22 Oct

Politicizing Iraq…. again: GOP gets sucker punched by Obama/left media stolen thunder

                                       

It can’t be surprising that the US OIF endeavor in Iraq will, once again, be taking center-stage for political spin. What will also be unsurprising is that again the wool will be pulled over the eyes of a nation who apparently suffers from short term memory dysfunction, and gets a failing grade in current events. And the last non-surprise is that the political bear trap of spin, carefully being laid by the left, clamps tight on the appendages of the GOP, happy to saunter right on in, blind to it’s presence.

Case in point? As per the originAL SOFA agreement, negotiated between the Bush admin and Iraq at the end of 2008, and signed by Ryan Crocker US armed forces are to be totally withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the three year contract on Jan 1st, 2012.

There were mitigating circumstances that could change the agreement, were both parties to mutually agree. For example, the timeline could have been accelerated had either party given one year’s notice to the other. This did not happen. It also left open the ability to renegotiate at the end of the period for a new agreement and terms, should either party do so. However there was no obligation to renegotiate, nor to agree to any terms in advance.

So what we have is a Bush withdrawal of troops, as negotiated. And a kudos to Obama for not choosing to renege on that good faith contract – despite his 2007 attempt as a soon-to-be-campaigning-for-POTUS Senator Obama – to push legislation for a March 2008 withdrawal. This is a perfect success story of Iraq independence and troop withdrawal for the GOP to embrace on the campaign trail.

But since the GOP seems to play the part of unwitting dupes well, and current events is not the forte of either media, or a vigilant citizenry, the wheels are in obvious motion for Obama to steal the thunder. Just as was done by a fawning media in 2009, not calling out deception when Obama was portraying the SOFA’s timeline as his own shortly after his inauguration, the media myth is perpetuated today by MSNBC’s Michael O’Brien, declaring adherence to the deadline is “in keeping with the timeline Obama first established in early 2009, when he first laid out a timetable for withdrawal.”

It’s a good line, as long as you can find enough history challenged citizens to buy into it. And just to make sure this Bush/Iraq SOFA, signed over a month before the Obama’s moved their duds into the White House, is continued to be attributed to the wrong POTUS, we have a year of presidential campaign political wrangling and spinning to repeat the lie in order to revise history.

But such bland stuff of honoring a three year old contract doesn’t have the punch without some accompanying drama, and the predictable attempts to make the opposition look like war mongers. Enter the quiet attempts between Iraq and the Obama admin reps on leaving about 5000 troops for training post the Bush SOFA deadline. The sticking point? They want to change the rules about immunity for our troops while there, allowing them to be prosecuted in Iraqi courts for any offenses.

The original SOFA clearly laid out jurisdictional powers in Article 12.

1. Iraq shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the United States Forces and of the civilian component for the grave premeditated felonies enumerated pursuant to paragraph 8, when such crimes are committed outside agreed facilities and areas and outside duty status.

2. Iraq shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over United States contractors and United States contractor employees.

3. The United States shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the United States Forces and of the civilian component for matters arising inside agreed facilities and areas; during duty status outside agreed facilities and areas; and in circumstances not covered by paragraph 1.

4. At the request of either Party, the Parties shall assist each other in the investigation of incidents and the collection and exchange of evidence to ensure the due course of justice.

As part of their request for an add’l 5000 troops for training – down from last year’s considerations for 8000 to 20,000 – Iraqi officials and Parliament wanted to remove the US jurisdiction… and to the Obama admin officials credit, they said absolutely not. I couldn’t agree more.

Max Boot, in his Oct 21st op-ed for Commentary Magazine, opined this refusal to comply with the additional troops, and not negotiate some compromise for immunity by forcing an Iraqi Parliamentary vote for protections, is “…far from being cause for celebration.” Boot, while noting there is still time for US attorneys to enter the picture, believes that 10,000 – not the 5000 that the Iraqis requested – are necessary to maintain the stability that the US has helped to achieve.

However the opinions of Iraqi lawmakers are mixed on both extending the US troops welcome and the questions of their immunity. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has point blank told US officials that the votes to keep troop protections post SOFA are simply not there. The other aside is that both al-Maliki and Obama are astutely aware than no agreement benefits them both politically with constituents.

Naturally Huffpo writers, LARA JAKES and REBECCA SANTANA, seize the opportunity to hype the already laid out process with a screaming headline that the US is “abandoning plans to keep troops in Iraq”. Wouldn’t it be prudent for someone to advise them that, according to the original agreement, there were no plans for troops beyond Jan 1st, 2012?

Of course, one might ask one’s self just why a left leaning rag like Huffpo would want to imply that their hero, Obama, was “abandoning” Iraq. After all, aren’t they, as a community, well documented as being anti-Iraq from the get go?

That’s exactly the point. The direct answer to why Huffpo is screaming “abandonment” is the politics of a political campaign. Is there any credit and admiration due to Obama – who has been vocally against US troops in Iraq since prior to his US Congressional arrival – for honoring terms in the Bush/Iraq agreement, decided prior to the “da one’s” rise to power?

Of course not….

Then again, if the left spin media can portray this as an agonizing decision, emphasizing a great deal of risk to the cost of blood and money the US has shed in helping Iraq become an Arab democracy, they can effectively pull their anti-war left back on the Obama bandwagon by casting him as a leader who “kept promises” to withdraw, despite overwhelming odds.

Of course, for that argument to fly, you’re going to have to convince a war weary public that either 5000 or 10,000 troops for training purposes are going to significantly alter Iraq’s own course of progress and stability. That’s a long stretch for anyone’s imagination. But the Iraq withdrawal event has no positive impact for a flailing Obama presidency without some adversity to overcome, resulting in the favor of his far left base. So the drama and hype must be spin for any kind of tangible political benefit.

MSNBC’s Michael O’Brien (linked above in paragraph five) fully admits this is the case when he says:

And for as much friendly fire that the president has taken from the left for unfinished campaign trail promises, Obama’s move to withdraw troops marks a moment of deep satisfaction for his base, whom he’s courting again heading into next fall’s election.

It also helps burnish Obama’s foreign policy credentials on top of a string of accomplishments this year. Khaddafy’s death Thursday in Libya provided some measure of validation of the president’s measured strategy toward the rebellion there. U.S. predator drones also managed to assassinate a major al-Qaeda figure, Anwar al-Awlaki, last month. And Obama’s scored perhaps no greater achievement than the successful killing of Osama bin Laden earlier this year in Pakistan — something to which Obama made reference Friday.

Of course, we have the added problem of GOP candidates falling for this trick, hook line and sinker. It’s no coincidence that Michael O’Brien tag teams his hype by reporting that Romney is up in arms about the decision to honor the original SOFA… and that unnamed scores of GOP agree.

Romney sharply criticized the announcement this afternoon by Obama that all troops would leave Iraq by the end of 2011, fulfilling one of Obama’s main promises from the 2008 campaign, that he would end the war in Iraq.

“President Obama’s astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women,” Romney said in a statement. “The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government.”

Romney’s sentiment is in tune with what Republicans have said Friday afternoon; most GOP voices have expressed concern that the withdrawal would imperil progress made after almost nine years’ worth of war in Iraq.

“I feel all we have worked for, fought for, and sacrificed for is very much in jeopardy by today’s announcement. I hope I am wrong and the President is right, but I fear this decision has set in motion events that will come back to haunt our country,” said South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the most vocal proponents of the war, in a statement.

MSNBC isn’t the only one to seize the moment of opportunity. The LA Times official (meaning “unnamed”) op-ed takes the ball and runs with their title, “On Iraq, Obama’s GOP critics take the political low road.”

Are you getting a grip on the game plan yet? Have you kept in mind this is all about *five thousand troops there for training purposes only?* Sucker punch, indeed.

Yes… one can hear the leftist MSNBC’s drums of war soundtrack – probably an old Paul Simon archived track – snickering as they gleefully set up the GOP fools for playing the war mongers over the next year….

… did I mention this was all over 5000, not combat, but training personnel???

Unfortunately, Herman Cain’s handlers didn’t prepare the candidate for the trap either. Cain stepped into the bear trap not only willingly, but made sure it clamped tight around his ankles when he not only donned the war monger mask, but blamed the SOFA agreement on Obama.

….sigh… It appears that consultants for the GOP field better start getting educated to the way the game is played, and stop helping the opposition by being the moth drawn to the light in the bug zapper.

So it will be another year of Iraq as a campaign issue… only this time attempting to make a non story, *the* story of Obama heroism, while still hijacking the credit and truth of withdrawal timetable schedule from Bush and the Iraqis. And, of course, the GOPers are already jumping on the band wagon to claim the war monger title that, if they thought for a minute, is far more attributable to this Commander in Chief. Talk about letting a great moment go to waste…. it’s a time to be shouting that the Bush withdrawal should be adhered to, and not allow that wind to go into Obama’s sails.

In the end, enough is enough. The troop numbers requested, and their tasks, will not make a dent in the Iraqis continued progress. And if they are so necessary, they can acquiesce to US terms for their presence. If not, it’s time to go home and see how the Iraqis do on their own.

~~~

Mini-update here with another lost opportunity, slipping thru the GOP’s fingers on Iraq. It was never the Bush admin’s intention to have permanent bases in Iraq, as even the liberal Salon pointed out in 2006. Within that article are quotes from Def Sec’y Rumsfeld, CentCom commander Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmett, and Karen Hughes, reiterating we wanted to get the job done, and leave.

But all that has changed, and it is now the Obama administration, playing war monger-in-chief. Why? The less than stellar harbingers of those so called “freedom fighters” in the Arab Spring uprisings, and the unstability in their aftermath, providing inroads to radical anti-American jihad groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.

The question now is why the US is insistent upon keeping up the presence despite the costs.

For sure, the recent developments in the Arab world, the fall of the Tunisian and Egyptian dictators and the prospect of change in the configuration of the Persian Gulf Arab regimes would affect the US decision to remain in Iraq.

The changes, which have so far taken place, are definitely not in the interests of the US and the Israeli regime. Washington is, therefore, seriously concerned about the upheavals.

The crisis in the tiny island of Bahrain has compelled the US to seek a new location for its Fifth Fleet.

From the perspective of the US, Iraq, having passed the stage of the Arab uprisings, will enjoy greater stability in the future compared to other small Persian Gulf states.

Again… sucker punched. Letting Obama seize the Bush/Iraq success as his own, twisting the negotiations to make him look like the leftist hero to appease his base, and dodging the reality that it is Obama – not Bush – who wants to permanently occupy Iraq.

About MataHarley

Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Military, MSM Bias, Politics, The Iraqi War. Bookmark the permalink. Saturday, October 22nd, 2011 at 1:16 pm
| 742 views

39 Responses to Politicizing Iraq…. again: GOP gets sucker punched by Obama/left media stolen thunder

  1. Wordsmith says: 1

    ….sigh… It appears that consultants for the GOP field better start getting educated to the way the game is played, and stop helping the opposition by being the moth drawn to the light in the bug zapper.

    Someone should forward Mata’s post to the Cain camp. ;)

    And you’d think the Romney team would be a bit more astute about this.

    ReplyReply
  2. Ivan says: 2

    The GOP couldn’t find it’s ass with both hands tied behind it’s back. Honestly, we need a real opposition party in DC, not these losers.

    Good article, Mata.

    ReplyReply
  3. lucy says: 3

    A year from now in Iraq, Sahara winds will have erased all traces of our soldiers’ bootprints. The country will be embroiled in conflict. And Israel will be forced to stand alone, shadowed by the protection of a sovereign Lord.

    ReplyReply
  4. Common Sense says: 4

    @Ivan: Ivan, your an amazing Kool Aid drinking idiot. The Republican Party is alive and well and as they did in the last election, which was an historic defeat of Demoncrats, they will move your community organizer out as well. Get a grip on reality dude!!

    ReplyReply
  5. Steve says: 5

    The one job President ZERO said he could do in Iraq was to negotiate…

    Phfffttt…!!! :roll:

    …Just one more FAIL in a long list of FAILURES from the Teleprompter-in-Chief :oops:

    ReplyReply
  6. oil guy from Alberta says: 6

    Sorry to say, we cut and run in Afghanistan. It was negotiated in 2007. Best infantry ever invented and the world knows it. We have the top ten shots except for a marine gunny at number six. Unfortunately, my regiment took most of the Canadian losses at more than 100. We are the mighty PPCLI. Google them.

    ReplyReply
  7. oil guy from Alberta says: 7

    What really pisses me off is that Edmonton has taken over the PPCLI that was established in Calgary. Remember people, PPCLI was your base for Special forces. Learn your history!

    ReplyReply
  8. John Cooper says: 8

    Mata: 10.0!

    ReplyReply
  9. MataHarley says: 9

    @lucy, at some point you have to take the training wheels off the bike, and let the kid take a ride down the block.

    The picture you paint of a destroyed Iraq, post the exit of the last 44,000 some odd troops, simply doesn’t fit the realm what has been happening since summer of 2010. The task of our troops has been to advise and assist in Iraq, not combat. In fact, in the past month or so, Iraq has again taken over control of patrolling their own airspace.

    Leaving 5000 requested trainers behind is not going to do anything to alter Iraq’s ability to stand on their own post SOFA withdrawal. And the 40-50K US soldiers that have been there in the past year have not been those responsible for the still decreasing violence, that has been on a steady downturn since the 2006 surge.

    There is one area of Iraq that remains a problem today, and is likely to continue to be the hot spot for Iraq after the US troops leave. And that’s al- Sadr’s southern domain). But it’s not up to the US to fight Iraq’s war. And Iraq must find their own relationship with their neighbor, Iran.

    Here’s the point… the GOP has gold in the palm of their hand, and yet they want to publicly wring their hands about following Bush’s withdrawal timeline. It is as much a GOP success story as you can get… an Arab democracy that is still feeling it’s way, still standing, and ready to take charge of their own fate. They have demonstrated improvement since the past year – and actions of which have been their own security forces doing the deed.

    They have requested 5000 remain for training… not combat protection. And they don’t want to give those US trainers any immunity. I wouldn’t agree to that even were Zawahiri, himself, active in the area. If they want the trainers, they take them on our terms.

    But 5000 trainers will have no effect on Iraq’s ability to remain what they have constructed since 2005. The GOP should be proudly touting about the Bush withdrawal schedule being right on the money, and showcasing a new Iraq that is ready and willing to tackle their own security and future as an Arab democracy…. all with no thanks to the Dems, and a nod of thanks to Obama for not screwing it up by pulling troops as fast as he’d promised in the campaign, and instead following Bush’s plan.

    Instead, the GOP is going to let Obama take credit for Bush’s military work, pretend this 5000 troops are a big deal that may make or break Iraq… but he’ll gladly “abandon” a needy and flailing Iraq to show his anti-war base he’s really anti-war after all.

    What a joke….

    It’s a political show… it’s a lie…. and too many conservatives don’t see the stolen thunder happening right under their noses.

    Iraq is ready to ride without the training wheels. And the GOP and conservatives should remove them with glad heart and immense pride, wish them luck, and let them know we are an ally if something drastic happens in the future.

    ReplyReply
  10. Wordsmith says: 10

    Someone else (who you link to in another commentary of his) who points out failed negotiations on the part of the Obama Administration:

    Both sides let politics drive the process, rather than security concerns

    ReplyReply
  11. John Cooper says: 11

    Mata– I’ll ask you the same question I asked on another forum: “Does Iraq get to keep all our military hardware?” Is the U.S. going to leave all the helicopters, Humvees, Strykers, weapons, ammunition, communication equipment, etc. etc?

    ReplyReply
  12. MataHarley says: 12

    Yes, Mr. Wordsmith… I had read not only that FP article, but the August 2011 Foreign Policy article, quoting the Iraq ambassador as saying they’ll agree to troops and terms “…in our own sweet time.”

    To drive home my point that the admin wants to make this look like an agonizing decision, where he ultimately falls on the side of the anti-war leftist base, one need only look at these two paragraphs in that article you linked.

    “The actions don’t match the words here,” said Sullivan. “It’s in the administration’s interest to make this look not like they failed to reach an agreement and that they fulfilled a campaign promise. But it was very clear that Panetta and [former Defense Secretary Robert] Gates wanted an agreement.”

    …snip..

    Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA), in his own Friday statement, backed up the administration’s argument that the lack of a troop extension was in the best interest of the United States and Iraq.

    “The United States is fulfilling our agreement with an Iraqi government that wants to shape its own future,” he said. “The President is also following through on his commitment to end both the conflict in Iraq and our military presence… These moves appropriately reflect the changes on the ground. American troops in Iraq will be coming home, having served with honor and enormous skill.”

    And, of course, the update at the bottom so that Obama could prove to his anti-war leftist base that it wasn’t him pushing for more extended troops, but his heinous war mongering military advisors…

    UPDATE: This article was amended after a White House official called in to say that it was not the “White House” that was pushing for an extension of U.S. troops.

    “The White House has always seen the president’s pledge to get all troops out of Iraq as a core commitment, period,” the White House official said.

    You see the same ol game plan here? Make it look like a struggle of a decision, and highly controversial… and continue to claim the withdrawal schedule was Obama’s, and not Bush’s. This is designed to have the GOP and conservatives fight back, insisting Iraq will fall apart if we don’t leave 5000.. and thereby assuming the “war monger” mantle for the election year. Not to mention, no one wants to publicly correct Obama by pointing out this is exactly the schedule, as put into writing by the Bush admin and Iraq, before Obama came to town.

    Dupes… they are playing the dupes. And they are doing it well.

    ReplyReply
  13. MataHarley says: 13

    Certainly that’s a decision by the military, JC. There’s lots of ways to look at that. First, I’ve read that many of the vehicles have had their toll taken by the heat, dust, etc. Are they worth the cost of transporting back to the states? And since Obama’s beating feet out of Afghanistan, not much sense in sending them there, where I understand they are beaten up even more because of the lack of infrastructure that Iraq, at least, possesses.

    Considering we are looking at Iraq as an ally, and certainly *not* including any proprietary type of advanced weaponry or technology, maybe we ought to consider a military vehicle garage sale to Iraq, eh? Be better to be paid for used vehicles that may ultimately have to be junked, after paying big bucks to transport them back to the states.

    ReplyReply
  14. another vet says: 14

    @MataHarley: Good analysis. The two major objectives of OIF were regime change and the installation of a democratic form of government, at least one that is is as democratic as one could hope for in that part of the world. Both have been accomplished so OIF was an American military victory. It was accomplished without much support from the Democrats. As a matter of fact, most of them did everything in their power to undermine the mission there. The biggest supporter was Joe Lieberman and they ran him out their party because of it. They deserve zero credit but no doubt the MSM will give Obama and company all of the credit. When I left out of there after my first tour in early 2004, we were the ones taking the lead in the projects rebuilding the country. When I went back for my second tour in 2008, we were moinitoring the Iraqis as they were the ones taking the lead in rebuilding their country. Hopefully they have continued and will continue to progress. The country has enormous potential.

    As for the John Kerry statement you referenced in #12, given his previous charges against those of us who served over there, i.e. terrorizing women and children in the middle of the night, telling kids to get a college education or they’ll end up in Iraq, that horse’s ass can stick his compliments where the sun don’t shine.

    ReplyReply
  15. John Cooper says: 15

    Mata– I like your idea of a garage sale, but somehow I don’t see that happening. Regarding shipping things back, I don’t think it would be that expensive – just load up a few cargo ships. Even beat up Humvees would sell for a lot here in the States. Once again, I don’t see that happening either. It will be like Iran where we sold them F-14s in 1976 and then they were eventually used against us.

    ReplyReply
  16. MataHarley says: 16

    @John Cooper, it’s sort of backwards on the F-14s analogy. At that time, the Carter admin… confused about their Iranian policy (like they had one… LOL) did consider Iran a friend. However, like this POTUS, after booting out a “friend”, also with questionable human rights records like Mubarack and Gaddafi, we got Khomeni at the other end, and the Iranians went from bad to worse.

    So it’s no surprise that the F-14s were used against the US after that revolution.

    I don’t see that happening in Iraq. They’ve already done the despot/revolution bit, and I can’t see them getting turned on by a modern day Saddam, wanting to overthrow what they have copiously worked to set up. And I suspect they’d ask for int’l help if that was happening, orchestrated by outside their own nation (i.e. Iran).

    Besides, the equivalent of vehicles, sans any proprietary technology, are pretty much available from Russians and the Chinese these days. I’d love the vehicles to be stripped of what should not be theirs in technology, and sold out for a great price to save us from $s in transporting those already at the end of their effective life.

    But I had to smile about the unPC Humvees, selling for a dime here in the states, under Obama’s green/electric car regime. But do the math… is the cost of bringing them back less than what they’d get on the used car market? I don’t know, but it wouldn’t seem like the numbers would add up.

    @another vet, you’ll find no disagreement with me on John “baby killer” Kerry (spit…). My son, born at Great Lakes Naval Hospital, was about 4 months old when he was testifying at Congressional hearings, being the turncoat scum that he is. Can’t even see his face in my mind, or hear his name, without spitting… LOL

    But I’m glad to hear of your first hand accounts. I’m actually hoping that Iraq not only stays the course, but shows the rest of the world who had no faith in them that they are doubting Thomases. My gut says they will. The generations today can see today’s government structure, and still remember to compare it to revolutionary leaders and despots. I think they will fight tooth and nail to hang on to what they have. I also think that, depending upon the scenario specifics, they would be a stronger US ally than Pakistan etal.

    ReplyReply
  17. Wordsmith says: 17

    @MataHarley #12:

    Yes, Mr. Wordsmith… I had read not only that FP article, but the August 2011 Foreign Policy article, quoting the Iraq ambassador as saying they’ll agree to troops and terms “…in our own sweet time.”

    Yah, I updated my comment shortly after posting to note your inclusion of the other Josh Rogin link. Good post. MSM and the GOP need more astute observers such as yourself pointing these things out.

    My liberal friends are all fully convinced this is an Obama win and a feather in his cap.

    ReplyReply
  18. MataHarley says: 18

    Wordsmith: My liberal friends are all fully convinced this is an Obama win and a feather in his cap.

    Precisely the point. Until the truth and the obvious is pointed out

    ….at every turn,

    …every day,

    …every moment,

    … by every educated conservative

    and most especially the idiot candidates themselves… yes, you can now add Michele Bachmann to the war monger group…

    the lib/progs, the left media and Obama are going to pull off the stolen thunder with not even a whimper from the wimps.

    If conservatives, the candidates and even the more conservative media allow this to happen, you can count me disgusted with all of them for pretty much the last time. When you have the wind in your sails, and you’re too pathetic to recognize it (let alone keep it), you’re too stupid to lead.

    ReplyReply
  19. another vet says: 19

    @MataHarley: I can imagine about how you feel about the legend in his own mind, John Kerry, considering your husband would have been one of those whose service he demeaned.

    If Iraq stays the course, they will be a very valuable ally in that region. They are strategically located between two of the big problem children, Iran and Syria, something the left can’t seem to comprehend despite their vast intellectual superiority to the rest of us imbecales.

    ReplyReply
  20. Wordsmith says: 20

    @MataHarley:

    If conservatives, the candidates and even the more conservative media allow this to happen, you can count me disgusted with all of them for pretty much the last time.

    I’ve long been frustrated and disappointed by how superficial GOP politicians have been in their knowledge base on the al-Qaeda network/global-international jihad and in defending the decision to invade Iraq and “stay the course”.

    ReplyReply
  21. MataHarley says: 21

    One of the points I’ve always made about deposing Saddam being a brilliant tactical move, on top of necessary for his backdoor dealings with jihad groups. Get serious… how do people think he managed to pull off the UN rip off with the OFF, save thru the nefarious types he had stashed in training camps at the borders. But to add to your description of physical location, I will also add that Iraq is the garden spot of the ME, rich not only with oil but the two fresh water rivers in the middle of a vast desert. To desert dwellers, water is far more valuable than oil.

    You said that name again… must “spit” again… LOL Dang geek loser. He’s lucky he lives across the nation from me, or he’d find his career politician life extremely miserable every day were I a constituent.

    ReplyReply
  22. another vet,
    hi,
    glad you are safe after those 2 tours, in a time of critical concern FOR THE TROOPS
    regarding the IRAKI WAR, as the AFGHANISTAN WAR

    ReplyReply
  23. Tom says: 23

    @Hi Mata,

    This is really creative. So your hypothesis is that Bush deserves the credit for exiting Iraq, not Obama, and the GOP are foolishly failing to claim said credit, and instead, for obvious politically expedient reasons, turning on the idea of leaving Iraq, because they are accepting the whole ‘it’s Obama’s doing’ feather in the cap thing. Well, if your point is that the GOP candidates are, collectively, a national embarrassment, yes, as they’ve well established, that’s a good point and well made.

    but the problem with your theory is that, in any practical sense, it is Obama’s doing. You yourself point out that the SOFP “left open the ability to renegotiate at the end of the period for a new agreement and terms, should either party do so.” So who, I wonder, has more power over whether the US forces in Iraq exit Iraq in 2012, the current sitting US President or George Bush? Obviously, in a war zone with US interests and troops in the balance (not to mention it being 3 years later), it’s foolish to think that what GWB wrought in 2008 would carry more weight than what the current administration would deem correct to do in 2011/12. It’s quite touching though, to think you’re such a big fan of ‘W” to think so. I bet he also fortold the Rangers in the 2011 series. heh heh heh.

    I would be curious to see graphed what you and your FA crew think the sitting US President does and doesn’t deserve credit for. Apparently, killing terrorists, even OBL, and the duties of the CIC actually reflect upon the previous President’s watch. But to balance the scales, the curent President gets full credit for any once-in-a-100-year economic meltdown that might happen a year before he takes office. That’s the type of trade off that might inspire a Dr John post a day.

    ReplyReply
  24. Tom
    hi, where where you all this time,
    concerning the exit date, was settle by the president BUSH, BUT THEY HAD THE LIBERTY TO NEGOCIATE FURTHER EXTENSION OR EARLYER EXIT TIME, AS LONG AS THEY DECIDE ONE YEAR IN ADVANCE,
    so, there was negotiation to those decision making and to keep the immunity for the troups who are there to train the IRAKIS, and the IRAKI PRESIDENT, wanted the AMERICANS TO BE UNDER THE IRAK LAW ONLY,THEY DID NOT WANT THEM TO KEEP THE PROTECTION OF THE US, AS IT WAS DONE
    when all the troops where there with IRAK IMMUNITY AND USA PROTECTION,
    SO THE DEAL WAS CHANGE FOR 5000 TROOPS LEFT THERE AS TRAINER, AND THE WAY IT WOULD HAVE WORK WOULD HAVE BEEN DANGEROUS FOR THE 5000 LEFT THERE WITH ONLY THE IMMUNITY,
    BUT NO PROTECTION FROM US WHICH THE IRAKI PRESIDENT WANTED TO BE REMOVE,
    SO OBAMA DECLARE ALL THE TROOPS OUT, WHICH WHERE ONLY 5000 AND ONLY THERE TO TRAIN,
    BUT MATA FOUND A SKEEM IN IT THAT THE LEFT HAD A FIX TO MAKE A GAIN FOR CLAIMING THE GOLD ALL TO HIM, MATA KNOWS DON’T BE WORRY, and cut the arrogance
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  25. Tom says: 25

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    Thanks, Bees. I’m glad you agree with me.

    ReplyReply
  26. MataHarley says: 26

    Tom: but the problem with your theory is that, in any practical sense, it is Obama’s doing. You yourself point out that the SOFP “left open the ability to renegotiate at the end of the period for a new agreement and terms, should either party do so.”

    …snip…

    So who, I wonder, has more power over whether the US forces in Iraq exit Iraq in 2012, the current sitting US President or George Bush?

    I was wondering when some squishy lib-think fool would wander in with the “soft deadline” type argument I’ve seen peppering sites like Huffpo…. and voila, here’s Tom. Perhaps our own lib/prog community members have more knowledge of basic contract common law, that defines a specific term with start and end dates. And the SOFA agreement, apparently written by a brighter group of constructs than the lib/mush we see like Tom, built in exactly that specified term in Article 30.

    Article 30
    The Period for which the Agreement is Effective

    1. This Agreement shall be effective for a period of three years, unless terminated sooner by either Party pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article.

    2. This Agreement shall be amended only with the official agreement of the Parties in writing and in accordance with the constitutional procedures in effect in both countries.

    3. This Agreement shall terminate one year after a Party provides written notification to the other Party to that effect.

    4. This Agreement shall enter into force on January 1, 2009, following an exchange of diplomatic notes confirming that the actions by the Parties necessary to bring the Agreement into force in accordance with each Party’s respective constitutional procedures have been completed.

    Signed in duplicate in Baghdad on this 17`h day of November, 2008, in the English and Arabic languages, each text being equally authentic.

    As you will notice, the SOFA could have been amended with any mutually agreed upon item, but negotiating a new agreement is not an amendment. Nor does the SOFA have a provision for an extension of the SOFA, which is the only way it could be considered a soft deadline.

    My comment that the parties were free to renegotiate at the end of the Bush/Iraq SOFA was *not* language written into the SOFA. Had you bothered to read instead of taking the interpretation of that observation as some sort of “ah haaaa” type of moment, you’d know that. Rather, that statement referred to the fact that the parties stayed in close communication INRE strengthening and maintaining Iraq’s security and progress. Every one with common sense knows that events on the ground dictate the new nation state’s progress.

    O’butthead had two choices. To honor the Bush/Iraq SOFA deadline, or negotiate a new contract to leave troops under newly defined terms, for a newly defined period. In other words, another hard deadline via a new contract.

    So here’s the laugh.. your POTUS likes to speak out of both sides of his mouth. Panetta and his appointed diplomats were desperately trying to negotiate troops staying… and a larger amount that Iraq requested at that. But the WH decided that… since that negotiation for a new agreement was not successful… they’d disavow what their own appointees were attempting to do, and hold firm with the Bush/Iraq SOFA deadlines (which he still claims are his own).

    This means that either Obama is genuinely the war monger – the guy who wanted to stay longer but couldn’t get what he wanted. Or he has appointees attempting to negotiate SOFA contracts that he really doesn’t want, and are against his CiC will. Either way, he’s inept.

    The simple reality is the SOFA was a legal contract with a drop dead withdrawal date. The only way the US could be legally present longer than a date that was decided by Bush’s admin in 2008 was to sign a new contract.

    Didn’t happen… no agreement. And now we have conflicting reports as to whether Obama really wanted to stay, or withdraw. Certainly his staff was pushing continued presence.

    So no… you could not be more incorrect. This withdrawal is not Obama’s doing. He is bound by a legal contract, created, signed and enforced before he took office. Period. Nothing more to be said on that issue.

    To change any newly defined presence after that drop dead date of Jan 1, 2012, he had to create a new contract.

    Despite the forked tongue, politically wishy washy reports that his staff wanted to – supposedly against his will?? – he did not accomplish that.

    But, like Aye says… thanks for playing. Now go brush up on the simplest precepts of contract law, and try again. We’ll be waiting.

    I would be curious to see graphed what you and your FA crew think the sitting US President does and doesn’t deserve credit for. Apparently, killing terrorists, even OBL, and the duties of the CIC actually reflect upon the previous President’s watch.

    Actually, I give Obama credit for adhering to the Bush/Iraq SOFA, and not evoking the one year termination provision. He has been promising, since being a newbie Senator, he wanted to bring everyone out ASAP – certainly earlier than Jan 2012. Guess not….

    I also give credit for Awlaki.

    I’m mixed on the increased predator drones… most especially in Pakistan. I certainly agree with that style of warfare, used with discretion. But then there is a balance on how much, and how often the missions, that you can push upon an ally. What this POTUS lacks is any concept of diplomatic balance. Worse yet, he appointed those who are just as inept.

    My problem with UBL is not that we killed him, but that it encroached into dangerous areas diplomatically by invading an ally’s sovereign territory – and a nuke armed one at that – without their knowledge or tacit permission.

    I supported the Afghan Surge… however was disappointed that he did it half ass, and ignored what his commanders on the ground said that he needed. So only half credit there.

    As far as the rest of his foreign policy, what credit can I give? He’s been on the wrong side at every avenue, and emphasized his ill choices by unwise and unwelcome meddling.

    Honduras: he attempted to force a Constitutionally ousted President back into office with threats

    Egypt, Yemen and Libya… he meddled in civil wars, and simultaneously threw out the existing leaders that were providing the US with intel in the war with the global Islamic jihad movements. Even without the intel, the US has no business sticking their noses in to civil wars of another nation.

    He attempt to tell Israel what they had to forfeit… which they’ve offered up before under Clinton with Arafat. He has overtly backed off Israel support at every opportunity on the international stage.

    All in all, under O’butthead’s foreign policy, allies have learned that cooperation with the US means we will help get them overthrown. And our enemies, like Syria and Iran, have learned that when you remain an overt enemy, O’butthead is happy to leave you alone, and won’t interfere while elections are unfair and protestors are slaughtered. We only reserve that force for our “friends”.

    Domestically? Can’t think of a thing he’s done that is worthy of praise. I will give him credit for further damaging the housing market’s recovery by trying to re inflate the bubble. I will also give him credit for slowing the natural recovery by poorly placed spending. And I will also give him credit for businesses shuttering their anticipated growth due to increase regulations via O’healthcare, EPA and Dodd-Frank.

    That “credit”, unfortunately, ain’t going to be pretty on his legacy. But hey, he looks good in a suit… even tho “empty” in all other ways.

    ReplyReply
  27. Tom says: 27

    Actually, I give Obama credit for adhering to the Bush/Iraq SOFA, and not evoking the one year termination provision.

    You have a funny way of expressing it, not that I don’t enjoy the tortured rhetorical gymnastics that result when extreme partisanship runs counter to oft expressed principle (and in this case, common sense). So where you could have simply pointed out your appreciation for the President honoring the SOFA (it was, as you must now admit HIS decision to do so), and then pointed out the incoherence and downright stupidity of the responses by most of the GOP candidates, you decide to come at it from a different angle. Apparently, this is just another example of Obama’s moral turpitude. Apparently by announcing this withdrawal, the idiot/genius Obama (on FA he is either or both, depending on which is needed, and usually with an “evil” thrown in for good measure) set a trap for the GOP to fall into, so that’s on Obama, not the people whose mouths the words actually emanated from. And the conclusions you draw from these events are that, while Obama did the right thing, the act and its ramification are secondary to the perception of credit taken; and the reactions of the GOP candidate field, which you clearly disagree with (and which certainly deserve scrutiny considering any of them could be making these decisions two years hence), are only important in the sense of how they reflect upon Obama. To be more succinct: If Obama hadn’t done something you agree with, the GOP field wouldn’t have said things you disagree with, and that’s all Obama’s fault.

    Here’s what a typical GOP (2011 edition) candidate for President thinks about the concept of national sovereignty. Michele Bachman apparently has the Presidential notion that the war in Iraq is like buying a TV at Best Buy, and then not getting to keep it. And gosh darn it, she’s doggone angry!

    We’ve put a lot of deposit into this situation with Iraq. And to think that we are so disrespected and they have so little fear of the United States that there would be nothing that we would gain from this … We are there as the nation that liberated these people. And that’s the thanks that the United States is getting after 4,400 lives were expended and over $800 billion? And so on the way out, we’re being kicked out of the country? I think this is absolutely outrageous.

    You get the candidates you deserve.

    ReplyReply
  28. MataHarley says: 28

    What part about Obama, having to be bound by Bush/Iraq SOFA terms do you miss? As I said, the withdrawal of troops is Bush’s decision, not Obama’s, by contract. I gave him credit for not bugging out earlier, where the Bush/Iraq SOFA could have allowed that…. despite breaking campaign promises and almost a decade of huffing and puffing that began when he was a junior IL Senator.

    So the withdrawal still belongs to Bush. All terms of that contract still belong to Bush. You attempting to fawn over Obama for not terminating early is like trying to give kudos to a renter who doesn’t opt to break his lease earlier under specific provisions. To what advantage would that have been for Obama, if the Iraqis did not think they were ready. They needed this past year, in control of the bulk of their security (except in the south) to test their readiness.

    As far as the GOP, I agree… they are idiots to miss this in your face opportunity. Thus the post, Tom. No reflection on Obama’s “genius”, as you like to see it. The typical approach by the Alinsky crowd, generally used by your party most frequently, is to revise history, repeat that lie of revised history, and claim credit not due. You are a perfect example of that.

    The GOPs problem is that they haven’t figured out the game your side likes to play, and the rules under which you engage. I have. And it annoys me to no end to have them play the dupes to the lies your side tells. So I call them on it.

    My displeasure with their oblivion, however, does not make me believe that your corrupt habits of revisionist history for political gain make your party the superior leaders. Instead, it’s just a sad commentary on the status of leadership quality all of us have to choose from in candidates.

    ReplyReply
  29. MataHarley says: 29

    Oh yes, Tom… I already added Bachmann to the dupe prone list in @my comment #18 above. is this supposed to be some sort of revelation and new information?

    It’s actually amusing to see you arguing against my opinion that the GOP is really playing dumb on this… while attempting to prop up the very lies your side is telling about Obama’s creating of the SOFA terms. I thank you for substantiating this is exactly the campaign tact you are all off and running on. And, in this case, you have now played the dupe.

    Oh yes… INRE this:

    Apparently by announcing this withdrawal, the idiot/genius Obama (on FA he is either or both, depending on which is needed, and usually with an “evil” thrown in for good measure) set a trap for the GOP to fall into, so that’s on Obama, not the people whose mouths the words actually emanated from.

    It is Obama’s own words, claiming credit for the SOFA withdrawal schedule… which he started claiming in February of ’09. Fish in a barrel…

    ReplyReply
  30. TOM,
    don’t show so much outrage ,
    where where you when the side you’re protecting was doing worse on the PRESIDENT BUSH,
    IT WAS ALL OVER THEIR MEDIA propaganda, to sell to the public an OBAMA which they could not find better qualfications than to demonise the PRESIDENT BUSH,
    so this here is just a token , to make sure the credit goes to the one PREVIOUS PRESIDENT, WHO DID THE RIGHT THING, FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR TO MAKE SURE THEY WOULD GET OUT OF IT,
    ONCE THE DANGER IS ELIMINATED,
    but new factors came into the deal that is IRAN, which gave the military concern to raise the question of leaving some protection behind, and they turn out to be right, just by the way the IRAK PRESIDENT IS ACTING NOW, BUT EVEN THAT BEHAVIOR THEY TALK ON YOUR SIDE IS NOT PROVEN TRUE,
    BECAUSE THE MILITARY WHERE CONFIDENT THAT PREVIOUS DEMAND OF IMMUNITY AND PROTECTION FROM THE US FOR THE TROOPS TRAINING THERE HAS BEEN ASSURED BEFORE, AND THAT LAST TURNABOUT TO NEGATE THE PREVIOUS AGREEMENT IS SAID TO BE THE ARRIVAL OF THE GOVERNMENT PEOPLE PUTTING PRESSURE ON THE IRAK, TOO MUCH WHICH REULTED IN THAT LAST ANNOUNCEMENT, AND DON’T FORGET THE MEMOS THAT WAS FOUND BY MATA WHICH LED HER TO WRITE THE POST ON THE LIB EFFORTS TO MAKE THIS A unworthy and false POLITICAL GAIN FOR OBAMA,
    AS YOU BEEN WITNESSING, THEY ARE SO DOWN AND DESPPERATE, they will do anything to gain votes.

    ReplyReply
  31. Tom says: 31

    As I said, the withdrawal of troops is Bush’s decision

    Really? Don’t be preposterous. Obviously there is a ton of sentiment on the Right for staying in Iraq interminably (as Bachmann would tell you, we bought and paid for that privilege), so I can’t imagine it would be very difficult for Obama to keep us there longer if he wanted to. I don’t care if there was an agreement in place, if something had happened warranting a change of plans, it would have happened. This is a major national security decision. They’re not going to say, “let’s do what Bush thought we should do three years ago”. As much as it pains you, the world wasn’t frozen in amber the day GWB left office. Things change and the current boss gets the credit or blame.

    As for credit given or taken, I’m sorry it continues to offend your delicate sensibilities that Obama hasn’t commissioned a stature of George W Bush by now and signed over 100% of the credit for everything you approve of that he’s done in the last three years. I know this was a bee in your bonnet when Bin Laden was killed, and I continue to be mildly amazed at the degree to which this annoys and surprises you. If you’re naive enough to think that politicians don’t routinely take credit for things that happen on their watch, decisions for which they will primarily be judged, I don’t know what to tell you. That’s American politics. You sort of have to toot your own horn if you want someone to vote for you. This isn’t the 1925 county fair dance where it’s considered gauche to do more than flutter your eyes in anticipation of capturing a suitor’s interest. And if you think only politicians on the Left brag about their accomplishments, maybe the GOP debates are on past your bedtime. Honestly, when you start trotting out these silly “Alinksy crowd” campfire tales, regaling us with the Left’s perfidious deeds, it’s pretty clear you’re at a loss.

    Besides, while Obama has rightfully reminded voters that he promised to bring the troops home from Iraq, he also carefully worded his statement about the promise being kept to the government of Iraq was one made by the United States, not Barack Obama:

    A few hours ago I spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. I reaffirmed that the United States keeps its commitments.

    ReplyReply
  32. MataHarley says: 32

    Obviously there is a ton of sentiment on the Right for staying in Iraq interminably (as Bachmann would tell you, we bought and paid for that privilege), so I can’t imagine it would be very difficult for Obama to keep us there longer if he wanted to.

    You persist on proving my point in the original post, don’t you Tom? Well thank you very much. Nothing like the puppet, doing the dance, to prove there is really a marionette show in progress.

    The “ton” of sentiment falls off the edge of the world when you examine what the Iraqis will agree to (5000 trainers and no immunity), compared to what military commanders, and O’butthead’s own staff wanted. Which Obama claims he didn’t want. Apparently he allows his staff of appointees to negotiate for things he doesn’t want… LOL

    The point is Obama has been losing his leftist anti-war base. Simply following Bush’s withdrawal schedule doesn’t get him the boost he needs. So he must portray this as an agonizing decision where, in the end, he appeases his leftist base. Absurd. There is nothing agonizing about 5000 trainers – a number that would not do squat to save the Iraqis from complete disaster. But the more he can pump it up, to make him look like the anti-war hero… absurd considering his increase in warfare since his presidency… the better it plays politically for him in a campaign year. Both he and Maliki are on record, noting that it’s politically favorable for both not to come to an agreement in order not to piss off their respective base supporters.

    Don’t know what “bee in the bonnet” to which you refer INRE UBL. I said I was quite happy with the results of that mission, save for the diplomatic idiocy done to accomplish such. Now, of course, we’ve got a lot of problems with Pakistan as repercussions… more than we had before. Enough so that Afghanistan is warning the US that they will side with Pakistan in the event of any escalation.

    That UBL mission was possible by the work of both administrations, and does not belong only to Obama. He was a bit late coming around to that credit due, and only done after his own friendly media decided to point out the realities.

    I also understand tooting your own horn. But it’s more credible when you own the trumpet, Tom. We have enough problems without cheap politics on either side.

    Tom: Besides, while Obama has rightfully reminded voters that he promised to bring the troops home from Iraq, he also carefully worded his statement as the promise being kept to the government of Iraq was one made by the United States, not just himself:

    A few hours ago I spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. I reaffirmed that the United States keeps its commitments.

    Exactly my point… these commitments were made by the US, under the Bush administration. And of course he “carefully worded his statement” because he has, since his inauguration, been attempting to take credit for the 2008 SOFA. A bit embarrassing for him to admit he had little to do with the deadlines and structure of the Iraq withdrawal, after telling everyone he was the mastermind behind it all.

    i.e. Feb 2009.. less than a month in power, at Camp Lejeune..

    On my first full day in office, I directed my national security team to undertake a comprehensive review of our strategy in Iraq to determine the best way to strengthen that foundation, while strengthening American national security.

    I have listened to my Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and commanders on the ground. We have acted with careful consideration of events on the ground; with respect for the security agreements between the United States and Iraq; and with a critical recognition that the long-term solution in Iraq must be political – not military. Because the most important decisions that have to be made about Iraq’s future must now be made by Iraqis.

    …snip…

    As a candidate for President, I made clear my support for a timeline of 16 months to carry out this drawdown, while pledging to consult closely with our military commanders upon taking office to ensure that we preserve the gains we’ve made and protect our troops.

    Those consultations are now complete, and I have chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months.

    Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.

    As we carry out this drawdown, my highest priority will be the safety and security of our troops and civilians in Iraq. We will proceed carefully, and I will consult closely with my military commanders on the ground and with the Iraqi government.

    There will surely be difficult periods and tactical adjustments. But our enemies should be left with no doubt: this plan gives our military the forces and the flexibility they need to support our Iraqi partners, and to succeed.

    From the World Socialist Web on that speech…

    In his first address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night, President Barack Obama promised that he would “soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war.”

    The US president offered no details about his plan. Subsequent leaks from within the administration and the Pentagon, however, have made it clear that, as with so much of his high-flown but ambiguous rhetoric, the vagueness was deliberately crafted to mask a lie—or in this case, two lies.

    Obama’s plan will neither end the war nor “leave Iraq to its people.”

    From CNN on that same speech…

    President Obama said Friday he plans to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of August 2010.

    Between 35,000 to 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq, he said. They would be withdrawn gradually until all U.S. forces are out of Iraq by December 31, 2011 — the deadline set under an agreement the Bush administration signed with the Iraqi government last year.

    “Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end,” Obama said in a speech at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

    “Obama’s” plan??? Hardly. Article 24 of the SOFA

    Recognizing the performance and increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces, the assumption of full security responsibility by those Forces, and based upon the strong relationship between the Parties, an agreement on the following has been reached:

    1. All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.

    2. All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009.

    That’s the deadlines laid out in the SOFA for both the partial drawdown, and the drop dead get out of dodge withdrawal deadline. No sign of a signature by Obama, or any of his appointees, on that SOFA. That’s the contract that legally bound this POTUS, and was not of his making.

    You can keep attempting to perpetuate the lie, and I will continue to call you out of your mushy knowledge of current events. And while I find the GOP stupidity, missing lost opportunities, annoying, I find your side’s attempts to manipulate and lie about facts the height of corruption and despicable behavior unbecoming of any leader of this country.

    ReplyReply
  33. Aye says: 33

    @Tom:

    Besides, while Obama has rightfully reminded voters that he promised to bring the troops home from Iraq, he also carefully worded his statement about the promise being kept to the government of Iraq was one made by the United States, not Barack Obama:

    A few hours ago I spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. I reaffirmed that the United States keeps its commitments.

    And so, by your own admission, The WonTM is not making good on a commitment or promise that he made…but he is, instead, eagerly taking credit for that which he was already contractually bound to upon his Immaculation.

    What, precisely, was your point again?

    ReplyReply
  34. Tom says: 34

    What, precisely, was your point again?

    This is a rather obscure argument, as befits an obscurest original post. My point is that I find it ludicrous to focus on Obama’s alleged credit grab, when the real story here is the GOP field’s apparently universal foreign policy ignorance and stupidly, as expressed in their Pavlovian anti-anything-Obama-does reactions. Don’t you think it’s slightly disturbing that the GOP frontrunner (according to some polls) doesn’t even know what a neocoservativen is? Or do you agree the main focus of our departure from Iraq should be Obama’s decision not to hang a “mission accomplished” style banner from the White House congratulating GWB on his successful completion of the Iraq war? Mata plays at presenting both sides, but in reality the entire post is an attempt to shift focus and blame for the GOP’s muddled reaction back onto Obama, an attempt that really isn’t very persuasive.

    ReplyReply
  35. Aye says: 35

    @Tom:

    Your desperate attempts to shift the focus through the construction of straw man arguments rather than address the topic thoroughly answers the question that I posed.

    Thanks for playing.

    ReplyReply
  36. Tom says: 36

    @Aye:

    You’re welcome. Thank you for sharing your perspective and providing me with constructive criticism. This is a very polite forum.

    ReplyReply
  37. MataHarley says: 37

    Tom: My point is that I find it ludicrous to focus on Obama’s alleged credit grab, when the real story here is the GOP field’s apparently universal foreign policy ignorance and stupidly, as expressed in their Pavlovian anti-anything-Obama-does reactions.

    uh… ahem. ’tis oh so inconvenient to your tut tutting when you consider that the GOP field is apparently on the same page as Obama’s appointees, attempting (and failing) to negotiate more troops and extended stay, don’t you think? So we thank you for admitting that Obama’s admin is apparently universally ignorant and stupid on foreign policy, as they’ve been trying for exactly what the GOP field is saying.

    tsk tsk… fish in a barrel

    As far as this being an “obscure” argument, your repeated commentary here, actually proving everything I said in this “obscure” post, means you doth protest too loudly.

    but in reality the entire post is an attempt to shift focus and blame for the GOP’s muddled reaction back onto Obama, an attempt that really isn’t very persuasive.

    Oh.. I see the problem. Graduated from public schools with less than adept reading skills. The entire post is about slapping the GOP field into awareness that they are losing a golden opportunity, and played like fiddles by Obama campaign lies and misrepresentations, attempting to puff himself up on Iraq’s progress, when exactly the opposite was true.

    You have proven, along with the leftist media I quoted in the original post, that is an absolute truth. And we all thank you again for doing the marionette dance on cue.

    Obama has spent his pathetically short political career railing against everything in Iraq that has worked. He assumed office, locked into a binding legal agreement made by the previous administration, so he’s spent his time in office pretending that legal agreement was at his bidding and design.

    I am giving the GOP field no quarter for being this unaware of Obama’s campaign ploy. But I am most certainly not giving your boy a pass for outright lies, meant to puff up his ego and toilet flush numbers.

    ReplyReply
  38. Tom says: 38

    @MataHarley:

    Obama has spent his pathetically short political career railing against everything in Iraq that has worked. He assumed office, locked into a binding legal agreement made by the previous administration, so he’s spent his time in office pretending that legal agreement was at his bidding and design.

    And apparently Obama has no choice in the matter. Apparently, not changing or cancelling a Bush era program or policy isn’t making a choice, isn’t making a judgement. It’s nice to know Bush put training wheels on our foreign policy so all Obama had to do was peddle really hard with his eyes closed. “Look at me, mommy! I’m running a war!”

    ReplyReply
  39. MataHarley says: 39

    What part about legally binding and choices do you also not get? Why on earth would Obama – especially after seizing the SOFA agreement terms and representing them as his own in under 30 days in office – change what he has claimed as his own brilliant idea? Wouldn’t that make him look even more like the buffoon he is? duh…

    Think about it, because I’m sure Obama did. Obviously he couldn’t put in a termination agreement for the SOFA a couple of months after signed without giving the US a black eye. The drawdown was happening soon enough for him to pretend he was doing the prudent CiC thing that he planned and campaigned on… bringing the troops home …. even if it was Bush’s SOFA. Can’t let a bit of facts and truth get in the way of a convenient moment now, can he?

    Only the greatest political fool would “cancel” or “change” what was a very good withdrawal SOFA to begin with. Especially if you’ve managed to convince mush head liberals that it was all your idea.

    It’s called politically expedient, Tom. Actions by a desperately ineffective CiC and diplomatic challenged leader.

    So you gave a very accurate analogy, Tom….

    Tom about Obama: “Lood at me, mommy! I’m running a way!”

    Obama is doing just that…

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>