When Obama first heard of SOFA do you think he understood the consequences???

[healthmyths]

As with almost everything the devil is in the details that the vast majority of Americans NEVER take time to learn much less understand. So please be patient and read this entire post.
It was called "Status of Forces Agreement, "SOFA" Military has met SOFA deadline, top U.S. general in Iraq says And it according to the agreement required.
BUT Obama pushing to keep his pledge to remove ALL troops from Iraq did the following: When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.

It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011.
There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.

Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.

He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.

When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount.
(For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)

Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.

Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq, Bush says
Now to sum this up... SOFA was up for renegotiation under Obama.
Being the naive, non-believer in Iraq and more so the military experts that KNOWING Military HISTORY they knew NOT leaving a conquering force in place meant a VACCUM!
But Obama wouldn't listen!
He pledged ignorantly to bring all the troops back! So he did and NOW WE HAVE ISIS!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Val Jarrett ordered Obama to make the drawdown so her ISIS loyalists would have free reign in the ME

 

[CowboyTed]

So

As with almost everything the devil is in the details that the vast majority of Americans NEVER take time to learn much less understand. So please be patient and read this entire post.
It was called "Status of Forces Agreement, "SOFA" Military has met SOFA deadline, top U.S. general in Iraq says And it according to the agreement required.
BUT Obama pushing to keep his pledge to remove ALL troops from Iraq did the following: When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.

It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011.
There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.

Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.

He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.

When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount.
(For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)

Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.

Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq, Bush says
Now to sum this up... SOFA was up for renegotiation under Obama.
Being the naive, non-believer in Iraq and more so the military experts that KNOWING Military HISTORY they knew NOT leaving a conquering force in place meant a VACCUM!
But Obama wouldn't listen!
He pledged ignorantly to bring all the troops back! So he did and NOW WE HAVE ISIS!!!

If US troops stayed in Iraq they were going to be subject to Iraqi Law...

So you want US troops in Iraqi Jails.... Way to go idiot...

 

[Pete7469]

Obama is

SOFA

KING

RETARDED.

 

[healthmyths]

So

As with almost everything the devil is in the details that the vast majority of Americans NEVER take time to learn much less understand. So please be patient and read this entire post.
It was called "Status of Forces Agreement, "SOFA" Military has met SOFA deadline, top U.S. general in Iraq says And it according to the agreement required.
BUT Obama pushing to keep his pledge to remove ALL troops from Iraq did the following: When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.

It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011.
There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.

Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.

He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.

When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount.
(For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)

Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.

Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq, Bush says
Now to sum this up... SOFA was up for renegotiation under Obama.
Being the naive, non-believer in Iraq and more so the military experts that KNOWING Military HISTORY they knew NOT leaving a conquering force in place meant a VACCUM!
But Obama wouldn't listen!
He pledged ignorantly to bring all the troops back! So he did and NOW WE HAVE ISIS!!!

If US troops stayed in Iraq they were going to be subject to Iraqi Law...

So you want US troops in Iraqi Jails.... Way to go idiot...

NO YOU IDIOT!!! Obama summarily cut off negotiations! See that's what idiots like you and Obama do! YOU don't know like TRUMP does how to negotiate!
The idiot Obama took the first offer from Iraq because HE WANTED the troops withdrawn! To help his Muslim FRIENDS!!!!
Do you understand the implications when Obama said to the world..."our military is air-raiding villages killing civilians"? This is cheerleading for the Muslims!
He hates America! So NO they would never have gone to jail under Trump for example. There never would be an ISIS in Iraq! Trump would simply bill
Iraq and collect in OIL! You are so naive when it comes to negotiating....JUST as the idiots under Obama!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama understood the consequences when he opposed the war in 2002.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So

As with almost everything the devil is in the details that the vast majority of Americans NEVER take time to learn much less understand. So please be patient and read this entire post.
It was called "Status of Forces Agreement, "SOFA" Military has met SOFA deadline, top U.S. general in Iraq says And it according to the agreement required.
BUT Obama pushing to keep his pledge to remove ALL troops from Iraq did the following: When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.

It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011.
There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.

Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.

He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.

When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount.
(For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)

Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.

Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq, Bush says
Now to sum this up... SOFA was up for renegotiation under Obama.
Being the naive, non-believer in Iraq and more so the military experts that KNOWING Military HISTORY they knew NOT leaving a conquering force in place meant a VACCUM!
But Obama wouldn't listen!
He pledged ignorantly to bring all the troops back! So he did and NOW WE HAVE ISIS!!!

If US troops stayed in Iraq they were going to be subject to Iraqi Law...

So you want US troops in Iraqi Jails.... Way to go idiot...

If troops had stayed in Iraq the Iraqi Army would have never gotten around to defending its own country.

NOW, thanks to Obama and only to Obama, they are doing so.

 

[healthmyths]

Obama understood the consequences when he opposed the war in 2002.

So then YOU and Obama would have had NO problem allowing 2.8 million children to starve in Iraq?
You and the idiot Obama had NO problem with believing Saddam who would have allowed these children to starve RATHER then admitting
Iraq had no WMDs?
You and the idiot Obama had no problem with Saddam destroying the following!
"Following the end of the Gulf War in 1991, the marsh dwellers were important elements in the uprising against Saddam Hussein’s regime. To end the rebellion, the regime implemented an intensive system of drainage and water diversion structures that desiccated over 90% of the marshes.
The reed beds were also burned and poison introduced to the waters. It is estimated that more than 500,000 were displaced, 95,000 of them to Iran, 300,000 internally displaced, and the remainder to other countries. By January 2003, the majority of the marshes were wastelands.
Today: "After a decade of decline in which the fabled Marshlands of Mesopotamia all but vanished almost 40 per cent have now recovered to their former 1970s extent."
Iraq's marshlands: Resurrecting Eden
YET you on your moral high ass ninny and neigh about "global warming" ALL the while Bush/US was restoring Mesopotamia --
Saddam ignored just like you idiots and Obama ignored the "1998 Liberation of Iraq" legislation that Clinton pushed through!
Saddam ignored just like idiots and Obama ignored these Democrats and their CRYING FOR SADDAM TO REMOVED!!! Because of WMDs!

Pre-War Quotes from Democrats
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. *
"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998. * video

"Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century."
Sen. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998 *

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998 *

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998. *

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998. *

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. *

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. *

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. *

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. *

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. *

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. *

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. *

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. *

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. *

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002 * video

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. *

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002. *

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002. *

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002. * video

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002. *

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. *

 

[BlindBoo]

in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008

Fact of the matter is President Obama inherited a signed agreement that President Bush was forced by the Iraqis to make. Furthermore President Bush had an entire year to forge an agreement that included a long term agreement on US Troop level in Iraq. So put the blame for that agreement where it belongs, on the decider himself.

 

[healthmyths]

in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008

Fact of the matter is President Obama inherited a signed agreement that President Bush was forced by the Iraqis to make. Furthermore President Bush had an entire year to forge an agreement that included a long term agreement on US Troop level in Iraq. So put the blame for that agreement where it belongs, on the decider himself.

WRONG!!! And remember I"M NOT SAYING IT!!! LIKE you personally felt... but had NO proof!
I'm NOT SAYING THIS OK???
Experts are! READ THE FACTS! NOT some made up in your insane brain!

"It’s the White House itself that decided just 2–3,000 troops made sense,
when the Defense Department and others were proposing more.
Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him —
the problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war.
In other words, it’s not correct that “the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave.” That contradicts the reporting that’s been done on the issue by well-known neocon propaganda factories The New Yorker and the New York Times. Prime Minister Maliki did say in public, at times, that he personally couldn’t offer the guarantees necessary to keep U.S. troops in the country, but it’s well-established that behind closed doors, he was interested in a substantial U.S. presence. The Obama administration, in fact, doesn’t even really deny it: For Dexter Filkins’s New Yorker story, deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes didn’t dispute this issue, he just argued that a U.S. troop presence wouldn’t have been a panacea.
The agreement was supposed to be renegotiated eventually, to provide a long-term presence with U.S. troops in a different role.
That’s why the Obama administration, however half-heartedly and with little regard for the fate of Iraq, did try to renegotiate it.
And it’s why the Maliki government was open to these negotiations — the situation on the ground was very different in 2011 than it had been when Bush signed the agreement in 2008.
No, U.S. Troops Didn't Have to Leave Iraq

And ANOTHER SOURCE:
5 Disastrous Obama Policy Decisions That Have Already Blown Up In His Face
1) Setting a Timeline And Not Getting a Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq:
George W. Bush may have had a tough time in Iraq overall, but his surge was wildly successful and the country had largely been pacified when he left office. In other words, Barack Obama didn't have to "win" the war in Iraq because it had already been won. All he had to do was not screw up the peace. Instead, for purely political reasons, he set a timeline for when we were going to pull out. Then he didn't even bother to get a status of forces agreement with Iraq, which would have helped to stabilize the country and improve its training with very minimal risk to American forces. Keep in mind that we STILL have soldiers in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, but none in Iraq, which desperately needed our help and advice to keep the country stable. Now, the entire nation is in danger of devolving into civil war and/or falling to Isis/Al-Qaeda outright because Barack Obama wanted to be able to tell his base that he got us "out" of Iraq. Well, we are "out" of Iraq, but now ISIS/Al-Qaeda is in because of Obama. Great job squandering all the sacrifices our soldiers made in that country, Obama!
John Hawkins - 5 Disastrous Obama Policy Decisions That Have Already Blown Up In His Face

AGAIN THESE ARE NOT MY PERSONAL OPINIONS!!!! THESE ARE THE EXPERTS!

 

[BlindBoo]

in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008

Fact of the matter is President Obama inherited a signed agreement that President Bush was forced by the Iraqis to make. Furthermore President Bush had an entire year to forge an agreement that included a long term agreement on US Troop level in Iraq. So put the blame for that agreement where it belongs, on the decider himself.

WRONG!!! And remember I"M NOT SAYING IT!!! LIKE you personally felt... but had NO proof!
I'm NOT SAYING THIS OK???
Experts are! READ THE FACTS! NOT some made up in your insane brain!

"It’s the White House itself that decided just 2–3,000 troops made sense,
when the Defense Department and others were proposing more.
Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him —
the problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war.
In other words, it’s not correct that “the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave.” That contradicts the reporting that’s been done on the issue by well-known neocon propaganda factories The New Yorker and the New York Times. Prime Minister Maliki did say in public, at times, that he personally couldn’t offer the guarantees necessary to keep U.S. troops in the country, but it’s well-established that behind closed doors, he was interested in a substantial U.S. presence. The Obama administration, in fact, doesn’t even really deny it: For Dexter Filkins’s New Yorker story, deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes didn’t dispute this issue, he just argued that a U.S. troop presence wouldn’t have been a panacea.
The agreement was supposed to be renegotiated eventually, to provide a long-term presence with U.S. troops in a different role.
That’s why the Obama administration, however half-heartedly and with little regard for the fate of Iraq, did try to renegotiate it.
And it’s why the Maliki government was open to these negotiations — the situation on the ground was very different in 2011 than it had been when Bush signed the agreement in 2008.
No, U.S. Troops Didn't Have to Leave Iraq

And ANOTHER SOURCE:
5 Disastrous Obama Policy Decisions That Have Already Blown Up In His Face
1) Setting a Timeline And Not Getting a Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq:
George W. Bush may have had a tough time in Iraq overall, but his surge was wildly successful and the country had largely been pacified when he left office. In other words, Barack Obama didn't have to "win" the war in Iraq because it had already been won. All he had to do was not screw up the peace. Instead, for purely political reasons, he set a timeline for when we were going to pull out. Then he didn't even bother to get a status of forces agreement with Iraq, which would have helped to stabilize the country and improve its training with very minimal risk to American forces. Keep in mind that we STILL have soldiers in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, but none in Iraq, which desperately needed our help and advice to keep the country stable. Now, the entire nation is in danger of devolving into civil war and/or falling to Isis/Al-Qaeda outright because Barack Obama wanted to be able to tell his base that he got us "out" of Iraq. Well, we are "out" of Iraq, but now ISIS/Al-Qaeda is in because of Obama. Great job squandering all the sacrifices our soldiers made in that country, Obama!
John Hawkins - 5 Disastrous Obama Policy Decisions That Have Already Blown Up In His Face

AGAIN THESE ARE NOT MY PERSONAL OPINIONS!!!! THESE ARE THE EXPERTS!

Remember the shoe throwing incident? That's when President Bush announced the signing of the SOFA.

The UN did not extend it's mandate for the US occupation past 2008. Which is why President Bush was forced to negotiate in the first place, because if he didn't, we would have had to had pulled out before 2009.. It was decided at the end of 2007 that it would not be renewed past 2008. That gave the president a full year to negotiate. The Iraq Parliament lobbied for this since it came into existence, but that should be taken for granted. The elected government in Iraq did not agree to any terms for Bush or Obama. They wanted us out.

The only choice President Obama had per Bushes agreement was to leave sooner. The Iraqis also could ask us to pack up and leave at any time too.

 

[TNHarley]

Obama understood the consequences when he opposed the war in 2002.

Lol wonder what his reasons were?
Worried about vacuums? Nope
Worried about killing civilians? Nope
Worried about war mongering? Nope
Worried about soldiers? Probably not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama understood the consequences when he opposed the war in 2002.

Lol wonder what his reasons were?
Worried about vacuums? Nope
Worried about killing civilians? Nope
Worried about war mongering? Nope
Worried about soldiers? Probably not.

Stop being an asshole and go read Obama's 2002 speech on the matter where his reasons are laid out in detail.

You're really turning into a Trumptard. Seek help.

 

[TNHarley]

Obama understood the consequences when he opposed the war in 2002.

Lol wonder what his reasons were?
Worried about vacuums? Nope
Worried about killing civilians? Nope
Worried about war mongering? Nope
Worried about soldiers? Probably not.

Stop being an asshole and go read Obama's 2002 speech on the matter where his reasons are laid out in detail.

You're really turning into a Trumptard. Seek help.

How does it make me a trumptard for not knowing a 14 year old speech by an unknown? Are you fucking retarded?

 

[TNHarley]

LOL couldn't make it past this. That asswipe has been a bullshitter for decades!
What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

So

As with almost everything the devil is in the details that the vast majority of Americans NEVER take time to learn much less understand. So please be patient and read this entire post.
It was called "Status of Forces Agreement, "SOFA" Military has met SOFA deadline, top U.S. general in Iraq says And it according to the agreement required.
BUT Obama pushing to keep his pledge to remove ALL troops from Iraq did the following: When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.

It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011.
There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.

Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.

He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.

When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount.
(For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)

Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.

Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq, Bush says
Now to sum this up... SOFA was up for renegotiation under Obama.
Being the naive, non-believer in Iraq and more so the military experts that KNOWING Military HISTORY they knew NOT leaving a conquering force in place meant a VACCUM!
But Obama wouldn't listen!
He pledged ignorantly to bring all the troops back! So he did and NOW WE HAVE ISIS!!!

If US troops stayed in Iraq they were going to be subject to Iraqi Law...

So you want US troops in Iraqi Jails.... Way to go idiot...

NO YOU IDIOT!!! Obama summarily cut off negotiations! See that's what idiots like you and Obama do! YOU don't know like TRUMP does how to negotiate!
The idiot Obama took the first offer from Iraq because HE WANTED the troops withdrawn! To help his Muslim FRIENDS!!!!
Do you understand the implications when Obama said to the world..."our military is air-raiding villages killing civilians"? This is cheerleading for the Muslims!
He hates America! So NO they would never have gone to jail under Trump for example. There never would be an ISIS in Iraq! Trump would simply bill
Iraq and collect in OIL! You are so naive when it comes to negotiating....JUST as the idiots under Obama!

Nouri al-Maliki refused to budge on the point of legal jurisdiction over US forces during the 2011 summer/fall SOFA negotiations. It is US policy that US forces will never be subject to any foreign jurisprudence in a combat zone when SOFA agreements are negotiated! Bush had that in the SOFA agreement with al-Maliki's government. Further, if you had read your own source, you'd have seen that the claim made against Obama was bogus. Here is the last bit of the article you cited in the OP;

Experts told us Bush parsed his words carefully enough to have a point that a residual force would have likely helped Iraq fend off ISIS. But there was no consensus to leave 10,000 troops in place.

We rate the statement Mostly False.
Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq, Bush says

 

[Iceweasel]

So

As with almost everything the devil is in the details that the vast majority of Americans NEVER take time to learn much less understand. So please be patient and read this entire post.
It was called "Status of Forces Agreement, "SOFA" Military has met SOFA deadline, top U.S. general in Iraq says And it according to the agreement required.
BUT Obama pushing to keep his pledge to remove ALL troops from Iraq did the following: When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.

It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011.
There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.

Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.

He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.

When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount.
(For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)

Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.

Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq, Bush says
Now to sum this up... SOFA was up for renegotiation under Obama.
Being the naive, non-believer in Iraq and more so the military experts that KNOWING Military HISTORY they knew NOT leaving a conquering force in place meant a VACCUM!
But Obama wouldn't listen!
He pledged ignorantly to bring all the troops back! So he did and NOW WE HAVE ISIS!!!

If US troops stayed in Iraq they were going to be subject to Iraqi Law...

So you want US troops in Iraqi Jails.... Way to go idiot...

If troops had stayed in Iraq the Iraqi Army would have never gotten around to defending its own country.

NOW, thanks to Obama and only to Obama, they are doing so.

Sure, that's why we are still in Korea, Japan and Germany to name a few.

The thing that often gets neglected is the fact that obama's position was well know before the election and the Iraqis used it as leverage to get the deal. They later regretted it with ISIS blooming in their back yard.

So thanks to obama and obama alone we have a global terrorist organization worse than al Queda on the loose.

 

[healthmyths]

So

As with almost everything the devil is in the details that the vast majority of Americans NEVER take time to learn much less understand. So please be patient and read this entire post.
It was called "Status of Forces Agreement, "SOFA" Military has met SOFA deadline, top U.S. general in Iraq says And it according to the agreement required.
BUT Obama pushing to keep his pledge to remove ALL troops from Iraq did the following: When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.

It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011.
There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.

Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.

He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.

When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount.
(For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)

Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.

Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq, Bush says
Now to sum this up... SOFA was up for renegotiation under Obama.
Being the naive, non-believer in Iraq and more so the military experts that KNOWING Military HISTORY they knew NOT leaving a conquering force in place meant a VACCUM!
But Obama wouldn't listen!
He pledged ignorantly to bring all the troops back! So he did and NOW WE HAVE ISIS!!!

If US troops stayed in Iraq they were going to be subject to Iraqi Law...

So you want US troops in Iraqi Jails.... Way to go idiot...

NO YOU IDIOT!!! Obama summarily cut off negotiations! See that's what idiots like you and Obama do! YOU don't know like TRUMP does how to negotiate!
The idiot Obama took the first offer from Iraq because HE WANTED the troops withdrawn! To help his Muslim FRIENDS!!!!
Do you understand the implications when Obama said to the world..."our military is air-raiding villages killing civilians"? This is cheerleading for the Muslims!
He hates America! So NO they would never have gone to jail under Trump for example. There never would be an ISIS in Iraq! Trump would simply bill
Iraq and collect in OIL! You are so naive when it comes to negotiating....JUST as the idiots under Obama!

Nouri al-Maliki refused to budge on the point of legal jurisdiction over US forces during the 2011 summer/fall SOFA negotiations. It is US policy that US forces will never be subject to any foreign jurisprudence in a combat zone when SOFA agreements are negotiated! Bush had that in the SOFA agreement with al-Maliki's government. Further, if you had read your own source, you'd have seen that the claim made against Obama was bogus. Here is the last bit of the article you cited in the OP;

Experts told us Bush parsed his words carefully enough to have a point that a residual force would have likely helped Iraq fend off ISIS. But there was no consensus to leave 10,000 troops in place.

We rate the statement Mostly False.
Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq, Bush says

And you don't know anything about Politifact do you?
I live in St. Petersburg FL area and get the ST. Pete times.
THEY OWN Politifact!
And Here is a web page dedicated to blowing POLITIFACT's total subjective and BIASED "findings"!!!
PolitiFact Bias

If you have any intellectual honesty read how biased Poltiifact is!

Smarter people then the idiots at Politifact show how dumb Politifact "fact-finders" are
in that absolutely biased ruling!

"It’s the White House itself that decided just 2–3,000 troops made sense,
when the Defense Department and others were proposing more.
Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him —
the problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war.
In other words, it’s not correct that “the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave.” That contradicts the reporting that’s been done on the issue by well-known neocon propaganda factories The New Yorker and the New York Times. Prime Minister Maliki did say in public, at times, that he personally couldn’t offer the guarantees necessary to keep U.S. troops in the country, but it’s well-established that behind closed doors, he was interested in a substantial U.S. presence. The Obama administration, in fact, doesn’t even really deny it: For Dexter Filkins’s New Yorker story, deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes didn’t dispute this issue, he just argued that a U.S. troop presence wouldn’t have been a panacea.
The agreement was supposed to be renegotiated eventually, to provide a long-term presence with U.S. troops in a different role.
That’s why the Obama administration, however half-heartedly and with little regard for the fate of Iraq, did try to renegotiate it.
And it’s why the Maliki government was open to these negotiations — the situation on the ground was very different in 2011 than it had been when Bush signed the agreement in 2008.
No, U.S. Troops Didn't Have to Leave Iraq

 

[CowboyTed]

in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008

Fact of the matter is President Obama inherited a signed agreement that President Bush was forced by the Iraqis to make. Furthermore President Bush had an entire year to forge an agreement that included a long term agreement on US Troop level in Iraq. So put the blame for that agreement where it belongs, on the decider himself.

WRONG!!! And remember I"M NOT SAYING IT!!! LIKE you personally felt... but had NO proof!
I'm NOT SAYING THIS OK???
Experts are! READ THE FACTS! NOT some made up in your insane brain!

"It’s the White House itself that decided just 2–3,000 troops made sense,
when the Defense Department and others were proposing more.
Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him —
the problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war.
In other words, it’s not correct that “the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave.” That contradicts the reporting that’s been done on the issue by well-known neocon propaganda factories The New Yorker and the New York Times. Prime Minister Maliki did say in public, at times, that he personally couldn’t offer the guarantees necessary to keep U.S. troops in the country, but it’s well-established that behind closed doors, he was interested in a substantial U.S. presence. The Obama administration, in fact, doesn’t even really deny it: For Dexter Filkins’s New Yorker story, deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes didn’t dispute this issue, he just argued that a U.S. troop presence wouldn’t have been a panacea.
The agreement was supposed to be renegotiated eventually, to provide a long-term presence with U.S. troops in a different role.
That’s why the Obama administration, however half-heartedly and with little regard for the fate of Iraq, did try to renegotiate it.
And it’s why the Maliki government was open to these negotiations — the situation on the ground was very different in 2011 than it had been when Bush signed the agreement in 2008.
No, U.S. Troops Didn't Have to Leave Iraq

And ANOTHER SOURCE:
5 Disastrous Obama Policy Decisions That Have Already Blown Up In His Face
1) Setting a Timeline And Not Getting a Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq:
George W. Bush may have had a tough time in Iraq overall, but his surge was wildly successful and the country had largely been pacified when he left office. In other words, Barack Obama didn't have to "win" the war in Iraq because it had already been won. All he had to do was not screw up the peace. Instead, for purely political reasons, he set a timeline for when we were going to pull out. Then he didn't even bother to get a status of forces agreement with Iraq, which would have helped to stabilize the country and improve its training with very minimal risk to American forces. Keep in mind that we STILL have soldiers in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, but none in Iraq, which desperately needed our help and advice to keep the country stable. Now, the entire nation is in danger of devolving into civil war and/or falling to Isis/Al-Qaeda outright because Barack Obama wanted to be able to tell his base that he got us "out" of Iraq. Well, we are "out" of Iraq, but now ISIS/Al-Qaeda is in because of Obama. Great job squandering all the sacrifices our soldiers made in that country, Obama!
John Hawkins - 5 Disastrous Obama Policy Decisions That Have Already Blown Up In His Face

AGAIN THESE ARE NOT MY PERSONAL OPINIONS!!!! THESE ARE THE EXPERTS!

It is an opinion piece... I don't think you get it...

Have you a fucks clue what a fact is...

Yon know when you spoke in school did all the other kids laugh, and you thought because you were a comedian...

 

[Katzndogz]

obama made his decision on the basis of what would cause the maximum number of American deaths.