Trump pulls out of Syria then lies about defeating Isis

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21558868

Panetta said one thing while he was working in the Obama Administration and then filled us in on what he really thought happened once he was no longer Secretary of Defense and being a good soldier.

It was citizen Panetta telling you what he thought really happened with 20/20 hindsight when he said Obama wouid have left troops in Iraq if a deal could be made. But you say Obama was never going to keep troops in Iraq.

Either tell us that citizen book salesman Panetta was lying it you are. Both of you cannot be telling the truth.

I see know reason to believe Panetta was lying that Obama was willing to leave troops in Iraq. So the liar has to be you.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21558868

Panetta said one thing while he was working in the Obama Administration and then filled us in on what he really thought happened once he was no longer Secretary of Defense and being a good soldier.

It was citizen Panetta telling you what he thought really happened with 20/20 hindsight when he said Obama wouid have left troops in Iraq if a deal could be made. But you say Obama was never going to keep troops in Iraq.

Either tell us that citizen book salesman Panetta was lying it you are. Both of you cannot be telling the truth.

I see know reason to believe Panetta was lying that Obama was willing to leave troops in Iraq. So the liar has to be you.

What Panetta revealed in his book was the reason why a SOFA was never agreed upon despite the best efforts of negotiators in the Defense Department and the State Department. Quite simply...Obama and his inner circle in the White House were pushing back against a new SOFA because they had already made the political calculation that running for reelection as the President who had ended combat operations in Iraq was a winner for his base. It's why Obama declared in his debate with Romney that he wasn't seeking a new SOFA.

 

[Oldstyle]

You and people like Faun are trying to rewrite history to turn Obama's political decision to withdraw all of our combat troops into a decision that he didn't make.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It's why Obama declared in his debate with Romney that he wasn't seeking a new SOFA.

Another lie Oldstyle. Obama was not agreeing with Romney’s 10,000 Troop number with a new SOFA after 2011.

Obama explains that later in the debate which you need to ignore.

That’s probably because the only realistic negotiations considered by the Iraqis was not for 10,000 combat troops but for 2000 to 3000 trainers,

According to Panetta, Obama was willing to keep some troops and you cannot deny that.

The number was around 2500 and the Iraqis never requested them,

Oldstyle, post: 21456014

The "truth" is that Barry claimed it was HIS idea to withdraw troops from Iraq...right up until ISIS started conquering vast swaths of territory in Iraq and he began to start taking heat for the decision not to keep a residual force in Iraq! THEN the narrative changed to it being the Iraqis who forced him to withdraw all combat troops!

The decision was never NEVER never Obama’s decision to keep troops in Iraq. The request had to come from the Iraqis.

So Obama was correct in that context to say he did not agree with forcing a new SOFA on the Iraqis if they DECIDED they didn’t need or want one.

 

[Oldstyle]

It's why Obama declared in his debate with Romney that he wasn't seeking a new SOFA.

Another lie Oldstyle. Obama was not agreeing with Romney’s 10,000 Troop number with a new SOFA after 2011.

Obama explains that later in the debate which you need to ignore.

That’s probably because the only realistic negotiations considered by the Iraqis was not for 10,000 combat troops but for 2000 to 3000 trainers,

According to Panetta, Obama was willing to keep some troops and you cannot deny that.

The number was around 2500 and the Iraqis never requested them,

Oldstyle, post: 21456014

The "truth" is that Barry claimed it was HIS idea to withdraw troops from Iraq...right up until ISIS started conquering vast swaths of territory in Iraq and he began to start taking heat for the decision not to keep a residual force in Iraq! THEN the narrative changed to it being the Iraqis who forced him to withdraw all combat troops!

The decision was never NEVER never Obama’s decision to keep troops in Iraq. The request had to come from the Iraqis.

So Obama was correct in that context to say he did not agree with forcing a new SOFA on the Iraqis if they DECIDED they didn’t need or want one.

I love watching you do linguistic headstands trying to explain away what Obama said in his debate with Romney!

 

[Oldstyle]

Where in Panetta's tell all book does he say that Obama was willing to keep some combat troops in Iraq?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21559302,

Where in Panetta's tell all book does he say that Obama was willing to keep some combat troops in Iraq?

“To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them. Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away. The deal never materialized.”

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It's why Obama declared in his debate with Romney that he wasn't seeking a new SOFA.

Another lie Oldstyle. Obama was not agreeing with Romney’s 10,000 Troop number with a new SOFA after 2011.

Obama explains that later in the debate which you need to ignore.

That’s probably because the only realistic negotiations considered by the Iraqis was not for 10,000 combat troops but for 2000 to 3000 trainers,

According to Panetta, Obama was willing to keep some troops and you cannot deny that.

The number was around 2500 and the Iraqis never requested them,

Oldstyle, post: 21456014

The "truth" is that Barry claimed it was HIS idea to withdraw troops from Iraq...right up until ISIS started conquering vast swaths of territory in Iraq and he began to start taking heat for the decision not to keep a residual force in Iraq! THEN the narrative changed to it being the Iraqis who forced him to withdraw all combat troops!

The decision was never NEVER never Obama’s decision to keep troops in Iraq. The request had to come from the Iraqis.

So Obama was correct in that context to say he did not agree with forcing a new SOFA on the Iraqis if they DECIDED they didn’t need or want one.

I love watching you do linguistic headstands trying to explain away what Obama said in his debate with Romney!

We see when you can’t muster up a counterpoint to my thoughtful and detailed information, with sources to back it all up, you opt for nothing but a complaint that you barely can understand anything I’m saying.

Jesus man, if something I said I wrong or not true let’s here it

You dodged a response to this;

“The decision was never NEVER never Obama’s decision to keep troops in Iraq. The request had to come from the Iraqis.

So Obama was correct in that context to say he did not agree with forcing a new SOFA on the Iraqis if they DECIDED they didn’t need or want one.”

What is your complaint about what I said.

Iraq is a sovereign nation with laws and all that stuff. It was up to them to request some troops to remain. They didn’t. That’s a fact we know.



Do you have a problem with that fact. Let’s here it?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 9779440

The reason that a new Status of Forces Agreement wasn't reached was that Barack Obama really didn't want US forces to be IN Iraq therefore he didn't push for a new agreement to happen but rather used a lack of one as an excuse to take out all of the US forces.

No. The main ‘reason’ that 2500 US Troops did not stay in Iraq after the Bush/Maliki date for complete withdrawal was the Iraqis wouid not give those troops immunity.

Obama did not need or use an excuse to reject the Iraq request because it was not acceptable on Iraq’s terms. Immunity is US policy that was not negotiable.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21555260

Obama was NEVER going to keep troops in Iraq no matter WHAT Maliki requested! Panetta admits that.

Have you finally decided to quit your big lie?

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21559302,

Where in Panetta's tell all book does he say that Obama was willing to keep some combat troops in Iraq?

“To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them. Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away. The deal never materialized.”

What Panetta is saying...and you seem too dense to grasp...is that unless Obama was willing to actively LEAD the negotiations for a new SOFA...as George W. Bush had done twice before when he was President...the deal was never going to "materialize"! Since Barry refused to do so ( because he wanted to run for reelection as having kept his promise of bringing combat troops home) negotiators at State and Defense couldn't get a deal with Maliki.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 9779440

The reason that a new Status of Forces Agreement wasn't reached was that Barack Obama really didn't want US forces to be IN Iraq therefore he didn't push for a new agreement to happen but rather used a lack of one as an excuse to take out all of the US forces.

No. The main ‘reason’ that 2500 US Troops did not stay in Iraq after the Bush/Maliki date for complete withdrawal was the Iraqis wouid not give those troops immunity.

Obama did not need or use an excuse to reject the Iraq request because it was not acceptable on Iraq’s terms. Immunity is US policy that was not negotiable.

No, the MAIN reason US combat troops couldn't stay in Iraq after the Bush SOFA expired was that Barack Obama didn't actively seek a new SOFA. THAT is what Leon Panetta was saying quite clearly in his book.

 

[Oldstyle]

It's why Obama declared in his debate with Romney that he wasn't seeking a new SOFA.

Another lie Oldstyle. Obama was not agreeing with Romney’s 10,000 Troop number with a new SOFA after 2011.

Obama explains that later in the debate which you need to ignore.

That’s probably because the only realistic negotiations considered by the Iraqis was not for 10,000 combat troops but for 2000 to 3000 trainers,

According to Panetta, Obama was willing to keep some troops and you cannot deny that.

The number was around 2500 and the Iraqis never requested them,

Oldstyle, post: 21456014

The "truth" is that Barry claimed it was HIS idea to withdraw troops from Iraq...right up until ISIS started conquering vast swaths of territory in Iraq and he began to start taking heat for the decision not to keep a residual force in Iraq! THEN the narrative changed to it being the Iraqis who forced him to withdraw all combat troops!

The decision was never NEVER never Obama’s decision to keep troops in Iraq. The request had to come from the Iraqis.

So Obama was correct in that context to say he did not agree with forcing a new SOFA on the Iraqis if they DECIDED they didn’t need or want one.

I love watching you do linguistic headstands trying to explain away what Obama said in his debate with Romney!

We see when you can’t muster up a counterpoint to my thoughtful and detailed information, with sources to back it all up, you opt for nothing but a complaint that you barely can understand anything I’m saying.

Jesus man, if something I said I wrong or not true let’s here it

You dodged a response to this;

“The decision was never NEVER never Obama’s decision to keep troops in Iraq. The request had to come from the Iraqis.

So Obama was correct in that context to say he did not agree with forcing a new SOFA on the Iraqis if they DECIDED they didn’t need or want one.”

What is your complaint about what I said.

Iraq is a sovereign nation with laws and all that stuff. It was up to them to request some troops to remain. They didn’t. That’s a fact we know.



Do you have a problem with that fact. Let’s here it?

Simple question then...

How was George W. Bush able to negotiate not one but TWO SOFA's with Iraq? You claim that the decision was never Obama's? As soon as Obama made it clear to Maliki that he preferred to withdraw all US combat troops (and he was making that crystal clear as the White House inner circle shot down every proposal that negotiators at State and Defense made!) then Maliki had no choice but to go along with Obama's wishes. The "negotiations" were nothing more than political theatre put on by the Obama Administration.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21574212

How was George W. Bush able to negotiate not one but TWO SOFA's with Iraq? You claim that the decision was never Obama's?

Not to bright are you? In 2008 it was not Bush’s decision either.

Next

Obama negotiated a ten year SOFA with Afghanistan. Why couldn’t Bush do that?

If it was Bush’s decision he wouid have gotten his permanent bases and much more. You have to look at where Bush started the negotiations.

.
THE U.S. BASES

The most colossal relics of the U.S. invasion of Iraq will be the outsize military bases the Bush administration began erecting not long after the invasion, under the never explicitly stated assumption that Iraq would become the long-term staging area for U.S. forces in the region.

As a recent Congressional Research Service report noted, the Department of Defense “built up a far more extensive infrastructure than anticipated to support troops and equipment in and around Iraq and Afghanistan.”

The biggest push came in 2005, with over $1.2 billion in base-building contracts signed in that fiscal year alone, according to CRS.

U.S. To Hand Over Iraq Bases, Equipment Worth Billions | HuffPost


If you study the 2008 negotiations as I have you’d know Bush got his ass handed to him by Maliki.

Bush had to agree to his no/no . Put in writing a date certain that all troops had to be gone.

And he gave Iraqis final day over US missions.

And troops had to be out of Iraq cities by July 2008. That Iraqis gave Bush time to withdraw 170,000 trooos. That was it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21574212

As soon as Obama made it clear to Maliki that he preferred to withdraw all US combat troops (and he was making that crystal clear as the White House inner circle shot down every proposal that negotiators at State and Defense made!) then Maliki had no choice but to go along with Obama's wishes.

You are lying. You don’t know what Obama shot down - that wouid have moved Maliki off his public statements that no troops were needed and the SOFA deadline was fixed in stone.

Maliki was on the record through 2011.

You are making shit up about Obama’s positions.

Obama didn’t want to threaten the Iraqis.

You can only speculate that Maliki changes his mind under a threat.

With Muqtada al Sadr watching Maliki’s moves I doubt Maliki wouid have wavered under a threat.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21574212

As soon as Obama made it clear to Maliki that he preferred to withdraw all US combat troops (and he was making that crystal clear as the White House inner circle shot down every proposal that negotiators at State and Defense made!) then Maliki had no choice but to go along with Obama's wishes.

You are lying. You don’t know what Obama shot down - that wouid have moved Maliki off his public statements that no troops were needed and the SOFA deadline was fixed in stone.

Maliki was on the record through 2011.

You are making shit up about Obama’s positions.

Obama didn’t want to threaten the Iraqis.

You can only speculate that Maliki changes his mind under a threat.

With Muqtada al Sadr watching Maliki’s moves I doubt Maliki wouid have wavered under a threat.

I'm not "speculating" about anything because we have Leon Panetta...Barack Obama's Defense Secretary TELLING us what happened and why! You need to prove that Panetta has a reason to lie. You also have to explain why Obama stated flat out in his debate with Mitt Romney that he had no intention of leaving combat troops in Iraq!

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21574212

How was George W. Bush able to negotiate not one but TWO SOFA's with Iraq? You claim that the decision was never Obama's?

Not to bright are you? In 2008 it was not Bush’s decision either.

Next

Obama negotiated a ten year SOFA with Afghanistan. Why couldn’t Bush do that?

If it was Bush’s decision he wouid have gotten his permanent bases and much more. You have to look at where Bush started the negotiations.

.
THE U.S. BASES

The most colossal relics of the U.S. invasion of Iraq will be the outsize military bases the Bush administration began erecting not long after the invasion, under the never explicitly stated assumption that Iraq would become the long-term staging area for U.S. forces in the region.

As a recent Congressional Research Service report noted, the Department of Defense “built up a far more extensive infrastructure than anticipated to support troops and equipment in and around Iraq and Afghanistan.”

The biggest push came in 2005, with over $1.2 billion in base-building contracts signed in that fiscal year alone, according to CRS.

U.S. To Hand Over Iraq Bases, Equipment Worth Billions | HuffPost


If you study the 2008 negotiations as I have you’d know Bush got his ass handed to him by Maliki.

Bush had to agree to his no/no . Put in writing a date certain that all troops had to be gone.

And he gave Iraqis final day over US missions.

And troops had to be out of Iraq cities by July 2008. That Iraqis gave Bush time to withdraw 170,000 trooos. That was it.

You studied something? Now THAT'S amusing!

 

[Oldstyle]

Bottom line is this...George W. Bush negotiated and signed two SOFA's with Iraq. Obama didn't get one done. Why? Because Bush actually WANTED to get new SOFA's and Obama DIDN'T!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21574165

What Panetta is saying...and you seem too dense to grasp...is that unless Obama was willing to actively LEAD the negotiations for a new SOFA...as George W. Bush had done twice before when he was President...the deal was never going to "materialize"! Since Barry refused to do so ( because he wanted to run for reelection as having kept his promise of bringing combat troops home) negotiators at State and Defense couldn't get a deal with Maliki.

What? You have decided to finally stop telling the lie that Obama had decided to never agree to keep one or more US soldier in Iraq after 2011. Congratulations.

So now you base your attack on Obama with Panetta’s armchair general OPINION in 20/20 hindsight. .....“that if Obama was willing to actively LEAD the negotiations for a new SOFA...” it would have certainly gotten done on all US terms. Maliki walks back his December 2010 decision that zero troops are needed and the Iraqi Parliament wouid have magically melted under Obama’s mystical negotiating power or threats and voted to keep as many troops as the DOD decided was necessary. And Muqtada al Sadr succumbs to Obama’s threats and/or begging and suddenly becomes pro-America troops and all. Starts earlting hot dogs and apple pie.

Seems pretty far fetched - Panetta’s 2014 (selling a book) opinion vs his (on the Congressional Record) opinion in 2011 that begging and threats wouid not work.

Your attack has lost its absolutism. With your lie in place Obama was NEVER going to keep troops in Iraq no matter the results of the negotiations. It mattered not what the negotiations produced in your false scenario. The Iraqis had no say in the decision. It was entirely Obama’s decision.

Now with your lie erased from the scenario the Iraqis regain the status of decision maker. That’s what is important.

And Maliki’s public decision published in the Wall Street Journal one full year prior to the deadline date was that no troops were needed and an extension was not going to happen,

You can speculate all you want based upon Panetta’s self-aggrandizing memoir but the facts and quotes, in historical context, and as they were happening, hold more weight to we folks who respect fact over emotion.

We know, from your willingness to do easiky lie about Obama, that you are emotionally disturbed about Obama so you give more weight to what Panetta opined than what Maliki actually stated During the actual negotiations as they unfolded.

That is sad but surely not as deplorable as lying.

You are growing and you have Faun and me to thank for that.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21577388

Bottom line is this...George W. Bush negotiated and signed two SOFA's with Iraq. Obama didn't get one done. Why? Because Bush actually WANTED to get new SOFA's and Obama DIDN'T!

You knucklehead. Combat operations were not over in 2008. Iraq’s PM’s voted in favor because there was a need. By 2010 in December Maliki went public in the WSJ to state there was no need and 2/3 of the 2008 troop force had already left.

Are you saying that conditions on the ground and the political situation did not change one iota from 2008 to 2012 and that is what allows you to compare Obama to Bush as if they were on the same playing field?

If you think that nothing changed over three years you are a fool. If not, you wouid not make your rediculous bottom line comparison.

The bottom line is that in 2008 and in 2011 the decision to keep any foreign troops in Iraq with Parliamentary approved immunity was Iraq’s decision and Iraq’s decision alone.

Bush got much less than what he hoped for and Obama did not get a request with the same legislative approval of immunity. Them’s the facts.

You don’t get to make up your own,