The Enemy of My Enemies

Discussion in 'Politics' started by PoliticalChic, Nov 9, 2017.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    67,380
    Thanks Received:
    20,172
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +37,939


    You need another lesson????

    No prob, Cry Hatcher


    Soooo.......still no 'lies' you can refute?

    You must be pretty stupid, huh?


    Let's go through this proof that Obama was all for ISIS.....

    Now....focus like a laser, you dunce.....and see if you can find any 'lies.'

    You can try to talk you way around the truth...but I can prove what I said:
    Obama was given three years, by Bush, to get an agreement. General Barbero: ".... and we did not try hard enough..."
    Obama stated that he wanted no agreement and wouldn't leave any troops.
    When it became evident that he was leaving Iraq for ISIS.....he suddenly agreed that he didn't need any agreement...and sent troops back: "...this time around, Obama is willing to accept an agreement from Iraq’s foreign ministry..."
    Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.




    1. Bush made sure that the community organizer had until 2012 to work out an agreement:
    "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



    2." 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, andtook 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."
    CNN.com - Transcripts



    3. "Obama's 2012 Debate Boast: I Didn't Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq
    Obama then denied that he ever supported a status of forces agreement that would have left troops in Iraq:

    MR. ROMNEY: [W]ith regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should have been a status of forces agreement. Did you —

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: That's not true.

    MR. ROMNEY: Oh, you didn't — you didn't want a status of forces agreement?

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, but what I — what I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.

    "Here's one thing I've learned as commander in chief," Obama said at the end of the exchange. "You've got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean."
    Obama s 2012 Debate Boast I Didn t Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq The Weekly Standard



    4. And this:
    "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....don't ever let me catch you lying about Obama's culpability again!


    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



    Don't forget.....if you can't refute what I posted.....then you're the liar.
     
  2. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    37,710
    Thanks Received:
    5,008
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +11,818
    Yawn
     
  3. Political Junky
    Online

    Political Junky Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Messages:
    23,488
    Thanks Received:
    3,607
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,592
    Trump sides with Putin over intelligence agencies on Russian meddling

    President Trump told reporters on Air Force One that he believes Vladimir Putin's denials about election meddling, and doesn't want to press further because he thinks the U.S. and Russia can work together on issues that include North Korea, Syria and Ukraine.

    Why it matters: American intelligence agencies, including the CIA, NSA, FBI and the ODNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence) are unified in their opinion that Russia actively worked to meddle in the election.
    >
    Huge surprise. :cuckoo:
     
  4. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    67,380
    Thanks Received:
    20,172
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +37,939

    No prob, Cry Hatcher


    Soooo.......still no 'lies' you can refute?

    You must be pretty stupid, huh?


    Let's go through this proof that Obama was all for ISIS.....

    Now....focus like a laser, you dunce.....and see if you can find any 'lies.'

    You can try to talk you way around the truth...but I can prove what I said:
    Obama was given three years, by Bush, to get an agreement. General Barbero: ".... and we did not try hard enough..."
    Obama stated that he wanted no agreement and wouldn't leave any troops.
    When it became evident that he was leaving Iraq for ISIS.....he suddenly agreed that he didn't need any agreement...and sent troops back: "...this time around, Obama is willing to accept an agreement from Iraq’s foreign ministry..."
    Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.




    1. Bush made sure that the community organizer had until 2012 to work out an agreement:
    "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



    2." 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, andtook 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."
    CNN.com - Transcripts



    3. "Obama's 2012 Debate Boast: I Didn't Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq
    Obama then denied that he ever supported a status of forces agreement that would have left troops in Iraq:

    MR. ROMNEY: [W]ith regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should have been a status of forces agreement. Did you —

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: That's not true.

    MR. ROMNEY: Oh, you didn't — you didn't want a status of forces agreement?

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, but what I — what I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.

    "Here's one thing I've learned as commander in chief," Obama said at the end of the exchange. "You've got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean."
    Obama s 2012 Debate Boast I Didn t Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq The Weekly Standard



    4. And this:
    "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....don't ever let me catch you lying about Obama's culpability again!


    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



    Don't forget.....if you can't refute what I posted.....then you're the liar.




    It appears I've proven my point again:

    Me....a princess...

    You....a loser.



     
  5. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    67,380
    Thanks Received:
    20,172
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +37,939

    1. The Deep State....i.e., the Obamunists....have been revealed as liars who are nothing but anti-Trump supporters.
    Dolts....you...continue to not and mutter "Duh....yup....dat's it!!!"

    2.\We were initially told that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies had independently confirmed that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and our 2016 presidential election.

    But wait! We now learn that only three agencies have confirmed this intelligence finding (CIA, NSA, FBI).

    Further, only one agency actually conducted the majority of the research that netted that conclusion: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

    The main intelligence gathering was conducted by the CIA. In other words, the FBI and the NSA simply said "we agree" that the CIA's work is credible. The three agencies did not independently make this same conclusion. The CIA coerced the FBI and NSA into compliance.


    3. This summary from the Leftwing Slate:
    ”.... if the evidence that they’ve used to level major accusations at a foreign government comes not from agencies of the U.S. government or direct law enforcement investigations, but rather from private sector firms like CrowdStrike, then the “high confidence” of the government counts for very little. “
    The FBI Relied on a Private Firm’s Investigation of the DNC Hack—Which Makes the Agency Harder to Trust
     
  6. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    67,380
    Thanks Received:
    20,172
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +37,939

    [​IMG]



    Did Hussein Obama know that Iran had been paying 20-30% of North Korea's GDP as their nuclear lab, for years?


    Then, why wasn't it recognized in the Nuclear Treaty that pretends that Iran can't build nukes????????
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

aqap