Obama "inserted poison pill

[whutTHEYsay]

BB 10107637

DOesnt matter what Iraqis wanted

That has to be one of the top most ignorant and arrogant statements about Iraq that could be stated.

 

[Dot Com]

Mud 10102517

The tile alone puts the lie to the premise of this thread.

You have apparently not read beyond the title since you are not addressing the premise of this thread.

The false claim made by EconChick is not refuted by what White House staff said and whatever it was. The OP-Ed did not make further comment on that headline or what it meant.

More knockdown of EconChick's fallacies and "Hogwash"
regarding Iraq from the WSJ oped:

"But the common argument that U.S. troops could have produced different Iraqi political outcomes is hogwash"

Could a residual force have prevented ISIS’s victories? With troops we would have had better intelligence on al Qaeda in Iraq and later ISIS, a more attentive Washington, and no doubt a better-trained Iraqi army. But the common argument that U.S. troops could have produced different Iraqi political outcomes is hogwash. The Iraqi sectarian divides, which ISIS exploited, run deep and were not susceptible to permanent remedy by our troops at their height, let alone by 5,000 trainers under Iraqi restraints..

yep. stationing infidels in a muslim country does not endear them to you.. Many Righties here took the SeanRush brown acid.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

The Iraqis wanted a significant force of 20,000.

Look at the last line in the following excerpt from Amb Jeffrey's OpEd in the WSJ. Your statement is as false as EconChick's. That is not a good start for trying to defend EconChick.

Given the success in winning a SOFA in 2008, what led to this failure? First, the need for U.S. troops was not self-evident in 2011. Iraq appeared stable, with oil exports of two million barrels a day at about $90 a barrel, and security much improved. Second, politics had turned against a troop presence; the bitterly anti-U.S. Sadrists were active in Parliament, the Sunni Arabs more ambivalent toward the U.S., and polls indicated that less than 20% of the Iraqi population wanted U.S. troops.

 

[The Rabbi]

BB 10107637

DOesnt matter what Iraqis wanted

That has to be one of the top most ignorant and arrogant statements about Iraq that could be stated.

No. Every statement by you fits that description.
The truth is many key players in Iraq understood it was important for us to stay. And they were right. Leadership means doing the right thing, not the popular thing. Bush understood that. Obama doesnt.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

KnD 10107737

Econochick was wrong in the mechaics. It wasn't obola demanding that the issue go to parliament. But he did get pissy over the issue going to parliament

No. EconChick wrote in her (post 9492265) that it "has never been a requirement in any of the 40 other SOFA agreements we have with other nations." to require a Legislature to approve a Status of Forces Agreement.

US Amb JAMES FRANKLIN JEFFREY explain that "In a constitutional democracy it requires parliament to waive its own laws. "

How could EconChick not know what Amb Jeffry said.

Here's another excerpt from Amb Jeffrey's OpEd:

The story begins in 2008, when the Bush administration and Iraq negotiated a Status of Forces Agreement granting U.S. troops in the country legal immunities—a sine qua non of U.S. basing everywhere—but with the caveat that they be withdrawn by the end of 2011.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Leadership means doing the right thing, not the popular thing. Bush understood that. Obama doesnt.

Amb Jeffrey explains the right thing to you, The 'right thing' under Bush was for all American troops to be withdrawn by the end of 2011.

Obama did not alter or over-ride what Bush's "leadership" produced.

The story begins in 2008, when the Bush administration and Iraq negotiated a Status of Forces Agreement granting U.S. troops in the country legal immunities—a sine qua non of U.S. basing everywhere—but with the caveat that they be withdrawn by the end of 2011.

Are you questioning Bush's leadership to agree to pull all the troops out by the end of 2011?

 

[JoeB131]

DOesnt matter what Iraqis wanted. And many key Iraqis understood we had to stay. All of this is written history, confirmed by Panetta and others. Your spin is laughable.

Yeah, it doesn't matter what the Iraqis wanted. I mean, hey, they might do stuff like keep shooting at Americans if we didn't leave, but it really doesn't matter what they wanted.

What mattered is that MOST AMERICANS wanted to get the hell out of Iraq.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Leadership means doing the right thing, not the popular thing. Bush understood that. Obama doesnt.

Obama did the right thing in Afghanistan although very unpopular with Americans including many of those that voted for him. Obama did what Bush could not get in Iraq - a ten year deal.

Bush's eked out a mere three year deal in Iraq. Yet you praise Bush's leadership and condemn Obama's. why do you do that?

NF 9891940

The ten year SOFA with Afghanistan was signed yesterday - keeping 10 thousand US troops there through 2024.

No placeholder bullcrap going on there.

It follows the historic first democratic transfer of governmental power in Afghanistan's long war torn history.

Our troops along with those of the ISAF and the vast majority of Afghans made this historic achievement possible.

Politically here in the US how will the SOFA and the transfer of power be mocked and torn apart?

So where is the praise for Obama getting a long term SOFA deal with the new Afghan government?