New WSJ/NBC poll - Donald losing more ground

[NotfooledbyW]

Roudy, post: 19824616

Obama didn't want an extension, that doesn't mean he couldn't use any of the leverage he had to get one. You are obviously simpleton hack who has no clue how politics work.

I told you about immunity. It was an impasse. You can't say the word. It wipes out your conspiracy theory that Obama didn't 'want' an extension.

You said yourself that Bush left a peaceful Iraq. Of course that is a lie too, but for the sake of argument, if Iraq was peaceful as you said , why in the hell would Obama not want to keep some troops in a peaceful Iraq. There was no war anymore. You make no sense.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan Obama added 30,000 Troops since flunky Bush was in no way winning the war that actually had something to do with the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks.

I mention the War in Afghanistan because Obama obviously didn't 'want' to send more troops into the war where Bush lost interest. But Obama did authorize a bigger surge in Afghanistan than the one in Iraq.

And you are trying to tell me that Obama didn't 'want' to keep s few thousand troops in 'peaceful' Iraq.

You think you know what Obama wants. You are a knucklehead, a deplorable knucklehead.

 

[Markle]

No advisers told Obama to keep troops in Iraq beyond the Bush deadline without immunity. Not one single one,

There was an impasse in negotiations over that issue.

Nothing short of over throwing the Maliki Shiite government could have broken that impasse.

Do you think Republican US members of Congress would have given Obama an AUMF to restart an Iraq invasion to topple the Shiite Iran backed government that Bush put in there?

Do you really think that when Bush left telling us that the Maliki government was strong enough to defend the 'new democracy' that got 4400 US troops needlessly killed in the making, Obama would have been able to remove it it?

You are insane if you believe that.

You're too easy. Do you have someone who can step up for you? You know, like the designated hitter?

Barack Obama silences generals on US ground troops in Iraq
White House publicly overrules military and promises US will not fight "another ground war in Iraq"
By Raf Sanchez, Washington
7:13 PM BST 17 Sep 2014
Barack Obama silences generals on US ground troops in Iraq

Obama vs. the generals

By Marc A. Thiessen September 15, 2014

Pity poor Gen. Lloyd Austin, top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East.

Rarely has a U.S. general given his commander in chief better military advice, only to see it repeatedly rejected.

In 2010, Gen. Austin advised President Obama against withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq, recommending that the president instead leave 24,000 U.S. troops (down from 45,000) to secure the military gains made in the surge and prevent a terrorist resurgence. Had Obama listened to Austin’s counsel, the rise of the Islamic State could have been stopped.

But Obama rejected Austin’s advice and enthusiastically withdrew all U.S. all forces from the country, boasting that he was finally bringing an end to “the long war in Iraq.”

President Barack Obama today decisively silenced speculation by America's generals that US ground troops could return to Iraq in a rare example of the White House publicly overruling the military.
[...]
Obama vs. the generals

More?

 

[Markle]

More?

Obama Rejected "Best Military Advice"
Dustin Walker
September 11, 2014

Quoting two U.S. military officials, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), said “that his best military advice was to send a modest contingent of American troops, principally Special Operations forces, to advise and assist Iraqi army units in fighting the militants.”

Austin’s recommendation was taken to the White House by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey. The White House rejected CENTCOM’s “advise and assist” contingent due to concerns about placing U.S. ground forces in a frontline role.

Obama Rejected "Best Military Advice" | RealClearDefense

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Markle, post: 19825132

You're right, I didn't refute your point. I destroyed your "point".

You destroyed which point, when you wrote which counterpoint. Please provide clarification. Trumpo says Bush lied to invade Iraq. You agree with Trumpo, right?

 

[Markle]

He pulled out of Iraq too early while losing areas that Americans had lost their lives capturing from terrorists, then stood by while Asad was committing genocide on his people,mooing absolutely nothing about it, called ISIS a JV team as Syrians looking for refuge from Assad flocked to Assad, while Muslims from all over the world flocked to join ISIS that was capturing large swaths of Syrian and Iraqi territory, including many oil rich areas. And then the emboldened ISIS terrorists exported their barbarism to the streets of major Western capitals.

Yet another Obama masterpiece. In essence the most incompetent, inept president we've had.

Yet the crooked, corrupt media kept giving him pass after pass.

He actually pulled out according to Bush’s timetable for withdrawal; and again.... ISIS formed years before Obama became president.

No, the piece of shit intentionally walked out of the negotiations to keep the troops in Iraq, against the military's advice, causing cities like Falluja which many Americans had lost their lives to capture to fall back in the hands of terrorists. In essence pissing their lives away.

Leftards are usually ignorant of history if not engaging in delusional revisionism. Not even the Democrats themselves will say that Obama handled the rise of ISIS and Syrian genocide well.

Moron, the negotiations over withdrawing our troops from Iraq were completed in December, 2008, before Obama became president.

And again... ISIS was formed before Obama became president. You appear to be a craven nut claiming Obama created a terrorist group which actually formed while Bush, who gave the go ahead to turn Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground, was president.

Actually it was Obama's premature withdrawal and then weakness and ineptness towards Assad's genocidal campaign to stay in power that helped make ISIS what it became. That is a fact. But since you are a coolaid drinking historical revisionist repeating Leftwing talking points you wouldn't know any better.

LOLOL

I like how the imbecile who denies Obama adhered to Bush's withdrawal timetable and idiotically claims ISIS was created at sometime after 2008 when it was actually created in 2006 -- projects I'm the one drinking Kool-Aid.

Shit, the dumbfuck can't even spell, "Kool-Aid."

Timeline: the Rise, Spread and Fall of the Islamic State

 

[Markle]

Markle, post: 19825132

You're right, I didn't refute your point. I destroyed your "point".

You destroyed which point, when you wrote which counterpoint. Please provide clarification. Trumpo says Bush lied to invade Iraq. You agree with Trumpo, right?

I don't agree with everything Trump says or does.

You claim President Donald Trump is always lying so obviously then you believe he was lying when he made that statement.

Thank you.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans' terms.

Markle, post: 19825274

In 2010, Gen. Austin advised President Obama against withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq, recommending that the president instead leave 24,000 U.S. troops (down from 45,000) to secure the military gains made in the surge and prevent a terrorist resurgence.

Ok Markle, you have produced a recommendation from General Austin, but I see no mention of the immunity impasse. General Austin works for the DOD right? Pentagon right?

The Iraqi political leaders said they agreed on the need for the U.S. trainers to stay, but noted they would deny the remaining troops immunity from Iraqi law, the Associated Press reported Tuesday. This could mark a deal breaker for the U.S. — the Pentagon has said immunity from prosecution is critical for keeping troops in the country

Iraq wants U.S. troops in 2012

So Markle, so when you find, a General or any military adviser recommending that Obama keep a few thousand trainers in Iraq, limited to bases, without immunity, post it.

Until you do, you've got nothing, but rightwing lies and fake reality hysteria leaving out the critical fact about immunity.

Iraq killed any troops staying, not Obama.

Iraq PM: Immunity issue scuttled US troop deal
By LARA JAKES, REBECCA SANTANA
The Associated Press
BAGHDAD — Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits.

The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans' terms.

A day earlier, President Barack Obama had hailed the troops' withdrawal as the result of his commitment — promised shortly after taking office in 2009 — to end the war that he once described as "dumb."


Iraq PM: Immunity issue scuttled US troop deal
By LARA JAKES, REBECCA SANTANA
The Associated Press
BAGHDAD — Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits.

The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans' terms.

Iraq PM: Immunity issue scuttled US troop deal

I have seen no Pentagon source that indicates one single soul at the Pentsgon who disagreed with the "American demand" that troops in Iraq be protected with immunity.

You have yet to produce that soul.

 

[Roudy]

More?

Obama Rejected "Best Military Advice"
Dustin Walker
September 11, 2014

Quoting two U.S. military officials, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), said “that his best military advice was to send a modest contingent of American troops, principally Special Operations forces, to advise and assist Iraqi army units in fighting the militants.”

Austin’s recommendation was taken to the White House by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey. The White House rejected CENTCOM’s “advise and assist” contingent due to concerns about placing U.S. ground forces in a frontline role.

Obama Rejected "Best Military Advice" | RealClearDefense

Leftards have an issue with the truth.

 

[Faun]

Roudy, post: 19818345

He didn't renegotiate an extension, retard. It's like someone who refuses to extend a lease intentionally. Obama did that because he wanted to remove ALL the troops from Iraq in order to keep an election promise.

Explain how Obama negotiates an extension if the Iraqis will never agree to grant our military personnel immunity from Iraqi law and courts. Giving up immunity is not to be negotiated away from our side.

The Iraqi Supreme Court ruled that granting of immunity must be approved by Parliament. There was no way in hell that Parliament would extend immunity.

You will babble on - oblivious to the immunity issue - never bringing it up, you are that predictable. There was an impasse over immunity. To give in would be to shit on our troops that have that protection in every other country they serve.

It sounds as if you wish Obama shouldve shit on US troops in light of 20/20 hindsight with regard ISIS. And you wanted more Americans to die when Iraqis won't fight themselves.. You are a deplorable.Anerican indeed.

Obama didn't want an extension, that doesn't mean he couldn't use any of the leverage he had to get one. You are obviously simpleton hack who has no clue how politics work.

Like I said Obama was handed a peaceful stable Iraq, thanks to Bush's successful Surge which Obama and many Dems voted against. And then the piece of shit proceeded to totally shatter what thousands of Americans had given their lives to accomplish. Out of which ISIS and today's Syrian crisis arose.

And oh, how did that much advertised "Arab Spring" work out? Another Obama masterpiece that totally destabilized the region and world in general.

Now go drink your coolaid, comrade.

"And then the piece of shit proceeded to totally shatter what thousands of Americans had given their lives to accomplish."

... again ... by following Bush's timetable for withdrawal.

 

[Faun]

No advisers told Obama to keep troops in Iraq beyond the Bush deadline without immunity. Not one single one,

There was an impasse in negotiations over that issue.

Nothing short of over throwing the Maliki Shiite government could have broken that impasse.

Do you think Republican US members of Congress would have given Obama an AUMF to restart an Iraq invasion to topple the Shiite Iran backed government that Bush put in there?

Do you really think that when Bush left telling us that the Maliki government was strong enough to defend the 'new democracy' that got 4400 US troops needlessly killed in the making, Obama would have been able to remove it it?

You are insane if you believe that.

You're too easy. Do you have someone who can step up for you? You know, like the designated hitter?

Barack Obama silences generals on US ground troops in Iraq
White House publicly overrules military and promises US will not fight "another ground war in Iraq"
By Raf Sanchez, Washington
7:13 PM BST 17 Sep 2014
Barack Obama silences generals on US ground troops in Iraq

Obama vs. the generals

By Marc A. Thiessen September 15, 2014

Pity poor Gen. Lloyd Austin, top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East.

Rarely has a U.S. general given his commander in chief better military advice, only to see it repeatedly rejected.

In 2010, Gen. Austin advised President Obama against withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq, recommending that the president instead leave 24,000 U.S. troops (down from 45,000) to secure the military gains made in the surge and prevent a terrorist resurgence. Had Obama listened to Austin’s counsel, the rise of the Islamic State could have been stopped.

But Obama rejected Austin’s advice and enthusiastically withdrew all U.S. all forces from the country, boasting that he was finally bringing an end to “the long war in Iraq.”

President Barack Obama today decisively silenced speculation by America's generals that US ground troops could return to Iraq in a rare example of the White House publicly overruling the military.
[...]
Obama vs. the generals

More?

Why would we have the need to leave troops? Iraq convinced us they could stand up on their own.

 

[Roudy]

No advisers told Obama to keep troops in Iraq beyond the Bush deadline without immunity. Not one single one,

There was an impasse in negotiations over that issue.

Nothing short of over throwing the Maliki Shiite government could have broken that impasse.

Do you think Republican US members of Congress would have given Obama an AUMF to restart an Iraq invasion to topple the Shiite Iran backed government that Bush put in there?

Do you really think that when Bush left telling us that the Maliki government was strong enough to defend the 'new democracy' that got 4400 US troops needlessly killed in the making, Obama would have been able to remove it it?

You are insane if you believe that.

You're too easy. Do you have someone who can step up for you? You know, like the designated hitter?

Barack Obama silences generals on US ground troops in Iraq
White House publicly overrules military and promises US will not fight "another ground war in Iraq"
By Raf Sanchez, Washington
7:13 PM BST 17 Sep 2014
Barack Obama silences generals on US ground troops in Iraq

Obama vs. the generals

By Marc A. Thiessen September 15, 2014

Pity poor Gen. Lloyd Austin, top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East.

Rarely has a U.S. general given his commander in chief better military advice, only to see it repeatedly rejected.

In 2010, Gen. Austin advised President Obama against withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq, recommending that the president instead leave 24,000 U.S. troops (down from 45,000) to secure the military gains made in the surge and prevent a terrorist resurgence. Had Obama listened to Austin’s counsel, the rise of the Islamic State could have been stopped.

But Obama rejected Austin’s advice and enthusiastically withdrew all U.S. all forces from the country, boasting that he was finally bringing an end to “the long war in Iraq.”

President Barack Obama today decisively silenced speculation by America's generals that US ground troops could return to Iraq in a rare example of the White House publicly overruling the military.
[...]
Obama vs. the generals

More?

Why would we have the need to leave troops? Iraq convinced us they could stand up on their own.

Our generals and military professionals predicted that the premature pullout would be a disaster, and it was. Ever wonder why everything Obama touched somehow magically turned to shit?

 

[Markle]

Markle, post: 19825132

You're right, I didn't refute your point. I destroyed your "point".

You destroyed which point, when you wrote which counterpoint. Please provide clarification. Trumpo says Bush lied to invade Iraq. You agree with Trumpo, right?

The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans' terms.

Markle, post: 19825274

In 2010, Gen. Austin advised President Obama against withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq, recommending that the president instead leave 24,000 U.S. troops (down from 45,000) to secure the military gains made in the surge and prevent a terrorist resurgence.

Ok Markle, you have produced a recommendation from General Austin, but I see no mention of the immunity impasse. General Austin works for the DOD right? Pentagon right?

The Iraqi political leaders said they agreed on the need for the U.S. trainers to stay, but noted they would deny the remaining troops immunity from Iraqi law, the Associated Press reported Tuesday. This could mark a deal breaker for the U.S. — the Pentagon has said immunity from prosecution is critical for keeping troops in the country

Iraq wants U.S. troops in 2012

So Markle, so when you find, a General or any military adviser recommending that Obama keep a few thousand trainers in Iraq, limited to bases, without immunity, post it.

Until you do, you've got nothing, but rightwing lies and fake reality hysteria leaving out the critical fact about immunity.

Iraq killed any troops staying, not Obama.

Iraq PM: Immunity issue scuttled US troop deal
By LARA JAKES, REBECCA SANTANA
The Associated Press
BAGHDAD — Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits.

The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans' terms.

A day earlier, President Barack Obama had hailed the troops' withdrawal as the result of his commitment — promised shortly after taking office in 2009 — to end the war that he once described as "dumb."


Iraq PM: Immunity issue scuttled US troop deal
By LARA JAKES, REBECCA SANTANA
The Associated Press
BAGHDAD — Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits.

The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans' terms.

Iraq PM: Immunity issue scuttled US troop deal

I have seen no Pentagon source that indicates one single soul at the Pentsgon who disagreed with the "American demand" that troops in Iraq be protected with immunity.

You have yet to produce that soul.

It simply had to be negotiated. A piece of cake except for a rank novice such as failed former President Barack Hussein Obama whose prior negotiating experience was limited to the shape of the table at an ACORN meeting in Chicago.

 

[Roudy]

Markle, post: 19825132

You're right, I didn't refute your point. I destroyed your "point".

You destroyed which point, when you wrote which counterpoint. Please provide clarification. Trumpo says Bush lied to invade Iraq. You agree with Trumpo, right?

The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans' terms.

Markle, post: 19825274

In 2010, Gen. Austin advised President Obama against withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq, recommending that the president instead leave 24,000 U.S. troops (down from 45,000) to secure the military gains made in the surge and prevent a terrorist resurgence.

Ok Markle, you have produced a recommendation from General Austin, but I see no mention of the immunity impasse. General Austin works for the DOD right? Pentagon right?

The Iraqi political leaders said they agreed on the need for the U.S. trainers to stay, but noted they would deny the remaining troops immunity from Iraqi law, the Associated Press reported Tuesday. This could mark a deal breaker for the U.S. — the Pentagon has said immunity from prosecution is critical for keeping troops in the country

Iraq wants U.S. troops in 2012

So Markle, so when you find, a General or any military adviser recommending that Obama keep a few thousand trainers in Iraq, limited to bases, without immunity, post it.

Until you do, you've got nothing, but rightwing lies and fake reality hysteria leaving out the critical fact about immunity.

Iraq killed any troops staying, not Obama.

Iraq PM: Immunity issue scuttled US troop deal
By LARA JAKES, REBECCA SANTANA
The Associated Press
BAGHDAD — Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits.

The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans' terms.

A day earlier, President Barack Obama had hailed the troops' withdrawal as the result of his commitment — promised shortly after taking office in 2009 — to end the war that he once described as "dumb."


Iraq PM: Immunity issue scuttled US troop deal
By LARA JAKES, REBECCA SANTANA
The Associated Press
BAGHDAD — Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits.

The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans' terms.

Iraq PM: Immunity issue scuttled US troop deal

I have seen no Pentagon source that indicates one single soul at the Pentsgon who disagreed with the "American demand" that troops in Iraq be protected with immunity.

You have yet to produce that soul.

It simply had to be negotiated. A piece of cake except for a rank novice such as failed former President Barack Hussein Obama whose prior negotiating experience was limited to the shape of the table at an ACORN meeting in Chicago.

Even leftie papers agreed that Obama could have negotiated a stay, but didn't want to.

Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq, Bush says

U.S. and Iraq Had Not Expected Troops Would Have to Leave

At the end of the Bush administration, when the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, was negotiated, setting 2011 as the end of the United States’ military role, officials had said the deadline was set for political reasons, to put a symbolic end to the occupation and establish Iraq’s sovereignty. But there was an understanding, a senior official here said, that a sizable American force would stay in Iraq beyond that date.

 

[Faun]

No advisers told Obama to keep troops in Iraq beyond the Bush deadline without immunity. Not one single one,

There was an impasse in negotiations over that issue.

Nothing short of over throwing the Maliki Shiite government could have broken that impasse.

Do you think Republican US members of Congress would have given Obama an AUMF to restart an Iraq invasion to topple the Shiite Iran backed government that Bush put in there?

Do you really think that when Bush left telling us that the Maliki government was strong enough to defend the 'new democracy' that got 4400 US troops needlessly killed in the making, Obama would have been able to remove it it?

You are insane if you believe that.

You're too easy. Do you have someone who can step up for you? You know, like the designated hitter?

Barack Obama silences generals on US ground troops in Iraq
White House publicly overrules military and promises US will not fight "another ground war in Iraq"
By Raf Sanchez, Washington
7:13 PM BST 17 Sep 2014
Barack Obama silences generals on US ground troops in Iraq

Obama vs. the generals

By Marc A. Thiessen September 15, 2014

Pity poor Gen. Lloyd Austin, top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East.

Rarely has a U.S. general given his commander in chief better military advice, only to see it repeatedly rejected.

In 2010, Gen. Austin advised President Obama against withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq, recommending that the president instead leave 24,000 U.S. troops (down from 45,000) to secure the military gains made in the surge and prevent a terrorist resurgence. Had Obama listened to Austin’s counsel, the rise of the Islamic State could have been stopped.

But Obama rejected Austin’s advice and enthusiastically withdrew all U.S. all forces from the country, boasting that he was finally bringing an end to “the long war in Iraq.”

President Barack Obama today decisively silenced speculation by America's generals that US ground troops could return to Iraq in a rare example of the White House publicly overruling the military.
[...]
Obama vs. the generals

More?

Why would we have the need to leave troops? Iraq convinced us they could stand up on their own.

Our generals and military professionals predicted that the premature pullout would be a disaster, and it was. Ever wonder why everything Obama touched somehow magically turned to shit?

Actually, what was posted was one general expressed concern. Meanwhile, we had the former president, Bush, telling America for years that we will stand down when Iraq can stand up.

Then, according to Bush, Iraq could stand up as he made the deal with Iraq to stand down. Obama followed Bush's timetable. Even worse, the deal between the U.S. and Iraq was already made before Obama became president. The only way Obama could have left troops was to break our word with them and they didn't want that as they flat out refused to ensure immunity for our troops -- a necessary agreement to keep our troops there which Iraq would not give.

 

[Roudy]

Markle, post: 19825132

You're right, I didn't refute your point. I destroyed your "point".

You destroyed which point, when you wrote which counterpoint. Please provide clarification. Trumpo says Bush lied to invade Iraq. You agree with Trumpo, right?

The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans' terms.

Markle, post: 19825274

In 2010, Gen. Austin advised President Obama against withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq, recommending that the president instead leave 24,000 U.S. troops (down from 45,000) to secure the military gains made in the surge and prevent a terrorist resurgence.

Ok Markle, you have produced a recommendation from General Austin, but I see no mention of the immunity impasse. General Austin works for the DOD right? Pentagon right?

The Iraqi political leaders said they agreed on the need for the U.S. trainers to stay, but noted they would deny the remaining troops immunity from Iraqi law, the Associated Press reported Tuesday. This could mark a deal breaker for the U.S. — the Pentagon has said immunity from prosecution is critical for keeping troops in the country

Iraq wants U.S. troops in 2012

So Markle, so when you find, a General or any military adviser recommending that Obama keep a few thousand trainers in Iraq, limited to bases, without immunity, post it.

Until you do, you've got nothing, but rightwing lies and fake reality hysteria leaving out the critical fact about immunity.

Iraq killed any troops staying, not Obama.

Iraq PM: Immunity issue scuttled US troop deal
By LARA JAKES, REBECCA SANTANA
The Associated Press
BAGHDAD — Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits.

The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans' terms.

A day earlier, President Barack Obama had hailed the troops' withdrawal as the result of his commitment — promised shortly after taking office in 2009 — to end the war that he once described as "dumb."


Iraq PM: Immunity issue scuttled US troop deal
By LARA JAKES, REBECCA SANTANA
The Associated Press
BAGHDAD — Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits.

The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans' terms.

Iraq PM: Immunity issue scuttled US troop deal

I have seen no Pentagon source that indicates one single soul at the Pentsgon who disagreed with the "American demand" that troops in Iraq be protected with immunity.

You have yet to produce that soul.

It simply had to be negotiated. A piece of cake except for a rank novice such as failed former President Barack Hussein Obama whose prior negotiating experience was limited to the shape of the table at an ACORN meeting in Chicago.

Problem is, Hussein Obama was only good at giving anti American, anti white, anti capitalistic speeches, and of course community organizing.

 

[Markle]

No advisers told Obama to keep troops in Iraq beyond the Bush deadline without immunity. Not one single one,

There was an impasse in negotiations over that issue.

Nothing short of over throwing the Maliki Shiite government could have broken that impasse.

Do you think Republican US members of Congress would have given Obama an AUMF to restart an Iraq invasion to topple the Shiite Iran backed government that Bush put in there?

Do you really think that when Bush left telling us that the Maliki government was strong enough to defend the 'new democracy' that got 4400 US troops needlessly killed in the making, Obama would have been able to remove it it?

You are insane if you believe that.

You're too easy. Do you have someone who can step up for you? You know, like the designated hitter?

Barack Obama silences generals on US ground troops in Iraq
White House publicly overrules military and promises US will not fight "another ground war in Iraq"
By Raf Sanchez, Washington
7:13 PM BST 17 Sep 2014
Barack Obama silences generals on US ground troops in Iraq

Obama vs. the generals

By Marc A. Thiessen September 15, 2014

Pity poor Gen. Lloyd Austin, top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East.

Rarely has a U.S. general given his commander in chief better military advice, only to see it repeatedly rejected.

In 2010, Gen. Austin advised President Obama against withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq, recommending that the president instead leave 24,000 U.S. troops (down from 45,000) to secure the military gains made in the surge and prevent a terrorist resurgence. Had Obama listened to Austin’s counsel, the rise of the Islamic State could have been stopped.

But Obama rejected Austin’s advice and enthusiastically withdrew all U.S. all forces from the country, boasting that he was finally bringing an end to “the long war in Iraq.”

President Barack Obama today decisively silenced speculation by America's generals that US ground troops could return to Iraq in a rare example of the White House publicly overruling the military.
[...]
Obama vs. the generals

More?

Why would we have the need to leave troops? Iraq convinced us they could stand up on their own.

Our generals and military professionals predicted that the premature pullout would be a disaster, and it was. Ever wonder why everything Obama touched somehow magically turned to shit?

Actually, what was posted was one general expressed concern. Meanwhile, we had the former president, Bush, telling America for years that we will stand down when Iraq can stand up.

Then, according to Bush, Iraq could stand up as he made the deal with Iraq to stand down. Obama followed Bush's timetable. Even worse, the deal between the U.S. and Iraq was already made before Obama became president. The only way Obama could have left troops was to break our word with them and they didn't want that as they flat out refused to ensure immunity for our troops -- a necessary agreement to keep our troops there which Iraq would not give.

 

[Roudy]

No advisers told Obama to keep troops in Iraq beyond the Bush deadline without immunity. Not one single one,

There was an impasse in negotiations over that issue.

Nothing short of over throwing the Maliki Shiite government could have broken that impasse.

Do you think Republican US members of Congress would have given Obama an AUMF to restart an Iraq invasion to topple the Shiite Iran backed government that Bush put in there?

Do you really think that when Bush left telling us that the Maliki government was strong enough to defend the 'new democracy' that got 4400 US troops needlessly killed in the making, Obama would have been able to remove it it?

You are insane if you believe that.

You're too easy. Do you have someone who can step up for you? You know, like the designated hitter?

Barack Obama silences generals on US ground troops in Iraq
White House publicly overrules military and promises US will not fight "another ground war in Iraq"
By Raf Sanchez, Washington
7:13 PM BST 17 Sep 2014
Barack Obama silences generals on US ground troops in Iraq

Obama vs. the generals

By Marc A. Thiessen September 15, 2014

Pity poor Gen. Lloyd Austin, top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East.

Rarely has a U.S. general given his commander in chief better military advice, only to see it repeatedly rejected.

In 2010, Gen. Austin advised President Obama against withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq, recommending that the president instead leave 24,000 U.S. troops (down from 45,000) to secure the military gains made in the surge and prevent a terrorist resurgence. Had Obama listened to Austin’s counsel, the rise of the Islamic State could have been stopped.

But Obama rejected Austin’s advice and enthusiastically withdrew all U.S. all forces from the country, boasting that he was finally bringing an end to “the long war in Iraq.”

President Barack Obama today decisively silenced speculation by America's generals that US ground troops could return to Iraq in a rare example of the White House publicly overruling the military.
[...]
Obama vs. the generals

More?

Why would we have the need to leave troops? Iraq convinced us they could stand up on their own.

Our generals and military professionals predicted that the premature pullout would be a disaster, and it was. Ever wonder why everything Obama touched somehow magically turned to shit?

Actually, what was posted was one general expressed concern. Meanwhile, we had the former president, Bush, telling America for years that we will stand down when Iraq can stand up.

Then, according to Bush, Iraq could stand up as he made the deal with Iraq to stand down. Obama followed Bush's timetable. Even worse, the deal between the U.S. and Iraq was already made before Obama became president. The only way Obama could have left troops was to break our word with them and they didn't want that as they flat out refused to ensure immunity for our troops -- a necessary agreement to keep our troops there which Iraq would not give.

Wrong again, it was understood that once the agreement ended a new one would be easily negotiated with much less troops still remaining. Obama's failure to do that caused Iraq to fall.

 

[Faun]

No advisers told Obama to keep troops in Iraq beyond the Bush deadline without immunity. Not one single one,

There was an impasse in negotiations over that issue.

Nothing short of over throwing the Maliki Shiite government could have broken that impasse.

Do you think Republican US members of Congress would have given Obama an AUMF to restart an Iraq invasion to topple the Shiite Iran backed government that Bush put in there?

Do you really think that when Bush left telling us that the Maliki government was strong enough to defend the 'new democracy' that got 4400 US troops needlessly killed in the making, Obama would have been able to remove it it?

You are insane if you believe that.

You're too easy. Do you have someone who can step up for you? You know, like the designated hitter?

Barack Obama silences generals on US ground troops in Iraq
White House publicly overrules military and promises US will not fight "another ground war in Iraq"
By Raf Sanchez, Washington
7:13 PM BST 17 Sep 2014
Barack Obama silences generals on US ground troops in Iraq

Obama vs. the generals

By Marc A. Thiessen September 15, 2014

Pity poor Gen. Lloyd Austin, top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East.

Rarely has a U.S. general given his commander in chief better military advice, only to see it repeatedly rejected.

In 2010, Gen. Austin advised President Obama against withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq, recommending that the president instead leave 24,000 U.S. troops (down from 45,000) to secure the military gains made in the surge and prevent a terrorist resurgence. Had Obama listened to Austin’s counsel, the rise of the Islamic State could have been stopped.

But Obama rejected Austin’s advice and enthusiastically withdrew all U.S. all forces from the country, boasting that he was finally bringing an end to “the long war in Iraq.”

President Barack Obama today decisively silenced speculation by America's generals that US ground troops could return to Iraq in a rare example of the White House publicly overruling the military.
[...]
Obama vs. the generals

More?

Why would we have the need to leave troops? Iraq convinced us they could stand up on their own.

Our generals and military professionals predicted that the premature pullout would be a disaster, and it was. Ever wonder why everything Obama touched somehow magically turned to shit?

Actually, what was posted was one general expressed concern. Meanwhile, we had the former president, Bush, telling America for years that we will stand down when Iraq can stand up.

Then, according to Bush, Iraq could stand up as he made the deal with Iraq to stand down. Obama followed Bush's timetable. Even worse, the deal between the U.S. and Iraq was already made before Obama became president. The only way Obama could have left troops was to break our word with them and they didn't want that as they flat out refused to ensure immunity for our troops -- a necessary agreement to keep our troops there which Iraq would not give.

If you think I'm not calm, a baby girl, or desperate, that's a reflection upon your own perceptions.

 

[Faun]

No advisers told Obama to keep troops in Iraq beyond the Bush deadline without immunity. Not one single one,

There was an impasse in negotiations over that issue.

Nothing short of over throwing the Maliki Shiite government could have broken that impasse.

Do you think Republican US members of Congress would have given Obama an AUMF to restart an Iraq invasion to topple the Shiite Iran backed government that Bush put in there?

Do you really think that when Bush left telling us that the Maliki government was strong enough to defend the 'new democracy' that got 4400 US troops needlessly killed in the making, Obama would have been able to remove it it?

You are insane if you believe that.

You're too easy. Do you have someone who can step up for you? You know, like the designated hitter?

Barack Obama silences generals on US ground troops in Iraq
White House publicly overrules military and promises US will not fight "another ground war in Iraq"
By Raf Sanchez, Washington
7:13 PM BST 17 Sep 2014
Barack Obama silences generals on US ground troops in Iraq

Obama vs. the generals

By Marc A. Thiessen September 15, 2014

Pity poor Gen. Lloyd Austin, top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East.

Rarely has a U.S. general given his commander in chief better military advice, only to see it repeatedly rejected.

In 2010, Gen. Austin advised President Obama against withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq, recommending that the president instead leave 24,000 U.S. troops (down from 45,000) to secure the military gains made in the surge and prevent a terrorist resurgence. Had Obama listened to Austin’s counsel, the rise of the Islamic State could have been stopped.

But Obama rejected Austin’s advice and enthusiastically withdrew all U.S. all forces from the country, boasting that he was finally bringing an end to “the long war in Iraq.”

President Barack Obama today decisively silenced speculation by America's generals that US ground troops could return to Iraq in a rare example of the White House publicly overruling the military.
[...]
Obama vs. the generals

More?

Why would we have the need to leave troops? Iraq convinced us they could stand up on their own.

Our generals and military professionals predicted that the premature pullout would be a disaster, and it was. Ever wonder why everything Obama touched somehow magically turned to shit?

Actually, what was posted was one general expressed concern. Meanwhile, we had the former president, Bush, telling America for years that we will stand down when Iraq can stand up.

Then, according to Bush, Iraq could stand up as he made the deal with Iraq to stand down. Obama followed Bush's timetable. Even worse, the deal between the U.S. and Iraq was already made before Obama became president. The only way Obama could have left troops was to break our word with them and they didn't want that as they flat out refused to ensure immunity for our troops -- a necessary agreement to keep our troops there which Iraq would not give.

Wrong again, it was understood that once the agreement ended a new one would be easily negotiated with much less troops still remaining. Obama's failure to do that caused Iraq to fall.

Bullshit. There was no term-ending clauses in Bush's agreement. It was not a first stage agreement. And it was a binding agreement. I like how easily conservatives lie to prop up their bullshit. Good job, conservative.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Markle, post: 19825376,

I don't agree with everything Trump says or does.

You don't get to dissagree with truth. There is enough public knowledge about the US invasion of Iraq to know without doubt that Bush lied on March 17, 2003 when he said he had intelligence that left no doubt that Saddam Hussein was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors.

Here is the proof:

Around March 7 2003 Bush sent SecState Powell to UNSC with a draft resolution that expressed US willingness to leave Saddam Hussein in power.

The offer demanded UN inspectors to complete their work within two weeks.

If inspector's declare Iraq free of WMD within two weeks, no war, no need for Saddam Hussein to step down,

Bush pulls back draft resolution. Not enough votes because inspectors require more time than two weeks,

Think Markle, think on your own. How does Bush offer to leave SH in power if Bush has intelligence in front of him that leaves no doubt that SH is hiding WMD from inspectors,

Bush cannot make that offer because he has all the intelligence he needed on March 7 to justify invading and toppling Saddam.

That is - unless he was lying about ten days later when he said he had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding very lethal
WMD.

Bush made the offer and then he lied.

Trump told the truth because it is the truth.