Re-alignment! spineless Putin's poodle Trump dances for treats in Hamburg.

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 17693309

The original SOFA was negotiated and approved by the Iraqi government. I

Bush negotiated under Duress. Bush's starting point was to keep permanent bases in Iraq.

He negotiated that away.

The only reason the SOFA passed Iraq's Parliament was the Iraqis consented to grant immunity for two years as long as the 120,000 US Troops were being steadily withdrawn.

Obama had to abide by the SOFA and stradily and slowly withdraw Troops and equipment.

When it came to extending the SOFA after all but the last few troops were withdrawn, Iraq's Parliament, controlled by Muqtada al Sadr, there was no possibility of a political agreement on that extension.

What is your source that tells you that the political scene in Iraq was the same in 2008 and 2010?

All but a few thousand troops were already gone.

Obama kept 5000 in Kuwait to train and advise.

.
By TIM ARANGO and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT
OCTOBER 4, 2011


BAGHDAD — Iraq’s political leaders announced late Tuesday that they had agreed on the need to keep American military trainers in Iraq next year, but they declared that any remaining troops should not be granted immunity from Iraqi law, a point the United States has said would be a deal breaker.

Iraq Denies Legal Immunity to U.S. Troops After 2011


I realize you have no sources for your claims, but I do.

I realize you don't give a crap about our troops and the immunity issue but I and Obama and every single top military adviser to this day do care. No adviser to Obama told him to keep troops in Iraq without immunity.

It was the deal breaker.

Maliki was corrupt anyway. We had no business keeping him in power by neglecting and oppressing the Sunni cities where and only where ISIS could get a foothold.

Those 5000 trainers would have been confined to bases not out patrolling Sunni cities.

Learn to read things other than rightwing Obama hating bullcrap.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The same cannot be said of the Obama Administration because Barack Obama had no desire to keep combat troops in Iraq.

Give me your source that indicates Iraqis would have allowed one single combat troop to remain.

They only considered and negotiated regarding the need for trainers and advisers up to 5,000.

Obama wanted advisers to stay. But Iraq's final position was that advisers no longer need immunity. Our position is that US troops are granted immunity on whatever soil they are stationed. We definitely would not make an exception for still dangerous Iraq.

I'm waiting for your source.

You know nothing yourself, but what you made up or other haters made up for you.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 17693309

Obama used the expiring SOFA as an excuse to ignore the warnings he was getting from his military advisors that a premature withdrawal might very well create a dangerous power vacuum.

Iraq's government never considered keeping a large number of foreign combat forces on Iraqi soil after 2011.

What military adviser recommended keeping combat troops in Iraq without immunity?

Name one.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What makes you think the deadline was "set in stone"?

It was set in stone as far as the Iraqis were concerned. They agreed to two years and they had the sovereign right to hold the US to it.

Condeleeza Rice said there was an expectation of signing an extension; Ambassador

Her expectation did not foresee the reality in 2011 that Iraqis were not going give Obama the same immunity for our troops that they agreed to in 2008.

Bill O'Reilly explained the reality to Condi pretty well:

RICE: .. Now, as to the immunity clause, we actually did manage to negotiate an immunity clause with the Iraqis so that our forces…

O'REILLY: But they wouldn't…

RICE: …could stay.

O'REILLY: …they wouldn't give Obama the same clause.

RICE: Well, we…

O'REILLY: That's what he said.

RICE: …we don't – well…

O'REILLY: Is he lying?

RICE: …all that I know is I -- I have no idea. I wasn't inside the negotiations. But I know this. A residual force would have been preferable for all…

Condoleezza Rice Discusses Iraq Invasion Cheney Clashes Fox News

If a residual force was preferable to Rice she should not have accepted a 2011 end of immunity.

She can have all the "expectations" she wants. She needed to get an extension in writing:


Do you know what Bush's opening position was on keeping troops in Iraq?

. In June 2007, senior Bush administration officials began leaking to reporters plans for maintaining what The New York Times described as “a near-permanent presence” in Iraq, which would involve control of four major bases.

Read more:

How Maliki and Iran Outsmarted the U.S. on Troop Withdrawal
By Gareth Porter • WASHINGTON, (IPS) • December 16, 2011

How Maliki and Iran Outsmarted the U.S. on Troop Withdrawal Inter Press Service


Then:

In a meeting with then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in September 2007, National Security Adviser Rubaie said Maliki wanted a “Status of Forces Agreement” (SOFA) that would allow U.S. forces to remain but would “eliminate the irritants that are apparent violations of Iraqi sovereignty”, according Bob Woodward’s “The War Within”.

And then:

Publicly, the Maliki government continued to assure the Bush administration it could count on a long-term military presence. Asked by NBC’s Richard Engel on Jan. 24, 2008 if the agreement would provide long-term U.S. bases in Iraq, Zebari said, “This is an agreement of enduring military support. The soldiers are going to have to stay someplace. They can’t stay in the air.”

And then:

Confident that it was going to get a South Korea-style SOFA, the Bush administration gave the Iraqi government a draft on Mar. 7, 2008 that provided for no limit on the number of U.S. troops or the duration of their presence. Nor did it give Iraq any control over U.S. military operations.

And bad news for the Bushies:

Just two days after returning from a visit to Tehran in June 2008, Maliki complained publicly about U.S. demands for indefinite access to military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private contractors.

In July, he revealed that his government was demanding the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops on a timetable.

And the finale of over 4000 dead Americans in Iraq:

"
The Bush administration was in a state of shock. From July to October, it pretended that it could simply refuse to accept the withdrawal demand, while trying vainly to pressure Maliki to back down."

Quite the negotiator that Bush team was . They got nothing but panic at the end.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 17693309

What makes you think the deadline was "set in stone"?

The SOFA as written.

There was no clause that said "unless Americans decide they want to stay as long as they want and have as many as we want". Did you find it in there?

 

[Eloy]

Your author. Molly Mckew once worked for the Podesta Group. Intetesting read on her, she fancies herself a player but in reality she's a nobody.

http://theological-geography.net/?p=27930

I never heard if Molly Mckew but I do know Donald Trump and his international partner Vladimir Putin and I watched what happened at the G-20 summit. I agree with Mckew about the two goals the Europeans might have expected from Trump regarding the Western Alliance and the Russian threat. The American president would have scored some points had he told the Poles that NATO is strong and the Polish embrace of democracy and liberal European values after decades of suppression by the Russians was the path to take. He did not do this; his speech to the Polish people was his familiar hard-right white nationalist rhetoric familiar to conservative insular Catholic Poles, and the Germany's Alternative für Deutschland, and the French followers of Le Pen's Front Nationale, as well as England's UKIP and their Tory Brexit friends. When Trump used the word "western" he meant white and Christian. He boasted about western symphonies as if he did not know that some of the greatest compositions came, not from the west but from Russia. Care to compare the classical musical achievements of the Soviet Union and the USA? Ha Ha Ha. The clown has no clue.



To the Poles he also spoke of danger, not from Russia which annexed part of its neighbor, Ukraine, but “from the South or the East” that “threaten over time to undermine these values and to erase the bonds of culture, faith and tradition that make us who we are.” Read that as Islam. They say the speech was written by Steve Bannon. Who knows? But it was certainly scripted for him because it is not his style and he has no grasp of culture and the dangers Europe faces or what European values mean.

Later he was isolated at the G-20 gathering of leaders showing contempt for efforts to tackle climate change by absenting himself to join with Russia's Putin where he seems to have got the idea that the Russians can help the Americans fight cyber crime??? Is this man for real, it must be asked.

 

[Oldstyle]

What makes you think the deadline was "set in stone"?

It was set in stone as far as the Iraqis were concerned. They agreed to two years and they had the sovereign right to hold the US to it.

Condeleeza Rice said there was an expectation of signing an extension; Ambassador

Her expectation did not foresee the reality in 2011 that Iraqis were not going give Obama the same immunity for our troops that they agreed to in 2008.

Bill O'Reilly explained the reality to Condi pretty well:

RICE: .. Now, as to the immunity clause, we actually did manage to negotiate an immunity clause with the Iraqis so that our forces…

O'REILLY: But they wouldn't…

RICE: …could stay.

O'REILLY: …they wouldn't give Obama the same clause.

RICE: Well, we…

O'REILLY: That's what he said.

RICE: …we don't – well…

O'REILLY: Is he lying?

RICE: …all that I know is I -- I have no idea. I wasn't inside the negotiations. But I know this. A residual force would have been preferable for all…

Condoleezza Rice Discusses Iraq Invasion Cheney Clashes Fox News

If a residual force was preferable to Rice she should not have accepted a 2011 end of immunity.

She can have all the "expectations" she wants. She needed to get an extension in writing:


Do you know what Bush's opening position was on keeping troops in Iraq?

. In June 2007, senior Bush administration officials began leaking to reporters plans for maintaining what The New York Times described as “a near-permanent presence” in Iraq, which would involve control of four major bases.

Read more:

How Maliki and Iran Outsmarted the U.S. on Troop Withdrawal
By Gareth Porter • WASHINGTON, (IPS) • December 16, 2011

How Maliki and Iran Outsmarted the U.S. on Troop Withdrawal Inter Press Service


Then:

In a meeting with then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in September 2007, National Security Adviser Rubaie said Maliki wanted a “Status of Forces Agreement” (SOFA) that would allow U.S. forces to remain but would “eliminate the irritants that are apparent violations of Iraqi sovereignty”, according Bob Woodward’s “The War Within”.

And then:

Publicly, the Maliki government continued to assure the Bush administration it could count on a long-term military presence. Asked by NBC’s Richard Engel on Jan. 24, 2008 if the agreement would provide long-term U.S. bases in Iraq, Zebari said, “This is an agreement of enduring military support. The soldiers are going to have to stay someplace. They can’t stay in the air.”

And then:

Confident that it was going to get a South Korea-style SOFA, the Bush administration gave the Iraqi government a draft on Mar. 7, 2008 that provided for no limit on the number of U.S. troops or the duration of their presence. Nor did it give Iraq any control over U.S. military operations.

And bad news for the Bushies:

Just two days after returning from a visit to Tehran in June 2008, Maliki complained publicly about U.S. demands for indefinite access to military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private contractors.

In July, he revealed that his government was demanding the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops on a timetable.

And the finale of over 4000 dead Americans in Iraq:

"
The Bush administration was in a state of shock. From July to October, it pretended that it could simply refuse to accept the withdrawal demand, while trying vainly to pressure Maliki to back down."

Quite the negotiator that Bush team was . They got nothing but panic at the end.

Attempts by liberals like yourself to excuse Obama from the results of his premature troop withdrawal because of the expiring SOFA are nothing more than that...an excuse given to hide the fact that Barry made a deliberate choice not to seek an extension of the SOFA. The reality of the situation was that Maliki needed the financial support coming from the US and would have had no choice but to support a new SOFA if Obama had insisted he do so or face the loss of aid from the US! The Bush Administration worked hard to get the original SOFA in place...the Obama Administration didn't work at ALL to get an extension!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 17693823

Attempts by liberals like yourself to excuse Obama from the results of his premature troop withdrawal because of the expiring SOFA are nothing more than that...an excuse given to hide the fact that Barry made a deliberate choice not to seek an extension of the SOFA. T

Once again. That is a lie.you have no source do you?

You can find only rightwing Obama haters that express that lie.

Why are you not providing a source?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 17693823

The reality of the situation was that Maliki needed the financial support coming from the US and would have had no choice but to support a new SOFA if Obama had insisted he do so or face the loss of aid from the US!

Another lie. It was not Maliki's decision. It was Iraq's Parliament. Our Defense Contractors were receiving millions from Iraq's oil revenues. Iraq would have cut off arms purchases and gone elsewhere had Obama threatened Iraq in anyway to force US troops into Iraq at that point when Iraqi politicians refused to grant immunity for trainers.

There was no way. The Iraqis strongly refused to keep a combat contingent in Iraq. That was never ever on the table.

That's why Bush lost permanent bases and was granted two years to completely get out.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

. The reality of the situation was that Maliki needed the financial support coming from the US and would have had no choice but to support a new SOFA

See how much crap you are full of when you make crap use as you go.

"Arming Iraq: From Aid to Sales, 2005 to 2012
William D. Hartung
Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy

It is widely assumed that the training and equipping of the Iraqi military is financed almost entirely with U.S. government assistance. This is not the case. The final report of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction indicates that from 2003 through 2011 U.S. aid for military equipment accounted for only about $7 billion of the tens of billions of dollars in arms transfers Iraq is scheduled to receive from the United States...1 As early as 2005 Iraq began to enter into agreements to purchase large quantities of equipment under the Pentagon ary Sales (FMS) program in amounts that far exceeded the funds being provided by the United States as aid. Beginning in FY 2012, the United States provided an additional $3 billion in Foreign Military Financing to underwrite some of the transfers made under the FMS program..2 So while some FMS transactions were financed by the U.S. government, the general trend towards FMS transfers set the stage for a period in which the bulk of Iraqi weapons purchases from the United States government are being paid for with Iraqi government funds.3

http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/...ing Iraq- From Aid to Sales, 2005 to 2012.pdf


You are a sad case Oldstyle. You hatred of Obama has addled your brain.

 

[Spare_change]

What makes you think the deadline was "set in stone"?

It was set in stone as far as the Iraqis were concerned. They agreed to two years and they had the sovereign right to hold the US to it.

Condeleeza Rice said there was an expectation of signing an extension; Ambassador

Her expectation did not foresee the reality in 2011 that Iraqis were not going give Obama the same immunity for our troops that they agreed to in 2008.

Bill O'Reilly explained the reality to Condi pretty well:

RICE: .. Now, as to the immunity clause, we actually did manage to negotiate an immunity clause with the Iraqis so that our forces…

O'REILLY: But they wouldn't…

RICE: …could stay.

O'REILLY: …they wouldn't give Obama the same clause.

RICE: Well, we…

O'REILLY: That's what he said.

RICE: …we don't – well…

O'REILLY: Is he lying?

RICE: …all that I know is I -- I have no idea. I wasn't inside the negotiations. But I know this. A residual force would have been preferable for all…

Condoleezza Rice Discusses Iraq Invasion Cheney Clashes Fox News

If a residual force was preferable to Rice she should not have accepted a 2011 end of immunity.

She can have all the "expectations" she wants. She needed to get an extension in writing:


Do you know what Bush's opening position was on keeping troops in Iraq?

. In June 2007, senior Bush administration officials began leaking to reporters plans for maintaining what The New York Times described as “a near-permanent presence” in Iraq, which would involve control of four major bases.

Read more:

How Maliki and Iran Outsmarted the U.S. on Troop Withdrawal
By Gareth Porter • WASHINGTON, (IPS) • December 16, 2011

How Maliki and Iran Outsmarted the U.S. on Troop Withdrawal Inter Press Service


Then:

In a meeting with then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in September 2007, National Security Adviser Rubaie said Maliki wanted a “Status of Forces Agreement” (SOFA) that would allow U.S. forces to remain but would “eliminate the irritants that are apparent violations of Iraqi sovereignty”, according Bob Woodward’s “The War Within”.

And then:

Publicly, the Maliki government continued to assure the Bush administration it could count on a long-term military presence. Asked by NBC’s Richard Engel on Jan. 24, 2008 if the agreement would provide long-term U.S. bases in Iraq, Zebari said, “This is an agreement of enduring military support. The soldiers are going to have to stay someplace. They can’t stay in the air.”

And then:

Confident that it was going to get a South Korea-style SOFA, the Bush administration gave the Iraqi government a draft on Mar. 7, 2008 that provided for no limit on the number of U.S. troops or the duration of their presence. Nor did it give Iraq any control over U.S. military operations.

And bad news for the Bushies:

Just two days after returning from a visit to Tehran in June 2008, Maliki complained publicly about U.S. demands for indefinite access to military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private contractors.

In July, he revealed that his government was demanding the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops on a timetable.

And the finale of over 4000 dead Americans in Iraq:

"
The Bush administration was in a state of shock. From July to October, it pretended that it could simply refuse to accept the withdrawal demand, while trying vainly to pressure Maliki to back down."

Quite the negotiator that Bush team was . They got nothing but panic at the end.

Actually, the agreement was made ... but wasn't finalized. That was left to the Obama team, and they were even the least bit interested. They used the negotiation as an excuse to further their political agenda.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Spare_change, post: 17698658

Actually, the agreement was made ... but wasn't finalized.

Are you making it up like Oldstyle does?

The 2008 SOFA was as final as it gets.

Bush said the Iraqis were ready to provide for their own security.

Surely you are just blabbing to make your lips move with nothing to back it up.

What do you mean the agreement was not finalized? That's quite a mealy mouthed statement.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Spare_change, post: 17698658

That was left to the Obama team,

Why was it left to the Obama team?

Bush started the damned war. What, He didn't have a means to finish it? What did Rummy say? $50 billion tops. Months not years, to finish it. And that's Obama's fault.

What exactly kept Bush from getting a 20 year SOFA If itvwas going to be so damned easy?

Why blame the one that declared invading Iraq a stupid war idea. And hold the one according to Trump who lied to us to start that stupid war.

The one that starts a stupid war based on lies is responsible for all the damage and chaos that ensues. Why pin the blame on the one that called it right.

Obama did not leave Trump high and dry in Afghanistan. The SoFA there runs through 2024.

 

[Spare_change]

Spare_change, post: 17698658

That was left to the Obama team,

Why was it left to the Obama team?

Bush started the damned war. What, He didn't have a means to finish it? What did Rummy say? $50 billion tops. Months not years, to finish it. And that's Obama's fault.

What exactly kept Bush from getting a 20 year SOFA If itvwas going to be so damned easy?

Why blame the one that declared invading Iraq a stupid war idea. And hold the one according to Trump who lied to us to start that stupid war.

The one that starts a stupid war based on lies is responsible for all the damage and chaos that ensues. Why pin the blame on the one that called it right.

Obama did not leave Trump high and dry in Afghanistan. The SoFA there runs through 2024.

I will not argue with an idiot who refuses to do the research necessary to determine the truth. You allow your bias, and your ignorance, to create facts that simply do not exist.

Go away ... you bother me.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Spare_change, post: 17701179

I will not argue with an idiot who refuses to do the research necessary to determine the truth. You allow your bias, and your ignorance, to create facts that simply do not exist.

No need to argue. Just put your money where your mouth is. Back your declaration that the 2008 SOFA was never finalized.

That is a flat out lie. I called you on it and now you run. Typical Obama hater.