McCain: Opponents lying about Iraq history Maliki wanted 20,000 troops

[tinydancer]

Well, well, well. Seek and ye shall find liberal bullshit. It turns out they wanted a continued US presence in Iraq.

Here's the deal from the man who was directly involved in the talks. McCain minces no words.

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

 

[KNB]

So Republicans wanted an indefinite occupation of a country that you lied to invade?

It's a good thing that none of your family or friends were being dismembered over there, right?

 

[Peach]

So Republicans wanted an indefinite occupation of a country that you lied to invade?

It's a good thing that none of your family or friends were being dismembered over there, right?

Iraq refused to agree to immunity against "war crimes" charges for US troops(.) a deal breaker.

 

[Yurt]

So Republicans wanted an indefinite occupation of a country that you lied to invade?

It's a good thing that none of your family or friends were being dismembered over there, right?

so we are occupying japan, south korea, germany....?

idiot

 

[NYcarbineer]

And how many did the American people want to leave there?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So Republicans wanted an indefinite occupation of a country that you lied to invade?

It's a good thing that none of your family or friends were being dismembered over there, right?

so we are occupying japan, south korea, germany....?

idiot

We are unnecessarily providing free defenses of those countries at great cost to the American people, for no good reason,

while those countries use the money they save on worthwhile endeavours like infrastructure, R & D, healthcare, and education.

 

[Yurt]

And how many did the American people want to leave there?

not up to the american people, up to the CINC

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama switched sides

 

[Katzndogz]

Well, well, well. Seek and ye shall find liberal bullshit. It turns out they wanted a continued US presence in Iraq.

Here's the deal from the man who was directly involved in the talks. McCain minces no words.

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

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for truth to penetrate a liberal brain.

 

[Yurt]

So Republicans wanted an indefinite occupation of a country that you lied to invade?

It's a good thing that none of your family or friends were being dismembered over there, right?

so we are occupying japan, south korea, germany....?

idiot

We are unnecessarily providing free defenses of those countries at great cost to the American people, for no good reason,

while those countries use the money they save on worthwhile endeavours like infrastructure, R & D, healthcare, and education.

not at all. having military bases in those countries not only helps protect them, but more importantly, it helps protect us and our global interests.

your last paragraph is bullshit. japan is 6th in the world in terms of defense budgets. south korea is number 11....

 

[KNB]

So Republicans wanted an indefinite occupation of a country that you lied to invade?

It's a good thing that none of your family or friends were being dismembered over there, right?

so we are occupying japan, south korea, germany....?

idiot

Is there an insurgency against the US in those countries? No? That's the difference.

 

[Yurt]

So Republicans wanted an indefinite occupation of a country that you lied to invade?

It's a good thing that none of your family or friends were being dismembered over there, right?

so we are occupying japan, south korea, germany....?

idiot

Is there an insurgency against the US in those countries? No? That's the difference.

that is not the point. at all. you're too dumb to know what a status of forces agreement is. we have that number of troops or more in those countries and you obviously agree we are not occupying those countries...but you stupidly think if we left that number of troops in iraq we would be occupying the country.

if we left 20,000 troops there, i highly doubt this would be happening in iraq right. in fact, i am positive.

 

[KNB]

That is the point. Do you think that America would still be in Germany if Germans were setting off IEDs on a daily basis since 1945?

 

[Dayton3]

And how many did the American people want to leave there?

Who cares? It is not the job of the president to blindly translate American public opinion into policy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

so we are occupying japan, south korea, germany....?

idiot

We are unnecessarily providing free defenses of those countries at great cost to the American people, for no good reason,

while those countries use the money they save on worthwhile endeavours like infrastructure, R & D, healthcare, and education.

not at all. having military bases in those countries not only helps protect them, but more importantly, it helps protect us and our global interests.

your last paragraph is bullshit. japan is 6th in the world in terms of defense budgets. south korea is number 11....

What interests are we protecting in South Korea?

And just to put your rankings into proper perspective:

 

[Ibentoken]

That is the point. Do you think that America would still be in Germany if Germans were setting off IEDs on a daily basis since 1945?

There was a lot of resistance after Germany surrendered. We stopped it. So the answer to you is read a history book.

 

[Yurt]

We are unnecessarily providing free defenses of those countries at great cost to the American people, for no good reason,

while those countries use the money they save on worthwhile endeavours like infrastructure, R & D, healthcare, and education.

not at all. having military bases in those countries not only helps protect them, but more importantly, it helps protect us and our global interests.

your last paragraph is bullshit. japan is 6th in the world in terms of defense budgets. south korea is number 11....

What interests are we protecting in South Korea?

And just to put your rankings into proper perspective:

but your claim is BS about those countries not spending on defense merely because we are there. further, the amount we spend on those bases is minuscule compared to our overall budget. and, if you want to be honest, our budget is so high because of our weaponry, ships, planes, testing advance weaponry. we have the highest number of fighter jets and bombers in the world, you think that is cheap?

are you kidding about SK? do you even know where that country is located or which country is north of it?

 

[Yurt]

That is the point. Do you think that America would still be in Germany if Germans were setting off IEDs on a daily basis since 1945?

of course we would. so you're saying we should turn tail and run because of a few nutters? just let the country we torn down and built back up be torn down again?

now, if iraq told us to leave and take all troops, different story. that said, i always thought we would leave a base there like we did with japan etc...

 

[KNB]

That is the point. Do you think that America would still be in Germany if Germans were setting off IEDs on a daily basis since 1945?

There was a lot of resistance after Germany surrendered. We stopped it. So the answer to you is read a history book.

How long did that take? Twenty years? Thirty? Were there religious fanatics trained in guerrilla warfare by the CIA? Was the US funneling money to the insurgency through foreign aid to "allies"?

 

[Yurt]

japan and germany spend more than austraila and india and we aren't there.....