not sustainable, and the peaceful coexistence of an Israeli state and a Palestinian state is a pipedream.

Ideally, the purpose of a meaningful extension of the original status of forces agreement, which the Obama Administration most certainly had the power to impose and should have imposed on the Iraqi government, would have been to facilitate the partition of Iraq into three stable nations among the three major sectarian groups, which are already regionally separated, capable of defending themselves against the designs of the Iranian caliphate and those of external Islamic extremists.

In the meantime, what Israel, the Kurds and the Persians of Iran yearning to be free of theocracy want and what we should want is a weak and divided Islamofascism in the Middle East comprised of the various warring factions on either side of the radical Shia-Sunni divide that we can isolate, overthrow and systematically exterminate, respectively: the Khomeini caliphate and its offshoot Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoot Hamas, the Salafist Jihadists of al-Qaeda, ISIS/ISIL. . . .


By the way, here's a really stupid idea: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/paris-iran-meet-crushing-iraq-radicals-25453330


Excerpt:

. . . Israel's interests are served by the breaking up of the various sectarian groups within Syria and Iraq artificially held together by strong-man totalitarianism/a dysfunctional parliamentary regime. I get that. Always have. So? I don't get your view that Israeli Zionism is evil while the collective threat that the Muslim Brotherhood's offshoot Hamas, a stable Syria allied with Iran and its proxy Hezbollah pose to Israel is the cat's meow. Further, the Kurds and the Persians are the only sane Muslims in the region, and are mostly friendly toward the West. As I said before, if not for the Iranian regime, the Islamic Persians of Iran would not pose a significant threat.

Explain to me why the Obama Administration continues to back the Muslim Brotherhood, sworn enemies of Israel and America, and did not aggressively get behind the Iranian uprising against the Islamofascist regime of Iran.

That's insane! Obama is a treasonous Manchurian, and how do you figure that the stratagem of turning the maniacs against one another or letting them fend for themselves is a "macabre plan . . . evil to the core"? Screw 'em!

I say we let them kill each other as we slam the rabid Sunnis of al-Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL, and, frankly, I think we should take Hezbollah and Hamas out too once and for all in a concerted American-Israeli operation. The hell with a Lebanese state run by dogs and the hell with a Palestinian state. Indeed, now would be the perfect time to hit Hezbollah in Lebanon, once a jewel of a nation, while Assad has his hands full dealing with the Syrian rebels. —M. D. Rawlings

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9793441/​

 

[1776]

The dumbfuck liberals keep blaming Bush while ignoring Obama took credit for Iraq in 2010 being "his success."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Isis: In Iraq Because Of Obama

This is a lie, which is no surprise considering the fact that the OP is a proven liar.


“What should Obama do? Aside from “stay the hell out,” I don’t know, and neither does anybody else. But at least conservatives ought to have the humility to refrain from blaming him from a situation that was inevitable, arguably from the moment Bush ordered the attack on Iraq, but certainly after the Bush administration signed off on disbanding the Iraqi Army. Obama has a hell of a mess to clean up, and I am certain that no Republican critic of his would have done any better.”


The Iraq Mess Is Not Obama 8217 s Fault The American Conservative

 

[PoliticalChic]

Isis: In Iraq Because Of Obama

This is a lie, which is no surprise considering the fact that the OP is a proven liar.


“What should Obama do? Aside from “stay the hell out,” I don’t know, and neither does anybody else. But at least conservatives ought to have the humility to refrain from blaming him from a situation that was inevitable, arguably from the moment Bush ordered the attack on Iraq, but certainly after the Bush administration signed off on disbanding the Iraqi Army. Obama has a hell of a mess to clean up, and I am certain that no Republican critic of his would have done any better.”


The Iraq Mess Is Not Obama 8217 s Fault The American Conservative

Let's see how tough it is to prove that you are eligible to add 'Liar" to the "Moron" currently in your resume.

1. Bush left Iraq with an agreement that allowed US troops to remain until 2012.

2. The windbag, Obama took charge in 2009

3. Obama declined to negotiate a Status of Forces agreement that would have left troops, and he actually removed same before he had to.

4. Political landscapes, like nature, abhor a vacuum.

5. Therefore, through Obama's efforts, ISIS had free reign.

QED Isis: In Iraq Because Of Obama



Again: I never lie....and you've been just shown to.

Wasn't that fun?

 

[georgephillip]

Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.

You decide why.

...because he so desperately wanted to see his foreign policy approval rating plummet and take his party down with it?

That was his grand scheme?

Do you people EVER think before you post?

Or maybe because after the US had maimed, murdered, incarcerated, and displaced millions of Iraqi civilians an overwhelming majority of survivors wanted to end the illegal US invasion/occupation ASAP.

Obama, boths Bushes, and Clintons are simply following a plan set in motion before most of them were born:

"The Red Line Agreement had been 'part of a network of agreements made in the 1920s to restrict supply of petroleum and ensure that the major [mostly American] companies ... could control oil prices on world markets'.

"[6] The Red Line agreement governed the development of Middle East oil for the next two decades.

"The Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement of 1944 was based on negotiations between the United States and Britain over the control of Middle Eastern oil. Below is shown what the American President Franklin D. Roosevelt had in mind for to a British Ambassador in 1944:

"Persian oil ... is yours. We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for Saudi Arabian oil, it's ours.[7]

United States foreign policy in the Middle East - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Unkotare]

Why would Obama intentionally act in ways directly adverse to his own political fortunes, not to mention his party's??

Because he had no fucking idea what he was doing and he didn't really care. He wanted a 'moment' on the news declaring a withdrawal and didn't think a second past that. He was an unqualified buffoon from the start. That's why even our closest allies won't go along with him now. He has more than proven his incompetence and inconstancy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.

You decide why.

...because he so desperately wanted to see his foreign policy approval rating plummet and take his party down with it?

That was his grand scheme?

Do you people EVER think before you post?

Or maybe because after the US had maimed, murdered, incarcerated, and displaced millions of Iraqi civilians an overwhelming majority of survivors wanted to end the illegal US invasion/occupation ASAP.

Obama, boths Bushes, and Clintons are simply following a plan set in motion before most of them were born:

"The Red Line Agreement had been 'part of a network of agreements made in the 1920s to restrict supply of petroleum and ensure that the major [mostly American] companies ... could control oil prices on world markets'.

"[6] The Red Line agreement governed the development of Middle East oil for the next two decades.

"The Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement of 1944 was based on negotiations between the United States and Britain over the control of Middle Eastern oil. Below is shown what the American President Franklin D. Roosevelt had in mind for to a British Ambassador in 1944:

"Persian oil ... is yours. We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for Saudi Arabian oil, it's ours.[7]

United States foreign policy in the Middle East - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Perhaps you'd enjoy a glimpse at actual history?


1. Modernization: This was undertaken not by imperialists, for the most part, but by Middle Eastern rulers who had become painfully aware that their societies were undeveloped compared with the advanced Western world. These rulers decided that what they had to do was to modernize or Westernize. Their intentions were good, but the consequences were often disastrous. What they did was to increase the power of the state and the ruler enormously by placing at his disposal the whole modern apparatus of control, repression and indoctrination.

In the traditional society there were established orders-the bazaar merchants, the scribes, the guilds, the country gentry, the military establishment, the religious establishment, and so on. These were powerful groups in society, whose heads were not appointed by the ruler but arose from within the groups. And no sultan, however powerful, could do much without maintaining some relationship with these different orders in society. This is not democracy as we currently use that word, but it is certainly limited, responsible government. And the system worked. Modernization ended that.



2. In the year 1940, the government of France surrendered to the Axis and formed a collaborationist government in a place called Vichy. The French colonial empire was, for the most part, beyond the reach of the Nazis, which meant that the governors of the French colonies had a free choice: To stay with Vichy or to join Charles de Gaulle, who had set up a Free French Committee in London. The overwhelming majority chose Vichy, which meant that Syria-Lebanon—a French-mandated territory in the heart of the Arab East—was now wide open to the Nazis. The Nazis moved in, made a tremendous propaganda effort, and were even able to move from Syria eastwards into Iraq and for a while set up a pro-Nazi, fascist regime. It was in this period that political parties were formed that were the nucleus of what later became the Baath Party.

A few after the war, the Soviets moved in, established an immensely powerful presence in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and various other countries, and introduced Soviet-style political practice. The adaptation from the Nazi model to the communist model was very simple and easy, requiring only a few minor adjustments.


3. Two other factors added to the mix produce the picture we see today.

a. The first of these—founded by a theologian called Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who lived in a remote area of Najd in desert Arabia—is known as Wahhabi. Its argument is that the root of Arab-Islamic troubles lies in following the ways of the infidel.

b. The other important thing that happened—also in the mid-20s—was the discovery of oil. With that, this extremist sect found itself not only in possession of Mecca and Medina, but also of wealth beyond the dreams of avarice. As a result, what would otherwise have been a lunatic fringe in a marginal country became a major force in the world of Islam. Now, its influence spreads far beyond the region.

The above is from a speech by Bernard Lewis.
Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies, Princeton University.

 

[Skylar]

Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.

You're leaving out a rather important detail. He didn't want to leave 10,000 troops without a SOFA. And Maliki refused. There's no indication from the Iraqi parliament that they would have been more open to a SOFA with the US than Maliki was. If you believe otherwise, quote the leaders of the Iraqi parliament indicating as much.

 

[Skylar]

If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.

Yet now Obama thinks it's smart to do the same thing in Syria ?

Well right or wrong he's not putting a hundred thousand troops into Syria, so you're stretching that comparison quite a bit. Let's be fair.

To be fair, Obama is destabilizing Syria with no plan to deal with the power vacuum left behind. Why ?

Actually, Obama isn't targetting Assad. He's targetting ISIS in Syria. And defeating them, Assad would presumably regain control.

 

[Jroc]

Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.

You're leaving out a rather important detail. He didn't want to leave 10,000 troops without a SOFA. And Maliki refused. There's no indication from the Iraqi parliament that they would have been more open to a SOFA with the US than Maliki was. If you believe otherwise, quote the leaders of the Iraqi parliament indicating as much.

Iraqi Parliament? who cares? We could and should have stayed without any approval from the "Iraqi Parliament" We fought and died there, we stay there to support the Iraqi military with an airbase and logistics until the Generals it's ok to leave, not some political hack like Obama, who left for purely political reasons. I'll bet the so-called Iraqi Parliament wishes we were still there since half the country has now been taken overrun by the islamonazis

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.

You're leaving out a rather important detail. He didn't want to leave 10,000 troops without a SOFA. And Maliki refused. There's no indication from the Iraqi parliament that they would have been more open to a SOFA with the US than Maliki was. If you believe otherwise, quote the leaders of the Iraqi parliament indicating as much.

Wrong.

"This month, Colin Kahl, the senior Pentagon official in charge of Iraq policy at the time, explained why the White House insisted on Iraq’s parliament approving the changes to the SOFA.

He wrote in Politico Magazine that in 2011 Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, “told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections.

Yet this time around, Obama is willing to accept an agreement from Iraq’s foreign ministry on U.S. forces in Iraq without a vote of Iraq’s parliament. “We believe we need a separate set of assurances from the Iraqis,” one senior U.S. defense official told The Daily Beast on Sunday. This official said this would likely be an agreement or exchange of diplomatic notes from the Iraq’s foreign ministry. “We basically need a piece of paper from them,” another U.S. official involved in the negotiations told The Daily Beast. The official didn’t explain why the parliamentary vote, so crucial three years ago, was no longer needed.”
Obama Does a U-Turn on Immunity for U.S. Troops in Iraq - The Daily Beast

Obama rejected it.


Now....why do you suppose that Obama gave entrée to ISIS?

And error of omission.....

....or a plan of commission?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.

You're leaving out a rather important detail. He didn't want to leave 10,000 troops without a SOFA. And Maliki refused. There's no indication from the Iraqi parliament that they would have been more open to a SOFA with the US than Maliki was. If you believe otherwise, quote the leaders of the Iraqi parliament indicating as much.

Iraqi Parliament? who cares? We could and should have stayed without any approval from the "Iraqi Parliament" We fought and died there, we stay there to support the Iraqi military with an airbase and logistics until the Generals it's ok to leave, not some political hack like Obama, who left for purely political reasons. I'll bet the so-called Iraqi Parliament wishes we were still there since half the country has now been taken overrun by the islamonazis

Oh of course, an occupation against the will of the Iraqi people. What could possibly go wrong there?

 

[cultsmasher]

Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.

You can decide if the reason was to support ISIS or some other reason....

But he could have avoided these barbarians taking over....




Who says so?

General Barbero, on CNN yesterday:


"BLITZER: The president's military plan to dismantle and ultimately destroy the terror group, ISIS, involves sending, at least for now, another 475 U.S. military advisors to Iraq, launching air strikes in Iraq and Syria, arming and training moderate Syrian rebels. Let's discuss. Joining me, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Barbaro. General, thanks very much for coming in.

LT. GEN. MICHAEL BARBERO, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: I want to get to that. But you were there. You were on active duty in Iraq, 2010, 2011 when they were trying to negotiate that Status of Forces -

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: -- Agreement that would have left a residual force, 5,000 or 10,000 U.S. troops, but you couldn't get immunity from Nuri al Maliki's government. Take us behind the scenes, clarify, who's right, John McCain or Jay Carney, in this debate.

BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, and took it to all the Iraqi leaders, Maliki, the other Shia leaders, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and said here is going to be the status of your security forces, what they cannot do, what they will be able to do, when we're schedule to leave. And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay. And my response was, you must make it easy for us. So I think Maliki did not make it easy for us and we did not try hard enough. So it's a -- both views. I think it could have been done though.

BLITZER: Because the U.S. -- the Pentagon position was, 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops staying -

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: For an indefinite amount of time.

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: But you wanted immunity from prosecution as part of the status of forces agreement. What happened then because the White House says Nuri al Maliki wouldn't give that immunity to any residual U.S. force.

BARBERO: I think we could have worked it and kept it from going through the parliament. I think we could have - we have immunity today, it didn't go through the parliament. So I think it could have been worked if we had tried harder.

BLITZER: You don't think the administration tried hard enough to get it?

BARBERO: I don't think so.

BLITZER: That's the McCain position, that could have been done but the White House didn't want it to be done. They wanted all U.S. troops.

BARBERO: I don't think we tried hard enough.

BLITZER: You think it was - it was definitely doable.

BARBERO: I think it was. BLITZER: There was another argument that the Pentagon wanted 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops to remain.

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: The White House said maybe 1,000 or 2,000 for a year and the Iraqis said well that's not good enough.

BARBERO: Right. No, and -

BLITZER: Was - is that true?

BARBERO: That is true. And we wanted them pulled back on these training sites where we're fielding military equipment to train the Iraqi, not in any kind of combat role at all."
CNN.com - Transcripts



Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.

You decide why.

Politicalchick,
You're wrong. ISIS is really In Iraq because Bush got rid of Hussain. Also, ISIS exists because Obama didn't want to support the Assad regeme. Do you remember when that ISIS guy cut off a reporter's head? This may be a little hard for you to comprehend. But you did it! Not directly of course. But ultimately, through a long chain of events, you and everybody else who supports the U.S. government is responsible. I don't know how old you are, but your parents are responsible for flying the planes into the World Trade Center buildings. Again, not directly. But guilty all the same. You can talk about this and that. But it is all a load of nonsence. If you really want things to be different, get down to the nitty gritty. Be a Fascist!

 

[Jroc]

Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.

You're leaving out a rather important detail. He didn't want to leave 10,000 troops without a SOFA. And Maliki refused. There's no indication from the Iraqi parliament that they would have been more open to a SOFA with the US than Maliki was. If you believe otherwise, quote the leaders of the Iraqi parliament indicating as much.

Wrong.

"This month, Colin Kahl, the senior Pentagon official in charge of Iraq policy at the time, explained why the White House insisted on Iraq’s parliament approving the changes to the SOFA.

He wrote in Politico Magazine that in 2011 Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, “told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections.

Yet this time around, Obama is willing to accept an agreement from Iraq’s foreign ministry on U.S. forces in Iraq without a vote of Iraq’s parliament. “We believe we need a separate set of assurances from the Iraqis,” one senior U.S. defense official told The Daily Beast on Sunday. This official said this would likely be an agreement or exchange of diplomatic notes from the Iraq’s foreign ministry. “We basically need a piece of paper from them,” another U.S. official involved in the negotiations told The Daily Beast. The official didn’t explain why the parliamentary vote, so crucial three years ago, was no longer needed.”
Obama Does a U-Turn on Immunity for U.S. Troops in Iraq - The Daily Beast

Obama rejected it.


Now....why do you suppose that Obama gave entrée to ISIS?

And error of omission.....

....or a plan of commission?

Excellent post post sweetie...Obama "dithered" around he didn't really start negotiating until late in the game, then sends that idiot Biden over there to screw it up. He never wanted any troops left there and his liberal base wouldn't have it.

 

[Dot Com]

...because he so desperately wanted to see his foreign policy approval rating plummet and take his party down with it?

That was his grand scheme?

Do you people EVER think before you post?

^ that

If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.

^ that

sigh.....im not even going to bother with this.

^ & that

PC & her revisionist, rw history, is a hoot