Kevin
Well-known member
Negotiations continued well after Bush had left office, from 2010 right into 2011. Negotiations were held just up to months prior to the withdrawal.
If Obama had wanted to leave troops in Iraq, I have no doubt he could have arranged to have done so. I believe Romney would have found a way to keep a force remaining, because he actually wanted to do just that. Obama didn't like the agreement being offered, so he didn't push hard to change it, but that was ok, because he didn't want to leave the troops there anyway. Numerous White House officials have stated on record pretty much exactly that. Leon Panetta, Obama's own Secretary of Defense during those negotiations, had this to say about it, "To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them. 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 deal never materialized. 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."
You are correct, Obama took credit for having pulled all the troops out of Iraq. It was what he promised he would do, it is what he wanted to do, it is what he did, and in the end, it is what he took credit for having done. To dispute that, isn't to tell me that I'm wrong about it, but to dispute the words of Obama himself.
But as I said, this is past history, and while important, isn't nearly important as what is being done today. But I don't think our leadership has a clue. While the leader of France has declared war on ISIS, the best our president could muster about the attack was that is a 'setback'. Well, maybe our Secretary of State, John Kerry, would say something a bit more forceful about the attack. But no, he proceeded to compare it to the Charlie Hebdo attack in which he said that attack had a certain "legitimacy"....no better not use that word, instead a certain "rationale", because they were very angry about the cartoon you know. Our leadership has our allies scratching their heads, and our enemies taking advantage. Obama isn't even leading from behind, he is now just being dragged along. I am not that highly partisan, so I can write a good bit about what a bafoon George Bush was. But Obama and his administration are completely inept and over their heads as well. I even have friends who are staunchly liberal that are admitting as much.
If Obama had wanted to leave troops in Iraq, I have no doubt he could have arranged to have done so. I believe Romney would have found a way to keep a force remaining, because he actually wanted to do just that. Obama didn't like the agreement being offered, so he didn't push hard to change it, but that was ok, because he didn't want to leave the troops there anyway. Numerous White House officials have stated on record pretty much exactly that. Leon Panetta, Obama's own Secretary of Defense during those negotiations, had this to say about it, "To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them. 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 deal never materialized. 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."
You are correct, Obama took credit for having pulled all the troops out of Iraq. It was what he promised he would do, it is what he wanted to do, it is what he did, and in the end, it is what he took credit for having done. To dispute that, isn't to tell me that I'm wrong about it, but to dispute the words of Obama himself.
But as I said, this is past history, and while important, isn't nearly important as what is being done today. But I don't think our leadership has a clue. While the leader of France has declared war on ISIS, the best our president could muster about the attack was that is a 'setback'. Well, maybe our Secretary of State, John Kerry, would say something a bit more forceful about the attack. But no, he proceeded to compare it to the Charlie Hebdo attack in which he said that attack had a certain "legitimacy"....no better not use that word, instead a certain "rationale", because they were very angry about the cartoon you know. Our leadership has our allies scratching their heads, and our enemies taking advantage. Obama isn't even leading from behind, he is now just being dragged along. I am not that highly partisan, so I can write a good bit about what a bafoon George Bush was. But Obama and his administration are completely inept and over their heads as well. I even have friends who are staunchly liberal that are admitting as much.