Trump pulls out of Syria then lies about defeating Isis

[The Sage of Main Street]

You are either lying or just plain stupid. Can you explain what in the hell this sentence is about:

“Nobel Peace Prize Winning President who drug the United States into a war to help the terrorists who slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01. “

Are you too stupid to understand the obvious? Evidently so....

Barack Obama ordered the United States military to help murder the leader of a sovereign nation and to take control of their own country.

Qaddafi, the Leader of Libya, was actually HELPING COALITION FORCES FIGHT TERRORISTS IN NORTHERN AFRICA when Barry decided to lend Am Qaeda - who slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01 - the might of the US military to overthrow and murder Qaddafi and to seize power in Libya.

As their way of saying 'thank you', they later attacked the US Compound in Benghazi - a 3rd time - on 9/11/12 - the anniversary of 9/11/01, part of a Middle East-wide terrorist attack that consisted of attacks on 22 US Embassies and Compounds throughout the Middle East, murdering 4 Americans, to include the 1st US Ambassador murdered by terrorist attack in decades.

Chickenhawk and Peacenik Families Owe Vietnam Vets 60,000 Lives

Every American 18-year-old male must serve two years active duty, no college "deferments" or bribing private doctors to get fake medical exemptions. If the ruling class and its class-climbing boytoys are put at risk, then its government will pay more attention to pre-emptively exterminating the jihad, instead of making money off this prolonged delay in wiping it out.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Thought this was about Syria, Russia Trump & what's going on now. how did Bush, Obama get in the conversation?

Pandora's Box of Partisan Politics

Obama's intervention, as he paid, trained, and armed the worthless Arab Spring opportunists, not only prolonged the bloodbath and caused the majority of deaths and refugees, it also gave ISIS an opportunity to expand its successful war against our Iraqi and Kurdish puppet armies and take much of Syria.

Since John McCain't would have done the same thing, the GOPers only opposed the intervention because Obama was in charge. That's also the only reason they illogically wanted him to follow through on his Red Line. So both the Left and the Right Wings of the hereditary ruling class vulture must be overthrown by populists who have to fight the wars created by the incompetence and sheltered indifference of the "wise stewards" empowered by the High and Mighty lowlife.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Oldstyle, post: 21462612

For someone to claim Obama hasn't changed his narrative is laughable! He's changed it rather dramatically...

Not the narrative that you defined. This narrative has not changed;

“Obama has not changed his ‘narrative’ from 2011 through the present. It has been that he would have kept up to ten thousand troops in Iraq had the Iraqis made a request up to that amount and granted them immunity.”

Obama’s comments in the third debate in 2012 did not change the narrative becaue it was so easily fact checked to confirm that Romney was correct that Obama would have left troops in Iraq according to the actions of the President in 2011.

Obama did not say he would not leave troops in Iraq if Iraq had requested them and been able to extend the immunity.

Reading the entire exchange it appears Obama probably was trying to say that Romney was incorrect to be telling Iraqis that he somehow wouid be forcing the Iraqis to
keep foreign troops against their will a year
After the left.

Obama said In the debate to Romney. “You say that you're not interested in duplicating what happened in Iraq. But just a few weeks ago, you said you think we should have more troops in Iraq right now. ”. “You said that we should still have troops in Iraq to this day.”

Romney: .....Number two, with regards to Iraq, you and I agreed I believe that there should be a status of forces agreement.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: Oh you didn't? You didn't want a status of...

OBAMA: What I would not have had done was left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. And that certainly would not help us in the Middle East.

ROMNEY: I'm sorry, you actually -- there was a -- there was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement, and I concurred in that, and said that we should have some number of troops that stayed on. That was something I concurred with... ...that your posture. That was my posture as well. You thought it should have been 5,000 troops...

OBAMA: Governor?

ROMNEY: ... I thought there should have been more troops, but you know what? The answer was we got... ... no troops through whatsoever.

OBAMA: This was just a few weeks ago that you indicated that we should still have troops in Iraq.

ROMNEY: ...I indicated that you failed to put in place a status... ..of forces agreement at the end of the conflict that existed.

OBAMA: ...here's one thing I've learned as commander in chief. You've got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean. You just gave a speech a few weeks ago in which you said we should still have troops in Iraq. That is not a recipe for making sure that we are taking advantage of the opportunities and meeting the challenges of the Middle East.

Now, it is absolutely true that we cannot just meet these challenges militarily. And so what I've done throughout my presidency and will continue to do is, number one, make sure that these countries are supporting our counterterrorism efforts.

Number two, make sure that they are standing by our interests in Israel's security, because it is a true friend and our greatest ally in the region.

Number three, we do have to make sure that we're protecting religious minorities and women because these countries can't develop unless all the population, not just half of it, is developing.

Number four, we do have to develop their economic -- their economic capabilities.

But number five, the other thing that we have to do is recognize that we can't continue to do nation building in these regions. Part of American leadership is making sure that we're doing nation building here at home. That will help us maintain the kind of American leadership that we need.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

View attachment 236085

Why the Social Media's Reality Checks Bounce Back Marked INSUFFICIENT FUNDS

For 50 years, I've suffered chronic pain and injury in my ankles and lower spine because, back in Vietnam, I bent over like that while carrying a heavy pack instead of letting my shoulders hold the weight. The Marine generals rushed us over there instead of building up our strength.

The self-absorbed weaklings whom Netwits get their talking points from are conceited pseudo-intellectual snobs and didn't have to go through hard knocks. Why would the predatory ruling class promote anyone with knowledge of good and evil? The elite are better served by the ambitious imbeciles Netwits slavishly link to.

The opinionists sucked their thumbs in college getting mind-raped, then adopted whichever ideology needed more bird-brained parrots at the time they graduated. From the dust pan to the ash heap, they snuggled into their cubicles and started scribbling ignorant but somehow respected nonsense designed for somewhere on the specious spectrum but nowhere among the forbidden theories based on experience, logic, and common sense.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Obama presents plan to pull 10 times as many troops out, Johnlaw is not butthurt.

What a friggin stupid comment. That is the best you can do is "butthurt:. What an idiot.

Go ahead link us to the threads you created when Obama presented plans to pull way more troops out than Trump. You know those non-existent threads. Just assume I spent the next few minutes mocking you.

More friggin idiocy, bringing up Obama. Who gives a shit about Obama. Trump goes rogue and singlehandedly upends US policy and makes us look the fool around the world as well as making our enemies stronger and you bring up Obama. Geesus, you can't make this stupidity up.

Once again liberals lecture us on why we should do what the world demands.
Treasonous.

Transnationalist Cross-Dressers

Despite the nagging busybody girlyman Global baloney, we shouldn't be kissing the asses of our unreliable and incompetent freeloading fickle fair-weather allies. We are the Big Kahuna; other countries are our hula hoops.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Just an FYI in case anyone thinks I'm kidding.

EXCLUSIVE: Canada’s plan for managing the return of ISIS fighters revealed in documents
By Stewart Bell National Online Journalist, Investigative Global News

EXCLUSIVE: Canada’s plan for managing the return of ISIS fighters revealed in documents

Queerbecois

Trudeau is French Canadian; what do you expect? Surrender to anti-semitic predators is dominant in his DNA.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Oldstyle, post: 21462590

Was Obama telling the truth when he said he'd be "content" if a deal got done but didn't lift a finger to make that happen?

You are lying when you say Obama did not lift a finger to make it happen. He offered the Iraqis up to 10,000 troops upon their request and if that request included immunity.

Obama didn’t want to pressure or plead since it was the Iraqis decision to make not his.

If you think lifting a finger was Panetta’s plan to threaten the Iraqis of course Obama did not lift that finger. So quit telling you desperate lies.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

sartre play, post: 21434279

Thought this was about Syria, Russia Trump & what's going on now. how did Bush, Obama get in the conversation?

Trumpo goons cannot defend Trumpo’s volatile Irrational urges so they try to deflect by telling lies about Obama in order to imagine that Trumpo is somehow better than him.

It rediculous I know.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Oldstyle, post: 21462612,

That didn't keep him from later changing THAT narrative once again when it became obvious that he'd fucked up by ignoring the advice of his military leaders and not left some combat troops to keep Iraq stable!

Obama did not ignore the advice of his military leaders. Every single military leader advised the President not to keep troops in Iraq without immunity.

In the end Iraq was not considering ‘combat’ troops at all. Only trainers.



It was Iraq’s decision not to grant immunity to trainers. Obama did not **** up anything.

You are lying.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21462590

Was Obama telling the truth when he said he'd be "content" if a deal got done but didn't lift a finger to make that happen?

You are lying when you say Obama did not lift a finger to make it happen. He offered the Iraqis up to 10,000 troops upon their request and if that request included immunity.

Obama didn’t want to pressure or plead since it was the Iraqis decision to make not his.

If you think lifting a finger was Panetta’s plan to threaten the Iraqis of course Obama did not lift that finger. So quit telling you desperate lies.

He didn't do ANYTHING to make it happen, you buffoon! You can't seem to grasp the MAJOR difference between a President who wanted a SOFA (like George W. Bush) and one who didn't want one (like Barack Obama)! Panetta's point was that Maliki wasn't going to do anything to push a SOFA through if he wasn't guaranteed that Barack Obama would support it and Maliki wasn't getting any encouragement from the Obama White House whatsoever! Obama killed any possibility of a new SOFA because he really didn't want one! Why? Why would he? The old one expiring gave him his excuse to pull combat troops against the advice of his military leaders!

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21462612,

That didn't keep him from later changing THAT narrative once again when it became obvious that he'd fucked up by ignoring the advice of his military leaders and not left some combat troops to keep Iraq stable!

Obama did not ignore the advice of his military leaders. Every single military leader advised the President not to keep troops in Iraq without immunity.

In the end Iraq was not considering ‘combat’ troops at all. Only trainers.



It was Iraq’s decision not to grant immunity to trainers. Obama did not **** up anything.

You are lying.

Nobody wanted US troops in a combat situation without a Status of Forces Agreement in place, Not Fooled...especially our military leaders! What they WANTED was for Barack Obama to get off his skinny ass and work to get a new SOFA approved...just like George W. Bush had done twice! What they got was a cold shoulder from the Obama White House. Without the SOFA the military leaders had no choice but the recommend a complete troop withdrawal. That doesn't mean that they didn't think it was a strategic blunder of epic proportions not to leave at least 10,000 combat troops in Iraq to provide stability because they were all calling for exactly that!

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Oldstyle, post: 21466664

just like George W. Bush had done twice!

What George Bush wanted was an indefinite US troop presence and permanent bases. He got three years and all troops out of Iraq cities in six months. Bush agreed that Iraq had final say on US military missions.

Bush could not negotiate US Troop presence beyond 2011 nor get a single permanent base back in 2008 and you expect Obama to negotiate more years of a troop presence by threatening to cut off aid when the Iraqis were sure Iraq was more stable and more advanced militarily than when bush had so much of what he wanted rejected.

When you issue a threat during negotiations you might have to back it up. That is why Bush did not use that threat in 2008. And that is why Obama didn’t use Panetta’s Threat in 2011.

Remember you are Monday morning quarterbacking now. So you must be disappointed that Baghdad did not fall to ISIS . Bagdhdad is still in the hands of the Iraqi elected government. But Obama did not have to engage 10,000 or more US troops in great numbers on the ground on the front lines to drive ISIS out of Iraq.

Obama led a coalition to defeat ISIS without putting Americans in the battle to be killed and wounded in Iraq’s cities and villages.

And Iraq prevailed.

All your god damned handwringing and bitching about Obama’s 2011 negotiations cones by absolutely ignoring the fact, from an American perspective, that it is good news that Iraqis have learned that Americans are not going to be able to do their fighting for them.

We can help but no fighting on the ground on their front lines.

True Americans would respect what Obama and our great military did, with very few casualties of our own, to help the Iraqis destroy ISIS terrorists in Iraq.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

The Gradual evolution of Oldstyle’s lie:

Oldstyle, post: 21466637

Panetta's point was that Maliki wasn't going to do anything to push a SOFA through if he wasn't guaranteed that Barack Obama would support it

Today, according to Oldstyle, Maliki “needed a guarantee” that Obama wouid support a SOFA if Panetta could negotiate one and get it through Iraq’s Parliament.

That lie is milder than Oldstyle’s previous almost exact lie, but it is still a lie.

Oldstyle, post: 21443838,

Panetta explains that there was no way in the world that Maliki was going to fight for a new SOFA in the Iraqi Parliament when he knew that even if he was successful...Obama wasn't going to sign it because he and his little cadre of insiders had already decided pulling out all of the combat troops was going to play well in the upcoming election.

A few days ago, according to Oldstyle ... Maliki knew ... “Obama wasn't going to sign it because he and his little cadre of insiders had already decided pulling out all of the combat troops was going to play well in the upcoming election.”

Maliki supposedly knew Obama wouid not sign a SOFA that passed in Parliament with immunity for our troops.

It would be nice if Oldstyle could use his imagination for something other than making up lies about Obama.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Oldstyle, post: 21440757

Leon Panetta: How the White House Misplayed Iraqi Troop Talks

That Op Ed by Leon Panetta sums up what happened rather succinctly...

So...did you want to call Panetta a "liar" as well?

Lets read what Panetta said in his Monday morning quarterbacking op-ed when selling his book.

It’s amazing how Panetta had the only right answer three years after the decisions had to be made.

. Privately, the various leadership factions in Iraq all confided that they wanted some U.S. forces to remain as a bulwark against sectarian violence. But none was willing to take that position publicly, and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki concluded that any Status of Forces Agreement, which would give legal protection to those forces, would have to be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for approval. That made reaching agreement very difficult given the internal politics of Iraq, but representatives of the Defense and State departments, with scrutiny from the White House, tried to reach a deal

Pabetta’s Idea was to threaten Iraq:

. We had leverage. We could, for instance, have threatened to withdraw reconstruction aid to Iraq if al-Maliki would not support some sort of continued U.S. military presence.

. I privately and publicly advocated for a residual force that could provide training and security for Iraq’s military. Under Secretary of Defense Michèle Flournoy did her best to press that position, which reflected not just my views but also those of the military commanders in the region and the Joint Chiefs. But the President’s team at the White House pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated.

. Flournoy argued our case, and those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.

. To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them.

Panetta says Obama would have endorsed a new SOFA.

. 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

Panetta was wrong about his fears:

. In my view, the ISIS offensive in 2014 greatly increases the risk that Iraq will become al-Qaeda’s next safe haven.

. Didn’t happen didn’t it.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21440757

Leon Panetta: How the White House Misplayed Iraqi Troop Talks

That Op Ed by Leon Panetta sums up what happened rather succinctly...

So...did you want to call Panetta a "liar" as well?

Lets read what Panetta said in his Monday morning quarterbacking op-ed when selling his book.

It’s amazing how Panetta had the only right answer three years after the decisions had to be made.

. Privately, the various leadership factions in Iraq all confided that they wanted some U.S. forces to remain as a bulwark against sectarian violence. But none was willing to take that position publicly, and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki concluded that any Status of Forces Agreement, which would give legal protection to those forces, would have to be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for approval. That made reaching agreement very difficult given the internal politics of Iraq, but representatives of the Defense and State departments, with scrutiny from the White House, tried to reach a deal

Pabetta’s Idea was to threaten Iraq:

. We had leverage. We could, for instance, have threatened to withdraw reconstruction aid to Iraq if al-Maliki would not support some sort of continued U.S. military presence.

. I privately and publicly advocated for a residual force that could provide training and security for Iraq’s military. Under Secretary of Defense Michèle Flournoy did her best to press that position, which reflected not just my views but also those of the military commanders in the region and the Joint Chiefs. But the President’s team at the White House pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated.

. Flournoy argued our case, and those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.

. To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them.

Panetta says Obama would have endorsed a new SOFA.

. 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

Panetta was wrong about his fears:

. In my view, the ISIS offensive in 2014 greatly increases the risk that Iraq will become al-Qaeda’s next safe haven.

. Didn’t happen didn’t it.

You're amazing! All of what you posted proves Panetta and Flournoy were frustrated because the Obama Administration didn't want a new SOFA and Barack Obama was totally disinterested in working towards one. Maliki knew that as well. That's why the deal was never struck! Obama didn't want it and Maliki was ALLOWED to "slip away"!

As for what Iraq became? Panetta was spot on you moron! ISIS established a terrorist Caliphate over vast areas of the Middle East and we had to go back into the conflict to help drive them out again! That didn't have to happen! Hundreds of thousands of people needlessly lost their lives. Millions were forced into becoming refugees to escape ISIS's brutality. That's the legacy of Barak Obama's short sighted policies in Iraq.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, post: 21466664

just like George W. Bush had done twice!

What George Bush wanted was an indefinite US troop presence and permanent bases. He got three years and all troops out of Iraq cities in six months. Bush agreed that Iraq had final say on US military missions.

Bush could not negotiate US Troop presence beyond 2011 nor get a single permanent base back in 2008 and you expect Obama to negotiate more years of a troop presence by threatening to cut off aid when the Iraqis were sure Iraq was more stable and more advanced militarily than when bush had so much of what he wanted rejected.

When you issue a threat during negotiations you might have to back it up. That is why Bush did not use that threat in 2008. And that is why Obama didn’t use Panetta’s Threat in 2011.

Remember you are Monday morning quarterbacking now. So you must be disappointed that Baghdad did not fall to ISIS . Bagdhdad is still in the hands of the Iraqi elected government. But Obama did not have to engage 10,000 or more US troops in great numbers on the ground on the front lines to drive ISIS out of Iraq.

Obama led a coalition to defeat ISIS without putting Americans in the battle to be killed and wounded in Iraq’s cities and villages.

And Iraq prevailed.

All your god damned handwringing and bitching about Obama’s 2011 negotiations cones by absolutely ignoring the fact, from an American perspective, that it is good news that Iraqis have learned that Americans are not going to be able to do their fighting for them.

We can help but no fighting on the ground on their front lines.

True Americans would respect what Obama and our great military did, with very few casualties of our own, to help the Iraqis destroy ISIS terrorists in Iraq.

Do you even know how Bush managed to get the extensions to the SOFA's we had? He worked at it. He negotiated with the Iraqis. He made a deal. Obama did none of those things. He sat on his ass and watched others do the work that HE should have been doing all while his inner circle cut the legs out of any deals that people at State or in the Department of Defense came up with.

As for what the Iraqis learned about Americans? They learned that some don't have a clue about what they are doing. They learned that we had an amateur in the White House for eight years that couldn't be trusted as far as you could throw him. They learned that with Obama...it was all about politics and image.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Oldstyle, post: 2147075

They learned that some don't have a clue about what they are doing.

Perfect timing:

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Outraged Iraq lawmakers say surprise Trump visit violated their country’s sovereignty, demand U.S. troop withdrawal
By Associated Press
Published: Dec 27, 2018 4:07 pm E

Both blocs in Iraq’s divided parliament call for a vote on the expulsion of U.S. forces in wake of Trump’s brief, ‘arrogant’ trip

 

[eagle1462010]

Oldstyle, post: 2147075

They learned that some don't have a clue about what they are doing.

Perfect timing:

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Outraged Iraq lawmakers say surprise Trump visit violated their country’s sovereignty, demand U.S. troop withdrawal
By Associated Press
Published: Dec 27, 2018 4:07 pm E

Both blocs in Iraq’s divided parliament call for a vote on the expulsion of U.S. forces in wake of Trump’s brief, ‘arrogant’ trip

They lost the entire Northern part of their country when we left the first time........All the military equipment was abandoned and handed over to ISIS as their troops ran from ISIS............Forcing us back in to hit areas that the U.S. had already taken by force...........Using Kurds who didn't run from a fight..........

Now we are there again and have been for years to save their collective asses and they feel strong again..........LOL

Upset that our President visited our troops helping them retake their country..........let them say leave .......

We will not go back a third time if they can't hold their own country again.........

 

[whutTHEYsay]

eagle1462010, post: 21472888,

Upset that our President visited our troops helping them retake their country..........let them say leave .......

Trump said he was not going to withdraw the troops from Iraq because they might be needed in troopless Syria. Trumpo is a dumbass. It is not his call to keep troops in Iraq. He can take them out but he cannot keep them there as part of a publicity stunt.

It was a US president that fucked up Iraq in the first place 15 years ago.

Can’t blame them for not wanting us there with the asshole that has now become President

He should follow protocol when dropping in and know enough to not say things that are offense to the people that never asked the US to invade and occupy them in the first place.

 

[eagle1462010]

eagle1462010, post: 21472888,

Upset that our President visited our troops helping them retake their country..........let them say leave .......

Trump said he was not going to withdraw the troops from Iraq because they might be needed in troopless Syria. Trumpo is a dumbass. It is not his call to keep troops in Iraq. He can take them out but he cannot keep them there as part of a publicity stunt.

It was a US president that fucked up Iraq in the first place 15 years ago.

Can’t blame them for not wanting us there with the asshole that has now become President

He should follow protocol when dropping in and know enough to not say things that are offense to the people that never asked the US to invade and occupy them in the first place.

This is just TDS..........ISIS is gone in Syria..........that was the mission......not to get drawn into another decade long situation.............In regards to Trump visiting our troops there.........They are ARE TROOPS there fighting enemies of Iraq........

So on that they can sit on a bar stool and spin...........If they are so offended no that they feel protected enough to be offended.....and say get out........then we will leave.............and they are on their own.......They will be tied to Iran when it's over....because they are Shia.......and we will have spent trillions and many lives and wounded for them to just stab us in the back later.

Welcome to the Middle East Moron.