PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #61
View attachment 159682You could save a lot of space if you just admit you’re a racist.Au contraire, BlindOne
Bush allowed plenty of time for Hussein to have an agreement....he had up to 2012.
Three years for the windbag.
Instead....as he admitted, he would not leave a force to guard against the birth of 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
From your very first link oh-so funny cut-n-paste one.
"But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.
........
But as of December 31, no more American soldiers will be doing tours of duty in Iraq. The war that ousted Saddam Hussein, unleashing an insurgency that left 4,500 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, and which will cost the U.S. upwards of $1 trillion, is finally over. Historians will note that the U.S. invasion of Iraq precipitated dramatic changes across the Middle East political landscape in the ensuing decade. But many of those changes were hardly the ones the war’s authors had in mind."
Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com
ISIS resulted out of President Bushes disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq.
I could say something about you not lying again, but everyone here knows that ain't happening.......
1. "...cut-n-paste one."
Cut and paste means providing actual links, quotes and sources.
It's what educated folks do.
2. "From your very first link oh-so funny cut-n-paste one.
"But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it."
Proving exactly what we on the Right have always said about the windbag, Hussein Obama: he had not the skills to be the American leader.
As events proved, finding a way to get an agreement was the right thing to do.
He didn't, couldn't and as I showed.....had no intention or placing roadblocks in the way of ISIS.
3. While ISIS celebrated....Obama sat back and gave them an 'atta-boy'..
Not a missile, not a bullet, not a mean word from Obama.
4. When his ineptitude become public....Obama reversed course:
"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."
5. 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
Why didn't the architect of the invasion and occupation secure a long term arraignment for troop presence in the country he invaded? Was there some sticking point holding that up? I mean he had a full year to negotiate it? Could it be the same reason President Obama couldn't in his year long attempt to negotiate one? Of course it was, no president would allow our troop to be deployed in a country and at the mercy of foreign courts, especially a newly founded Islamic one.
Why did the brain-dead trained seals who vote Democrat saddle the world with
.....Barack Hussein Obama, the dirt-eating low-life, crypto-Islamist, back-stabbing, infanticide-supporting incompetent snake with an unbroken record of failure, both as a President and as a human being?
Why?
What's a 'racist'???
The most insightful definition is 'a conservative winning an argument with a Liberal.'
And, yes.....I do enjoy mocking you.