US Unaware Iran Leading Iraq Fight for Tikrit

[whutTHEYsay]

Hah! Obama went against the advice of his generals and pulled out the troops just to score some campaign points. We all remember that. The great humanitarian Nobel prize winner sent the enitre region into turmoil and caused half a million deaths so far.

Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times



U.S. to pull out of Iraq after nearly 9 years of war Reuters

That is a lie and your own link explains why it is a lie:

. Maliki, heading a tenuous coalition including politicians vehemently opposed to foreign troops, eventually advocated a training presence but rejected any legal immunity for U.S. soldiers. Those terms were deemed unacceptable in Washington and in the end there was no deal to be had.

No General advised Obama to keep troops there without legal immunity. You need to stop with that lie.

 

[Roudy]

Hah! Obama went against the advice of his generals and pulled out the troops just to score some campaign points. We all remember that. The great humanitarian Nobel prize winner sent the enitre region into turmoil and caused half a million deaths so far.

Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times



U.S. to pull out of Iraq after nearly 9 years of war Reuters

That is a lie and your own link explains why it is a lie:

. Maliki, heading a tenuous coalition including politicians vehemently opposed to foreign troops, eventually advocated a training presence but rejected any legal immunity for U.S. soldiers. Those terms were deemed unacceptable in Washington and in the end there was no deal to be had.

No General advised Obama to keep troops there without legal immunity. You need to stop with that lie.

Are you kidding? Everybody knows how Obama operates...he is like a Mafia leader. If you go against his policies you're fired. How many defense secretaries has he whacked so far?

 

[eagle1462010]

Hah! Obama went against the advice of his generals and pulled out the troops just to score some campaign points. We all remember that. The great humanitarian Nobel prize winner sent the enitre region into turmoil and caused half a million deaths so far.

Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times



U.S. to pull out of Iraq after nearly 9 years of war Reuters

That is a lie and your own link explains why it is a lie:

. Maliki, heading a tenuous coalition including politicians vehemently opposed to foreign troops, eventually advocated a training presence but rejected any legal immunity for U.S. soldiers. Those terms were deemed unacceptable in Washington and in the end there was no deal to be had.

No General advised Obama to keep troops there without legal immunity. You need to stop with that lie.

Are you kidding? Everybody knows how Obama operates...he is like a Mafia leader. If you go against his policies you're fired. How many defense secretaries has he whacked so far?

LOL

Looks like 3 wack attacks so far................On his 4th...............

 

[Roudy]

Hah! Obama went against the advice of his generals and pulled out the troops just to score some campaign points. We all remember that. The great humanitarian Nobel prize winner sent the enitre region into turmoil and caused half a million deaths so far.

Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times



U.S. to pull out of Iraq after nearly 9 years of war Reuters

That is a lie and your own link explains why it is a lie:

. Maliki, heading a tenuous coalition including politicians vehemently opposed to foreign troops, eventually advocated a training presence but rejected any legal immunity for U.S. soldiers. Those terms were deemed unacceptable in Washington and in the end there was no deal to be had.

No General advised Obama to keep troops there without legal immunity. You need to stop with that lie.

Are you kidding? Everybody knows how Obama operates...he is like a Mafia leader. If you go against his policies you're fired. How many defense secretaries has he whacked so far?

LOL

Looks like 3 wack attacks so far................On his 4th...............

Exactly why Panetta was whacked, even Hillary Clinton was against the Obama pullout:

Panetta unloads on White House for pulling US forces out of Iraq

Panetta: Obama rejected advice to leave troops in Iraq

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is lashing out at President Obama’s inner circle for failing to secure a 2011 deal to leave U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively accusing the White House of sabotaging the talks – in turn, opening the door for the region to become a haven for the Islamic State.

Panetta, who served as CIA director and then Defense secretary during those negotiations, aired his complaints in his forthcoming memoir, “Worthy Fights.” Excerpts on the Baghdad talks were published by Time.

In them, Panetta explained that Iraqi leaders privately wanted some U.S. forces to stay behind after the formal 2011 withdrawal, though they would not say so publicly. The former secretary, though, said the U.S. had “leverage” to strike a deal, and the Defense and State departments tried to do exactly that.

“But,” he wrote, “the President’s team at the White House pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated. … 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.”

He said the negotiations with then-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki went down to the wire in December 2011, but the White House never stepped up.

“To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them,” Panetta charged. “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.”

The account from Panetta challenges the notion that the Obama administration would have left some troops behind – as U.S. military advisers wanted – if only the Iraqi government had been more willing to negotiate. While Panetta lays some blame at the feet of the Iraqis, he also argues that the White House never seized the chance at a deal.

Panetta claims that a residual troop presence like he and others had advocated could have made the difference.

“To this day, I believe that a small U.S. troop presence in Iraq could have effectively advised the Iraqi military on how to deal with al-Qaeda’s resurgence and the sectarian violence that has engulfed the country,” he wrote.

Panetta also warned that the rise of the Islamic State “greatly increases the risk that Iraq will become al-Qaeda’s next safe haven.”

Gen. John Campbell, commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, was asked Thursday about Panetta’s comments, but said “we absolutely left [the Iraqis] in the best possible condition militarily that we could.”

He put to onus on the Iraqi government.

“Things that were done by the government did not bring all the different factions in Iraq together was not something that … the U.S. military could have done or changed once we left there in 2011,” he said.

Asked again whether leaving a force in Iraq could have helped, he said: “I think any military guy is going to tell you if you could leave a force, you'd always leave a force.”

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., though, seized on Panetta's comments -- as well as similar remarks by former Iraq Ambassador Ryan Crocker that the U.S. "could have gotten that agreement" if officials had been more persistent.

"The latest statements by two of the most respected national security officials to serve under President Obama definitively refute the falsehood that this Administration has told the American people for years about their efforts to leave a residual force in Iraq," the senators said in a statement. "As we have said all along ... the Obama Administration never made a full effort to leave a residual force in Iraq."

 

[Camp]

It has been 84 days without a US KIA in Afghanistan or Iraq.

 

[Roudy]

Robert Gates, former defense secretary, offers harsh critique of Obama’s leadership in ‘Duty’

In a new memoir, former defense secretary Robert Gates unleashes harsh judgments about President Obama’s leadership and his commitment to the Afghanistan war, writing that by early 2010 he had concluded the president “doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”

Leveling one of the more serious charges that a defense secretary could make against a commander in chief sending forces into combat, Gates asserts that Obama had more than doubts about the course he had charted in Afghanistan. The president was “skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail,” Gates writes in “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War.”

 

[Roudy]

Funny, the Mafia boss' own defense secretaries are repeating EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING, but of course the leftist media and Obama ass kissers keep giving Obama a pass:

Gates And Panetta Criticize Obama On Iraq And Syria - Business Insider

Obama's 2 Previous Defense Secretaries Are Criticizing His ISIS Policy
REUTERS/Gary Cameron
Two defense secretaries who previously served under President Obama are now criticizing his decisions in countering the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS).

In a new interview with "CBS Evening News," former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta says ISIS emerged as a threat because the US pulled out of Iraq too soon and became involved in Syria too late.

"I really thought that it was important for us to maintain a presence in Iraq," Panetta, who served as defense secretary and director of central intelligence under Obama, told CBS in a short clip of a full interview to air on "60 Minutes."

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Roud 10908010

Are you kidding? Everybody knows how Obama operates...he is like a Mafia leader. If you go against his policies you're fired. How many defense secretaries has he whacked so far?

So you admit you lied here:

Roud 10905807

Obama went against the advice of his generals and pulled out the troops just to score some campaign points.

No General advised Obama to keep troops there without legal immunity. You need to stop with that lie.

So now you need to back up your additional lie that Obama sacked a general for advice that was never given to him.

 

[Roudy]

Roud 10908010

Are you kidding? Everybody knows how Obama operates...he is like a Mafia leader. If you go against his policies you're fired. How many defense secretaries has he whacked so far?

So you admit you lied here:

Roud 10905807

Obama went against the advice of his generals and pulled out the troops just to score some campaign points.

No General advised Obama to keep troops there without legal immunity. You need to stop with that lie.

So now you need to back up your additional lie that Obama sacked a general for advice that was never given to him.

Read what I posted. His own defense secretaries were against Obama's troop withdrawal.
Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself?

Gates And Panetta Criticize Obama On Iraq And Syria - Business Insider

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Panetta in October 2011 said "“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”"

Funny, the Mafia boss' own defense secretaries are repeating EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING, but of course the leftist media and Obama ass kissers keep giving Obama a pass:

So no it's not exactly what you are saying. You are repeating right wing malicious propaganda

Panetta said exactly the opposite during the 2011 negotiations of what you are saying:

"On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.

Do you know what that makes you?

.
After months of preparations on both sides for a complete pullout by Dec. 31 of more than 40,000 remaining U.S. troops, the Iraqi government said in recent days that several thousand could stay on as military trainers. The condition, however, is that they lose the legal immunity they now enjoy. It is, an Iraqi government spokesman said this week, the primary dispute preventing an agreement.

On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system.

“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.

There are overwhelming practical reasons to demand that, said Anthony Cordesman, an expert on national security and intelligence with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Iraq ranks as one of the most corrupt countries in the world, Cordesman said, a problem that extends to its police and judicial systems. The political and religious conflicts that divide the nation increase the risk for U.S. troops, he said. Some groups might bid for popular support among Iraqis, still smarting from well-documented civilian killings and cases of abuse by troops and contractors, by provoking violence and bringing malicious prosecutions.

Experts Immunity dispute won t end U.S.-Iraq cooperation - News - Stripes

 

[whutTHEYsay]

It has been 84 days without a US KIA in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Conservatives are going insane with hate for Obama over such news. Plus Daesh terrorist scum being driven out of Tikrit by Iraqis with some assistance by Iran.

Republicans want US troops re-inserted into Iraq to fight a two front war. One front against Daesh terrorist scum and aligned Sunnis. The other front against Iranian-friendly Shiites which are essentially the governing sect of Iraq and the majority in Iraq's army and police.

Many Americans would die in the middle of such a damned Bush induced mess. Conservative are sickening.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Read what I posted. His own defense secretaries were against Obama's troop withdrawal.
Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself?

Do you enjoy being proven factually incorrect by my presentation of an actual quote from the person you are citing?

"On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.

That is not advising Obama to keep troops in Iraq. That is advising not to keep troops in Iraq under Iraqi demands.

Perhaps you wanted Obama to submit US troops to Iraq's demands and conditions but Obama, Panetta and I surely were opposed to being so traitorously UN-American and anti-US troops.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” Panetta said in October 2011.

eagl 10908034

Looks like 3 wack attacks so far................On his 4th...............

Name the three generals that were whacked for advising Obama to keep troops in Iraq after 2011 without having immunity from Iraqi courts. And who is the fourth?

Show where and when they advised Obama to accept a SOFA with Iraq that did not give our troops immunity and protection for prosecution in Iraqi courts. Subject to Sharia law.

Talk is cheap - provide some facts for a change.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Any agreement for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq beyond a year-end deadline for their withdrawal would require the Iraqi parliament to agree to grant American soldiers legal immunity, the top U.S. military officer said on Tuesday. That was Mullen.

Roud 10905807

Hah! Obama went against the advice of his generals and pulled out the troops just to score some campaign points. We all remember that. The great humanit

Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times.

That report is citing LT General Lloyd Austin. But the Centcom Commander he served under said this:

. (Reuters) - Any agreement for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq beyond a year-end deadline for their withdrawal would require the Iraqi parliament to agree to grant American soldiers legal immunity, the top U.S. military officer said on Tuesday.

Immunity for American troops staying on in Iraq could complicate the already difficult wrangling for Iraq's fragile, multi-sectarian government, whose leaders are under pressure to decide whether some U.S. soldiers should stay in the country.

U.S. troops in Iraq will need immunity U.S. chief Reuters


No general ever advised Obama to keep troops in Iraq without immunity included in a new or extended SOFA in Iraq.

That includes the Centcom Commander and the Sec of a Defense at the time of the negotiations.

 

[asaratis]

DT 10887038

. where brave US soldiers fought and died to free iraq from a despot.

So according to these two posts, Bush43 sent 4484 Americans to die to set our enemy free of a despot by demonizing that despot using fear mongering about fresh made and hidden WMD stockpiles that were not really there.

DT 10892776

Because the enemy of this enemy is and will remain our enemy.

The bill to make it our goal to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein was signed into law by Slick Willy Clinton back when his intelligence sources said Saddam had WMDs.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

asar 10909019

The bill to make it our goal to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein was signed into law by Slick Willy Clinton back when his intelligence sources said Saddam had WMDs.

That intelligence was the best we had at the time. The goal was to assist Iraqis moving on their own against the Baathist regime. There was no plan for a massive ground invasion by the US in that document. Bush was right to use that intelligence to confront Iraq's non - compliance with international law in order to force UN inspections to be resumed. Then Bush turned that Intel over to the post-1441 inspectors but it was proven to be false. By March 2003 should have called off the invasion for lack of evidence but he foolishly ignored the truth that was public at the time.

 

[Indofred]

Name what? The fact that Iran has taken over four ME nations?

Yes - name them.

 

[Roudy]

Name what? The fact that Iran has taken over four ME nations?

Yes - name them.

Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria

 

[Roudy]

Panetta in October 2011 said "“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”"

Funny, the Mafia boss' own defense secretaries are repeating EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING, but of course the leftist media and Obama ass kissers keep giving Obama a pass:

So no it's not exactly what you are saying. You are repeating right wing malicious propaganda

Panetta said exactly the opposite during the 2011 negotiations of what you are saying:

"On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.

Do you know what that makes you?

.
After months of preparations on both sides for a complete pullout by Dec. 31 of more than 40,000 remaining U.S. troops, the Iraqi government said in recent days that several thousand could stay on as military trainers. The condition, however, is that they lose the legal immunity they now enjoy. It is, an Iraqi government spokesman said this week, the primary dispute preventing an agreement.

On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system.

“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.

There are overwhelming practical reasons to demand that, said Anthony Cordesman, an expert on national security and intelligence with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Iraq ranks as one of the most corrupt countries in the world, Cordesman said, a problem that extends to its police and judicial systems. The political and religious conflicts that divide the nation increase the risk for U.S. troops, he said. Some groups might bid for popular support among Iraqis, still smarting from well-documented civilian killings and cases of abuse by troops and contractors, by provoking violence and bringing malicious prosecutions.

Experts Immunity dispute won t end U.S.-Iraq cooperation - News - Stripes

Yeah, that makes you a delusional fool. Because a few years after being whacked because behind the scenes they didn't agree with Obama's policies, all three of his defense secretaries are singing the same song about Obama, like canaries. Wake up.

 

[Roudy]

It has been 84 days without a US KIA in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Conservatives are going insane with hate for Obama over such news. Plus Daesh terrorist scum being driven out of Tikrit by Iraqis with some assistance by Iran.

Republicans want US troops re-inserted into Iraq to fight a two front war. One front against Daesh terrorist scum and aligned Sunnis. The other front against Iranian-friendly Shiites which are essentially the governing sect of Iraq and the majority in Iraq's army and police.

Many Americans would die in the middle of such a damned Bush induced mess. Conservative are sickening.

I guess it doesn't matter to you that Obama gave up all those territories gained by the blood and toil of US forces, and now Iran our enemy is taking over all those regions, one by one. You can out lipstick on this pig called Obama all you want, he'll still be a pig.