Trump pulls out of Syria then lies about defeating Isis

[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 cannot be so stupid to believe that the only reason that the negotiations failed was because of something ttat Panetta speculates was caused by the lack of Obama’s heartfelt enthusiasm and direct personal involvement and not trying to use a threat against the Iraqis to persuade the unpersuadable to pass a deal that includes immunity through an anti- American controlled Iraqi legislature.

Or can you?

 

[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 cannot be so stupid to believe that the only reason that the negotiations failed was because of something ttat Panetta speculates was caused by the lack of Obama’s heartfelt enthusiasm and direct personal involvement and not trying to use a threat against the Iraqis to persuade the unpersuadable to pass a deal that includes immunity through an anti- American controlled Iraqi legislature.

Or can you?

Panetta believes that...he was there so that's not speculation on his part. Panetta states that those negotiations were always DOA as long as the President of the United States refused to support a plan to get a new SOFA and that Obama and his inner circle at the White House were "heated" in their push back against the negotiators!

Your problem is you can't explain why Panetta would lie...and you can't explain Barry's comments at the Romney debate where he quite clearly said he wasn't seeking a new SOFA.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21607510

Your problem is you can't explain why Panetta would lie...and you can't explain Barry's comments at the Romney debate where he quite clearly said he wasn't seeking a new SOFA.

Irrefutable facts based on Panetta providing infallible recollections of the negotiation period.

(1) Panetta said Obama wouid endorse a deal to keep troops in Iraq if a deal were reached.

I’m saying Panetta is telling the truth and you posted that.

(2) Since (1) is true it cannot be factual to state any version of “Obama wouid never had allowed troops to remain in Iraq”.

(3) Since (1) & (2) are true it is also impossible that Obama's statement in the debate was meant to convey that he was not seeking a new SOFA. He obviously meant something else as I pointed out. Or was mistaken.

So I don’t have s problem regarding Panetta’s honesty. It’s you.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21607510

Your problem is you can't explain why Panetta would lie...and you can't explain Barry's comments at the Romney debate where he quite clearly said he wasn't seeking a new SOFA.

Irrefutable facts based on Panetta providing infallible recollections of the negotiation period.

(1) Panetta said Obama wouid endorse a deal to keep troops in Iraq if a deal were reached.

I’m saying Panetta is telling the truth and you posted that.

(2) Since (1) is true it cannot be factual to state any version of “Obama wouid never had allowed troops to remain in Iraq”.

(3) Since (1) & (2) are true it is also impossible that Obama's statement in the debate was meant to convey that he was not seeking a new SOFA. He obviously meant something else as I pointed out. Or was mistaken.

So I don’t have s problem regarding Panetta’s honesty. It’s you.

Your only issue with that drivel is that Panetta revealed in his book that Obama and his inner circle resisted "heatedly" whatever deals negotiators at State and Defense reached with the Iraqis...which simply proves that Obama was talking out of both sides of his mouth when he publicly stated that he would endorse a deal while he was privately shooting them all down and that he was doing the same thing when he said HE didn't want a new SOFA in his debate with Romney only to turn around and claim that it was the Iraqis that didn't want the new SOFA after the ISIS debacle made his decision to pull out all combat troops look at best ill advised and at worst idiotic!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21609443

Your only issue with that drivel is that Panetta revealed in his book that Obama and his inner circle resisted "heatedly" whatever deals negotiators at State and Defense reached with the Iraqis.

Provide the quote where Panetta says “Obama and his inner circle resisted "heatedly" (whatever deals negotiators at State and Defense reached with the Iraqis)

Panetta was talking about heated resistance from the White House against using threats to convince the Iraqis to request troops and give them immunity.

Obama did not resist deals that were reached. That is a lie.

If not, provide the passage where you think Panetta said something remotely close to that.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21609443

.....Obama was talking out of both sides of his mouth when he publicly stated that he would endorse a deal while he was privately shooting them all down

I’m taking Panetta at his word, not going by public statements by Obama.

Panetta stated that Obama seemed willing to endorse a deal while complaining that Obama did not engage the Iraqis directly and he did not agree that threats should be used as a negotiating tactic against the Iraqi side.

Why don’t you believe Panetta but instead go off on your half cocked delusion that Obama was talking out of both sides of his mouth when Panetta never said he was?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle, post: 21607510

Panetta believes that...he was there so that's not speculation on his part.

Speculation is speculation. Of course he was there and he was secretly speculating then and openly speculating now that Iraq wouid have found a political way among their anti-American majority of legislators had Obama showed up at their homes and sweet talked or threatened them personally to grant armed US combat soldiers the same immunity they had the previous few years now under much more stable conditions.

You are obviously a whacko if you think Obama’s direct involvement wouid have kept enough combat troops in Iraq to prevent the fall of Mosul to ISIS in 2014.

General David Petraeus said that we cannot know if a certain number of combat troops left in Iraq in 2012 would have prevented the rise of ISIS.

Yet you claim to know. So are you calling Petraeus a liar too?