....lybob Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 THE FACTS: "Actually, The Obama Administration Tried For Many Months To Win Iraqi Agreement To Keeping Several Thousand American Troops There Beyond 2011 To Continue Training And Advising The Iraqi Armed Forces." "Obama was suggesting that he had never favored keeping U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the December 2011 withdrawal deadline that the Bush administration had negotiated with the Iraqi government. Actually, the Obama administration tried for many months to win Iraqi agreement to keeping several thousand American troops there beyond 2011 to continue training and advising the Iraqi armed forces. The talks broke down over a disagreement on legal immunity for U.S. troops." (Calvin Woodward, "FACT CHECK: Missteps In Final Presidential Debate," The Associated Press , 10/22/12) THE FACTS: "The Obama Administration Says That It Was Willing To Keep Some Troops In Iraq, But The Iraqis, Reflecting Their Concerns Over Sovereignty, Failed To Agree To The Necessary Immunities. "After the talks broke down, the Obama administration withdrew the remaining American troops in December 2011, the deadline set for withdrawing all American forces from Iraq under the Status of Forces Agreement that was concluded by George W. Bush and Mr. Mailiki in 2008." (Michael Gordon and Scott Shane, "Fact Check: A Status Of Forces Agreement?" The New York Times, 10/22/12) https://www.gop.com/debate-fact-check-obama-would-have-kept-thousands-of-troops-in-iraq-under-the-status-of-forces-agreement/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 (edited) So the Defense Secretary under Obama along with the president are simply full of ****. Got it! Edited May 22, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 So the Defense Secretary of Defense under Obama along with the president are simply full of ****. Got it! In all fairness to Obama, when have you ever seen him able to negotiate anything successfully? When have you seen him even manage something successfully? I recognize I'm just a partisan right-wing nutjob, but there is no disputing this truth: he indisputably bungles whatever he touches. Recovery Act (stimulus) - bungled, including and especially Solyndra Closing of Gitmo - bungled ACA - bungled End of war in Iraq - bungled Removal of Gaddafi from Libya - bungled Olympics in Chicago - bungled Benghazi reaction - bungled Syrian red line - bungled Joe Biden as VP - as Joe would say, a little three-letter word...bungled But don't worry. I'm sure everything will get better with Hillary as president, provided you have enough money for her to launder through her "foundation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 But don't worry. I'm sure everything will get better with Hillary as president, provided you have enough money for her to launder through her "foundation." That foundation is fairly efficient. If only 15% of what's raised is dispersed to charitable causes, then 85% is left to fund salaries for key allies and for expenses related to Clinton priorities. Not many businesses or government agencies can boast results that serve their leadership that well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 In all fairness to Obama, when have you ever seen him able to negotiate anything successfully? When have you seen him even manage something successfully? I recognize I'm just a partisan right-wing nutjob, but there is no disputing this truth: he indisputably bungles whatever he touches. Recovery Act (stimulus) - bungled, including and especially Solyndra Closing of Gitmo - bungled ACA - bungled End of war in Iraq - bungled Removal of Gaddafi from Libya - bungled Olympics in Chicago - bungled Benghazi reaction - bungled Syrian red line - bungled Joe Biden as VP - as Joe would say, a little three-letter word...bungled But don't worry. I'm sure everything will get better with Hillary as president, provided you have enough money for her to launder through her "foundation." I had some heated arguments with FB friends when the ACA was getting passed* and they couldn't understand my reasoning why it was inherently flawed. I finally had to say something along the lines of "let's put aside our differences and pretend that the law is doable. I will still object to it on the grounds that this administration is so incompetent that they can't make it work and when it is rolled out, it will be a nightmare". Has there ever been a president/administration this incompetent? I know in my lifetime there hasn't, and since I'm old enough to remember Jimmy Carter well, I can say that's a really, really low threshold for Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Bob Woodward: Bush did not lie about WMD in Iraq. Today, on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked Bob Woodward about the questions the GOP candidates have been getting about Iraq: Was the 2003 invasion a mistake? Woodward answered: [Y]ou certainly can make a persuasive argument it was a mistake. But there is a time that line going along that Bush and the other people lied about this. I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq. And lots of mistakes, but it was Bush telling George Tenet, the CIA director, don't let anyone stretch the case on WMD. And he was the one who was skeptical. And if you try to summarize why we went into Iraq, it was momentum. The war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end, people were saying, hey, look, it will only take a week or two. And early on it looked like it was going to take a year or 18 months. And so Bush pulled the trigger. A mistake certainly can be argued, and there is an abundance of evidence. But there was no lying in this that I could find. Woodward was also asked if it was a mistake to withdraw in 2011. Wallace points out that Obama has said that he tried to negotiate a status of forces agreement but did not succeed, but "A lot of people think he really didn't want to keep any troops there." Woodward agrees that Obama didn't want to keep troops there and elaborates: Look, Obama does not like war. But as you look back on this, the argument from the military was, let's keep 10,000, 15,000 troops there as an insurance policy. And we all know insurance policies make sense. We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still 65 years or so after the war When you are a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies. And he didn't in this case. I don't think you can say everything is because of that decision, but clearly a factor. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 OK so many around Bush lied and he was a fool to believe it. Like that exonerates anyone ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 OK so many around Bush lied and he was a fool to believe it. Like that exonerates anyone ? Problem with comprehension ? Woodward did not say the people around him lied. Any insight on Woodward's statement regarding Obama abandoning Iraq ? "A lot of people think he really didn't want to keep any troops there. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Problem with comprehension ? Woodward did not say the people around him lied. Any insight on Woodward's statement regarding Obama abandoning Iraq ? "A lot of people think he really didn't want to keep any troops there. . yes you do, read the title of your crap article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Problem with comprehension ? Woodward did not say the people around him lied. Any insight on Woodward's statement regarding Obama abandoning Iraq ? "A lot of people think he really didn't want to keep any troops there. . I never quite got how "Bush lied" to a dozen different intelligence organizations (excluding the Brits) who were giving him the information he's accused of fabricating. What, he lied to the agencies, who fed the lies back to him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 I never quite got how "Bush lied" to a dozen different intelligence organizations (excluding the Brits) who were giving him the information he's accused of fabricating. What, he lied to the agencies, who fed the lies back to him? I think you've unearthed JTSP's new conspiracy theory. Get underground, quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 (edited) I never quite got how "Bush lied" to a dozen different intelligence organizations (excluding the Brits) who were giving him the information he's accused of fabricating. What, he lied to the agencies, who fed the lies back to him? How about the ones who weren't, including Hans Blix from the UN, the only one actually carrying out inspections: Speaking on the anniversary of the United States' invasion of Iraq, originally declared as a pre-emptive strike against a madman ready to deploy weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the man first charged with finding those weapons said that the U.S. government has "the same mind frame as the witch hunters of the past" looking for evidence to support a foregone conclusion. "There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003 http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml Edited May 25, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 OK so many around Bush lied and he was a fool to believe it. Like that exonerates anyone ? Isn't bad Intel the same excuse Obama used when the whole ISIL thing blew up? And the same general excuse (I read it in the paper) that he used in the Lois Lerner, VA, and NSA issues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 (edited) yes you do, read the title of your crap article It was an interview with Bob Woodward, ya big dildo. Edited May 26, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 In fairness to JTSP, "Bush lied, people died" has a better ring to it than "Bush was skeptical but ultimately went with the advice of aides based info provided by multiple intelligence agencies, people died." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 In fairness to JTSP, "Bush lied, people died" has a better ring to it than "Bush was skeptical but ultimately went with the advice of aides based info provided by multiple intelligence agencies, people died."Ok how about "Bush made an immensely costly gaffe, then had a big laugh" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 In fairness to JTSP, "Bush lied, people died" has a better ring to it than "Bush was skeptical but ultimately went with the advice of aides based info provided by multiple intelligence agencies, people died." I think I remember "shaped the intelligence and facts around the policy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 I think I remember "shaped the intelligence and facts around the policy" Who was the source of that quote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Who was the source of that quote? http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB328/II-Doc14.pdf C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justifi ed by the conjunction of ter- rorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. BTW remember Curveball? http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-na-curveball20nov20-story.html#page=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB328/II-Doc14.pdf BTW remember Curveball? http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-na-curveball20nov20-story.html#page=1 Neither of which means "Bush lied!" That means "Policy drove interpretation of intelligence that was largely single-sourced," to which some of us respond "No ****, buckwheat. We were saying that at the time." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts