and more

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/10/02/politically-obama-wanted-out-middle-east-megyn-kelly-presses-state-dept-spox-iraq

Hey Dumbow,

The defense secretary or the state department does not determine the whether there is adequate protection for the soldiers. The sticking point was under whose law soldiers fell under, US or Iraq.

US troops always is always under US laws. Here is another piece of trivia for you, US troops is the only troops that will not serve under any other command even when they are on UN Peace Keeping mission.  

While I have great respect for Panetta, he is only stating his point of view and did not elaborate on the negotiations.  

When you watch Faux News you end up a Dumbow

END OF MESSAGE

Joe Scarborough said a few weeks ago on his show that MANY Dems behind the scenes are chomping at the bit to rip Obama but most are waiting for after the election or till after he is out of office.  

He has inspired virtually zero loyalty from the vast majority of his peeps and his lack of experience, horrific people skills and his inability to listen to the advice of his military advisors will have them lining up to take a shot at him and his 8 year tenure.

Now I just would hope Panetta would tell us, what he told Obama the night of Benghazi. Obama is on record saying one thing and Panetta has not yet backed up his boss about that convo. Stay tuned.

That clip looked like soft core lesbian domination porn.

but if the US had offered to leave 24,000 troops in Iraq, the Iraq Government would have easily agreed to give them “immunity?” In other words, having 5 times the number of armed soldiers shooting suspected terrorist at will is an easier political “sell” to get immunity than 5000?  

       Ok Mr. Obama did not want to leave 24,000 there. But that still begs the question of whether an offer of 24,000 would have been granted immunity. Panetta has no basis to say this would have happened.  

       I pointed out to you last week that our soldiers in Japan, Korea, and Germany do not have “immunity” from prosecution. At best, if they commit crimes in the line of duty, the US rather than the host country has jurisdiction over the crimes.  It is pure speculation – and illogical speculation at that – to  conclude that Iraq would have extended such extraordinary protection to a large number of our troops when EVERYONE agrees that they  rejected it as to the smaller number.

        This account is also contrary to Panetta’s book where he blames the Iraq refusal not on the number of troops offered on Mr. Obama’s failure to engage in “personal advocacy” to get that immunity.

Kelly loses another one

No country will give immunity for foreign troops who commit torture, rape, and burn houses!

END OF MESSAGE

due to your emotion.

In Republican logic

The head of the defense dept., the generals, the Joint Chiefs, etc all wanted to leave a residual force in Iraq and Barry didn't. The withdrawal of American forces clearly lead to a void that ISIS filled. People much smarter than Barry knew this and he didn't heed their warning or advice. Hmmmm....sound familiar? Think "Simpson/Bowles" Mari. Lol

No one is saying getting a SOFA would have been EASY, they are saying it was necessary. And his critics are saying he never even really tried. THATS the problem Panetta was describing, Mari. Obama's absolute refusal to even make a serious attempt.

Panetta points out that we had a major bargaining chip to play with Iraq with the payment for reconstruction and Obama never even bothered to use that as leverage.

Lastly, the answer to every unasked question is "no", Mari. Obama didn't swing and miss. He was too ideological and/or too much of a pussy to even step up to the plate and use his influence/leverage to make a persuasive argument to the Iraqi's.

The Iraq war was voted as waste of money and loss of 5000+ US troops by 80% of American people in 2008 and was an issue in the elections.    Sadam and Iraq were never a direct threat to US and Dubiya created the mess by invading the country.  

The withdrawal of all troops was the best thing to save taxpayer dollars.   Going back there is the worst mistake the current President did.

This country has not learnt anything after Korea, Vietnam, Iraq #1, Iraq #2 and now we are in Iraq #3.   Pathetic.

If you actually read Panetta’s book you will too.  

Come back when you finished reading the book and doing some research on your own instead of eating and regurgitating shit coming out of someone else.

Iraq invasion was the worst foreign policy disaster of proportions since Korea and Vietnam.   Staying there would be giving an A++ for the invasion.

Glad we got out.  It is not our colony to protect and if they have problems the best people to travel and see for themselves are Dubiya, Darth Vader, Condi Rice and yes this Panetta jerk!    How much did the defense contractors pay him to say we should have pitched a tent for 100 years in Baghdad?