Trump pulls out of Syria then lies about defeating Isis

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21577366

'm not "speculating" about anything because we have Leon Panetta...Barack Obama's Defense Secretary TELLING us what happened and why!

You fool. Panetta is speculating. He doesn’t know and cannot state with any certainty that Obama's direct threat and or begging wouid have created a different outcome such as Iraq’s Parliament voting to extend immunity. He can only speculate which is what he did to sell his book.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21574212

The "negotiations" were nothing more than political theatre put on by the Obama Administration.

That is still a lie. The ‘nothing more’ than political theatre is a lie because Panetta says Obama would have endorsed whatever workable deal State and DOD could reach with Iraq.

If you need to say Obama didn’t want a deal it’s equally if not more important to say that Maliki didn’t want a deal and said so early in the beginning of negotiations.

I guess it is a lie of omission when you refuse to ballance your attack on Obama with what Maliki said.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

What Panetta revealed in his book...which he wrote once he was no longer working for Barack Obama and didn't have to be the "good soldier" spinning the Administration's talking points...is that he and the other negotiators from Defense and State were frustrated because their efforts to work out a new SOFA was met with "heated" resistance from the Obama White House! You can't admit that though...can you? If you did you'd have to admit that Barack Obama and his handlers in the White House made a political calculation that a total withdrawal of combat troops would play well to his base and get him another term in office. That was a calculation that ended up costing tens of thousands of lives in Iraq and the displacement of millions as they had to flee from the ISIS onslaught.

So you keep right on pushing your "Obama Myth", Not Fooled! The facts don't support what you claim...but when has that ever stopped you on the left when it comes to kissing Barry's skinny little ass?

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21574212

The "negotiations" were nothing more than political theatre put on by the Obama Administration.

That is still a lie. The ‘nothing more’ than political theatre is a lie because Panetta says Obama would have endorsed whatever workable deal State and DOD could reach with Iraq.

If you need to say Obama didn’t want a deal it’s equally if not more important to say that Maliki didn’t want a deal and said so early in the beginning of negotiations.

I guess it is a lie of omission when you refuse to ballance your attack on Obama with what Maliki said.

What Maliki was saying in public was a direct reflection of what he was hearing from the Obama White House in private, you buffoon! You can't seem to grasp that concept...that what Obama was saying publicly didn't match what he and his inner circle were saying privately! THAT is what frustrated Panetta...that negotiators were trying to work out a new SOFA but were getting no support at all in that effort from the White House. Not only was the support not enthusiastic...Panetta described it as heatedly against any deals that were offered. So the Obama people were lying when they said they would endorse whatever deal State and DOD could reach with Iraq because behind the scenes they were emphatically turning them down!

 

[easyt65]

So snowflakes want to secure SYRIA, eliminate all the 'bad guys' there, and want to keep all the 'bad guys' out of Syria...but they want to keep OUR borders open, do NOT want to keep 'bad guys' out of the US, and are even providing illegal safe havens for 'bad guys' in the US?!

 

[mudwhistle]

Trump pulls out of Syria that surprises his military generals, then lies about defeating Isis and throws US policy in turmoil. Trump has single handedly strengthened Russia and Isis in one stroke.

He truly is a Donald Dumbass.



Trump shocks allies and advisers with plan to pull US troops out of Syria

I guess success is a matter of opinion.
On one side you have a President and on the other you have a bunch warmongering Deep State fucks that love creating armed conflicts overseas.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21579438

What Maliki was saying in public was a direct reflection of what he was hearing from the Obama White House in private, you buffoon!

In December 2010 and then carried on negotiations for a year after that? You make zero sense.


Who was feeding Maliki ‘private’ information?

Since you claim to know what Maliki heard in private from the White House please give us the transcript of those conversations so we can know who was saying stuff and what was said.

Otherwise admit you know nothing and have returned to lying out of your ass once again.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21579438

Panetta described it as heatedly against any deals that were offered.

Deals offered by whom?

Damn, you cannot quit lying can you?

What Pannetta describes as push back from the Admin was the idea that the Iraqis could be threatened by the White House into keeping some troops beyond 2011.

The Iraqis only offered to keep a couple thousand trainers but without immunity. That was rejected by Panetta and everyone else that mattered.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21579438

What Maliki was saying in public was a direct reflection of what he was hearing from the Obama White House in private, you buffoon!

In December 2010 and then carried on negotiations for a year after that? You make zero sense.


Who was feeding Maliki ‘private’ information?

Since you claim to know what Maliki heard in private from the White House please give us the transcript of those conversations so we can know who was saying stuff and what was said.

Otherwise admit you know nothing and have returned to lying out of your ass once again.

The reason I know what was being said in private between the Obama White House...the negotiators at State and Defense...and Maliki...is that Leon Panetta who was the Secretary of Defense at that time has given us a look behind the curtain of the "Least Transparent Administration In History" and TOLD us what was happening!

You on the other hand are going strictly by the public statements made by an Administration who had zero problem lying to the American people!

So who has more reason to lie now...the people in the Obama Administration who advocated for a total combat troop withdrawal despite the advice of it's military leaders...or the Secretary of Defense...a man with a pretty much spotless reputation through decades of public service?

Bottom line...Panetta has nothing to gain by lying. The inner circle of the Obama White House on the other hand knows they FUBARED that decision and knows that they caused untold death and destruction to tens of thousands of innocent civilians because they thought ISIS was the JV and not a threat!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21585114

The reason I know what was being said in private between the Obama White House...the negotiators at State and Defense...and Maliki...is that Leon Panetta who was the Secretary of Defense at that time has given us a look behind the curtain of the "Least Transparent Administration In History" and TOLD us what was happening!

You have not posted Panetta telling us about private conversations between Obama and Maliki. That’s a new lie of yours.

You need to do that

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21585114

Panetta has nothing to gain by lying.

I never said Panetta is lying. I’ve made it clear that you are lying about what Panetta said.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21585114

You on the other hand are going strictly by the public statements made by an Administration who had zero problem lying to the American people!

I am going by Maliki’s public statements which confirm that he believed that a continuation of US troops in Iraq were not needed. Keeping troops was Maliki’s and Iraq’s Parliament decision, and that is a fact.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21585114

The reason I know what was being said in private between the Obama White House...the negotiators at State and Defense...and Maliki...is that Leon Panetta who was the Secretary of Defense at that time has given us a look behind the curtain of the "Least Transparent Administration In History" and TOLD us what was happening!

You have not posted Panetta telling us about private conversations between Obama and Maliki. That’s a new lie of yours.

You need to do that

Your reading comprehension is childlike! I repeat...The reason I know what was being said in private between the Obama White House...the negotiators at State and Defense...and Maliki...is that Leon Panetta who was the Secretary of Defense at that time has given us a look behind the curtain of the "Least Transparent Administration In History" and TOLD us what was happening!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The reason I know what was being said in private between the Obama White House...the negotiators at State and Defense...and Maliki...is that Leon Panetta who was the Secretary of Defense at that time has given us a look behind the curtain of the "Least Transparent Administration In History" and TOLD us what was happening!

Panetta has given you his 20/20 hindgo opinion that Obama negotiating himself using threats against Iraq may or may not have persuaded Maliki to attempt to try to get Iraq’s Parliament to approve immunity for a few thousand troops,

What you are lying about now is your claim

“What Maliki was saying in public was a direct reflection of what he was hearing from the Obama White House in private,...”

It is a lie because Panetta has not provided you any sort of specifics as to what Maliki heard and told Obama directly and in PRIVATE.

You are a numbskull to be lying like this.

You need to choose you lied more wisely.

 

[Oldstyle]

The reason I know what was being said in private between the Obama White House...the negotiators at State and Defense...and Maliki...is that Leon Panetta who was the Secretary of Defense at that time has given us a look behind the curtain of the "Least Transparent Administration In History" and TOLD us what was happening!

Panetta has given you his 20/20 hindgo opinion that Obama negotiating himself using threats against Iraq may or may not have persuaded Maliki to attempt to try to get Iraq’s Parliament to approve immunity for a few thousand troops,

What you are lying about now is your claim

“What Maliki was saying in public was a direct reflection of what he was hearing from the Obama White House in private,...”

It is a lie because Panetta has not provided you any sort of specifics as to what Maliki heard and told Obama directly and in PRIVATE.

You are a numbskull to be lying like this.

You need to choose you lied more wisely.

Panetta has made it quite clear in his book that the negotiations failed because Barack Obama and his inner circle at the White House resisted all attempts by negotiators at the State Department and the Department of Defense to reach an agreement with the Iraqis for a new SOFA. You've chosen to ignore that however because it goes against the narrative that you on the left have come up with to try and salvage Barry's legacy after he clearly made a political calculation that it was better for his chances to be reelected if he fulfilled his earlier promises that he would get US combat troops out of Iraq.

Clearly the dishonest person in this debate is you.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21600960

Panetta has made it quite clear in his book that the negotiations failed because Barack Obama and his inner circle at the White House resisted all attempts by negotiators at the State Department and the Department of Defense to reach an agreement with the Iraqis for a new SOFA

You are a liar. Panetta did not say the Obama Admin resisted all attempts to reach an agreement. That is not what Panetta said and you know it. You lie anyway.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21600960

Panetta has made it quite clear in his book that the negotiations failed because Barack Obama and his inner circle at the White House resisted all attempts by negotiators at the State Department and the Department of Defense to reach an agreement with the Iraqis for a new SOFA

You are a liar. Panetta did not say the Obama Admin resisted all attempts to reach an agreement. That is not what Panetta said and you know it. You lie anyway.

You can keep claiming that, Not Fooled but that's EXACTLY what Leon Panetta said! Panetta said the push back from the White House against what was being negotiated became heated! Obama and his inner circle wanted combat troops out of Iraq and behind the scenes they were making that quite clear to both the negotiators at State and Defense and the Maliki government. It's why Obama said what he said at the debate with Romney. Stop being such a naïve apologist! Obama made a political calculation and it caused the deaths of tens of thousands who were ravaged by ISIS not to mention the displacement of millions who fled the Middle East to get away from the ISIS advance. He OWNS that!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21602961

Panetta said the push back from the White House against what was being negotiated became heated!

According to the account from Panetta that you posted, Panetta talked about White House pushback against tactics - not against what was being negotiated. You never can deny that Panetta is quoted in the link you posted saying that Obama was content to accept whatever deal that could be reached. Are you calling Panetta a liar. If what you say is true about pushing back on ‘whatever was negotiated’ then Panetta makes no sense in you hate induced interpretations. Why was Obama’s pushing back on negotiations if he was willing to accept the results of the negotiations?

Are you able to think or just express hatred if Obama?

It’s clear to any normal intelligent human being that panetta’s “pushback” comment was in reference to using a threat against the Iraqis.

That’s pushback on a likely unworkable tactic the US not pushback against ongoing negotiations, you fool.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

“There, undeniably, would be no ISIS if we hadn’t invaded Iraq.”


Oldstyle, post: 21602961.

Obama made a political calculation and it caused the deaths of tens of thousands who were ravaged by ISIS not to mention the displacement of millions who fled the Middle East to get away from the ISIS advance. He OWNS that!

You are a liar. Obama did not make a political calculation and proof comes from Panetta when he said Obama would have endorsed a dea if State and Defense and Iraq could reach one. Iraq would not grant immunity.

It’s a bold filthy lie you tell so you can blame the deaths in Iraq on Obama. You suck as an American.

The Iraqis made the decision and Maliki was corrupt and negligent in treatment of the Sunnis in Iraq.

You want to blame the deaths and destruction on someone other than ISIS if you were a decent, rational human being let alone American you wouid start with Maliki,

I doubt you give a damn about the Muslims killed in Iraq because if you did you would have been howling and blaming Bush for his stupid decision to invade Iraq in the first place.


If you want to listen to experts like Panetta opine after the fact then listen to this:

To be clear, then, ISIS is blowback from the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. And don’t just take my word for it. Listen to David Kilcullen, a former adviser to both Gen. David Petraeus and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, considered to be one of the world’s leading counter-insurgency experts. “We have to recognize that a lot of the problem is of our own making,” Kilcullen told Channel 4 News in March 2016. “There, undeniably, would be no ISIS if we hadn’t invaded Iraq.”

Blowback: How ISIS Was Created by the U.S. Invasion of Iraq

So if you can’t find yourself to blame Maliki for the deaths in his country then you need to blame the Decider who decided to kick inspectors out of Iraq to start a war.

If you really care about dead Iraqis look to the one who decided peaceful inspections wouid not find alleged WMD - he decided to kill people to look for them.

And then we got Maliki and then we got ISIS.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21602961

Obama and his inner circle wanted combat troops out of Iraq and behind the scenes they were making that quite clear to both the negotiators at State and Defense and the Maliki government.

If they were making that quite clear why did Panetta make it quite clear that the Obama White House wouid have endorsed a deal if the negotiations ended up in a deal?

Why can’t you answer that?