The Right On Leaving Iraq

Mikeyy · #1 (**permalink**) 10-24-2011, 06:17 AM

I have heard so many military folks saying how happy they are we are leaving Iraq.

Some of us think the entire exercise was a waste of lives and treasure. But that aside

I have heard people on the right saying Obama has screwed this up too. (Go figure) They are mad and claim Obama should be leaving troops there. Even after the Iraqis say they don't want us there. Bachman was on TV saying it should be like Germany and Japan. We should stay. When asked how we do that when they won't give or military immunity from prosicution she says it's Obama's fault. We were supposed to stand up an Iraqi government. Not occupy Iraq forever but you would think it was the end of the world that we are leaving.

This is another example of the Right being on every side of an issue as long as it's not on Obama's side

Face The Nation with Bob Schieffer - Bachmann: Obama's foreign policy is a failure - YouTube

Mikeyy · #2 (**permalink**) 10-24-2011, 08:20 AM

Seems the right is getting their talking points together now. Now they are going to say Obama screwed up by leaving Iraq. They have decided he could have negotiated a deal to stay if he had tried harder.

I am glad this is their talking poing because it shows how out of touch this attack Obama all the time game is. Americans are done with Iraq. The right has changed the story on Iraq from day one. From why we went in to when we would leave. It was going to be short and easy and inexpensive. Then we were staying until the Iraqis had a government. Then when they could defend themselves. Now the reason the right wants to stay is because of Iranian influence. We always knew Iran would have influence. That hasn't changed but the Rights position changes all the time. It's done and over. Time to get out of the other war as well.

Idealogically Promiscuous · #3 (**permalink**) 10-24-2011, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

Seems the right is getting their talking points together now. Now they are going to say Obama screwed up by leaving Iraq. They have decided he could have negotiated a deal to stay if he had tried harder.

I am glad this is their talking poing because it shows how out of touch this attack Obama all the time game is. Americans are done with Iraq. The right has changed the story on Iraq from day one. From why we went in to when we would leave. It was going to be short and easy and inexpensive. Then we were staying until the Iraqis had a government. Then when they could defend themselves. Now the reason the right wants to stay is because of Iranian influence. We always knew Iran would have influence. That hasn't changed but the Rights position changes all the time. It's done and over. Time to get out of the other war as well.

Only a moron with an agenda would fail to recognize that foreign policy does not get decided within a vacuum. Foreign policy in the Middle East is a dynamic issue and the present goals are constantly mutable; it is not an end-game endeavor. There is no end-game. What may have been the goal 4 years, a year, or even six months ago may not be the goal today.

RedState · #4 (**permalink**) 10-24-2011, 01:22 PM

Wasn't it President Bush who negotiated the December 31st date for all troop withdrawal from Iraq in the first place?

Mikeyy · #5 (**permalink**) 10-24-2011, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idealogically Promiscuous

Only a moron with an agenda would fail to recognize that foreign policy does not get decided within a vacuum. Foreign policy in the Middle East is a dynamic issue and the present goals are constantly mutable; it is not an end-game endeavor. There is no end-game. What may have been the goal 4 years, a year, or even six months ago may not be the goal today.

That doesn't make it wrong.

cnredd · #6 (**permalink**) 10-24-2011, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

I have heard people on the right saying Obama has screwed this up too.

AND the New York Times...

Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay

Quote:

President Obama’s announcement on Friday that all American troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year was an occasion for celebration for many, but some top American military officials were dismayed by the announcement, seeing it as the president’s putting the best face on a breakdown in tortured negotiations with the Iraqis.

And for the negotiators who labored all year to avoid that outcome, it represented the triumph of politics over the reality of Iraq’s fragile security’s requiring some troops to stay, a fact everyone had assumed would prevail. But officials also held out hope that after the withdrawal, the two countries could restart negotiations more productively, as two sovereign nations.

...This month, American officials pressed the Iraqi leadership to meet again at President Talabani’s compound to discuss the issue. This time the Americans asked them to take a stand on the question of immunity for troops, hoping to remove what had always been the most difficult hurdle. But they misread Iraqi politics and the Iraqi public. Still burdened by the traumas of this and previous wars, and having watched the revolutions sweeping their region, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept anything that infringed on their sovereignty.

Acutely aware of that sentiment, the Iraqi leadership quickly said publicly that they would not support legal protections for any American troops. Some American officials have privately said that pushing for that meeting — in essence forcing the Iraqis to take a public stand on such a controversial matter before working out the politics of presenting it to their constituents and to Parliament — was a severe tactical mistake that ended any possibility of keeping American troops here past December.

But you didn't see that...Too busy hatin'...

Coyote · #7 (**permalink**) 10-24-2011, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

AND the New York Times...

Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay

But you didn't see that...Too busy hatin'...

Is he the only one "hatin'" here? Look at what you choose to emphasize.

The issue or immunity for U.S. troops is deeply unpopular amongst the Iraqi public and politically unfeasible for it's leadership and the agreement in place called for a full withdrawal of troops by the end of December.

Quote:

For months, the U.S. and Iraq had been negotiating to keep some U.S. troops here next year. But the negotiations broke down over the question of immunity. The U.S. said for any troops to remain in Iraq, they'd have to be granted full immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts. Because such immunity was granted by Iraq's parliament before, legal experts believed that's how it needed to be done again.

U.S. ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey said that up until August, the two sides thought they could work out a deal. But then talks failed when it became clear Iraqi politicians didn't want such a sensitive issue to be played out in public.

It's a no win situation because it has to be granted by parliment and US military can not operate without it.

cnredd · #8 (**permalink**) 10-24-2011, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coyote

Is he the only one "hatin'" here? Look at what you choose to emphasize.

This administration FALSELY ASSUMED that immunity was going to be a given...That is even pointed out in the statement you've chosen to show...

Quote:

U.S. ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey said that up until August, the two sides thought they could work out a deal.

Here's an incredibly simple question...

What kind of leadership waits until the 11th hour to ensure something that's so important to the decision of whether troops have the ability to stay or not?...

And it IS important...How do I know?...

This is from TWO FREAKIN' MONTHS ago...

U.S. forces to stay in Iraq into 2012, says Leon Panetta

Quote:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Iraq’s government has agreed to extend the U.S. military presence in the country beyond 2011 — but Iraq quickly rejected the claim.

The word from Panetta, during an interview with Stars & Stripes, was the first official indication that any of the 46,000 American troops will remain in Iraq beyond the country’s Dec. 31 deadline for U.S. forces to leave. The U.S. and Iraq reached a security agreement in 2008 that the entire American military would be out of the country by the end of 2011.

"My view is that they finally did say, ‘Yes,’” Panetta told the military’s official newspaper. He told the paper he urged the Iraqis six weeks ago to “damn it, make a decision” about allowing U.S. troops to remain in the country into 2012.

But shortly after Panetta’s interview hit the Internet, a spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told Agence-France Presse that no deal is in place.

“We have not yet agreed on the issue of keeping training forces,” spokesman Ali Mussawi said. “The negotiations are ongoing, and these negotiations have not been finalized.”

Panetta said the Pentagon has already begun planning for the continued presence in Iraq.

So the Pentagon (and Obama's very own Defense Secretary) was already planning the continuance while the "i"s haven't been dotted and the "t"s crossed...Why?????

...Because we have an administration that ASSUMED instead of having this thing tied up LOOOOOOONG ago...

This "end of 2011" was in place the SECOND Obama was inaugurated...he had THREE YEARS to shore this up...Instead, he waited until the last second and failed...

Go ahead and call that "hate" if that's what your heart needs to survive...But it's still facts...

Coyote · #9 (**permalink**) 10-24-2011, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

This administration FALSELY ASSUMED that immunity was going to be a given...That is even pointed out in the statement you've chosen to show...

Here's an incredibly simple question...

What kind of leadership waits until the 11th hour to ensure something that's so important to the decision of whether troops have the ability to stay or not?...

And it IS important...How do I know?...

This is from TWO FREAKIN' MONTHS ago...

U.S. forces to stay in Iraq into 2012, says Leon Panetta

So the Pentagon (and Obama's very own Defense Secretary) was already planning the continuance while the "i"s haven't been dotted and the "t"s crossed...Why?????

...Because we have an administration that ASSUMED instead of having this thing tied up LOOOOOOONG ago...

This "end of 2011" was in place the SECOND Obama was inaugurated...he had THREE YEARS to shore this up...Instead, he waited until the last second and failed...

Go ahead and call that "hate" if that's what your heart needs to survive...But it's still facts...

In your own quote - it says: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Iraq’s government has agreed to extend the U.S. military presence in the country beyond 2011 — but Iraq quickly rejected the claim.

You emphasize Iraq rejected the claim choosing to believe Iraq over Panetta.

Why?

Mikeyy · #10 (**permalink**) 10-24-2011, 03:59 PM

Hey ya know what? Who gives a ****? It's time we leave. The right would whine about anything and now they will make an issue about this. I don't want troops left there. Nobody but Obama critics want American troops there. Our troops on the grpund would solve nothing I know of. Do you?

This whole thing is a BS thing started by the right. If the right is so worried about it let the congress order troops back in to Iraq.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to Mikeyy For This Useful Post:
crazyflamingos

The Following User Says Thank You to Idealogically Promiscuous For This Useful Post:
mlurp

The Following User Says Thank You to RedState For This Useful Post:
Mikeyy