Hmmmm I don't think President Obama wanted any US troops to stay in Iraq.

[Pirate Smile]

Article shows the White House pushing back at the premise of the article but President Obama certainly seems quite content with getting all the troops out of Iraq this year - I know I am.

As U.S.-Iraqi troop talks faltered, Obama didn't pick up the phone

By Roy Gutman | McClatchy Newspapers

BAGHDAD — Throughout the summer and autumn, as talks on a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq foundered, President Barack Obama and his point man on Iraq, Vice President Joe Biden, remained aloof from the process, not even phoning top Iraqi officials to help reach a deal, according to logs released by the U.S. Embassy here.

The omission is an unusual one, given the high priority that U.S. officials had given to achieving an agreement for some sort of residual U.S. presence in Iraq after the Dec. 31 pullout deadline set in a 2008 pact between the two countries. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other senior Pentagon officials spoke often about the need for an agreement in a pivotal country in a volatile region and insisted talks were continuing up until Friday, when Obama announced that all U.S. troops would be coming home before the end of December.

-snip-
The issue of whether some U.S. troops might remain in Iraq after the Dec. 31 date, which was set by the so-called Status of Forces Agreement that the administration of President George W. Bush negotiated with the Iraqi government, had always been a complicated one — both for Iraqi officials and Obama, who promised as a presidential candidate in 2008 that he would bring U.S. troops home from Iraq.

-snip-
A major complication was the insistence by the Obama administration that the accord go before the Iraqi parliament, something that in the end Iraqi politicians decided was impossible. But whether that restriction was necessary is an open question. Many status-of-forces agreements are signed at the executive level only, particularly in countries without elected legislatures.
But the White House turned the issue over to the State Department's legal affairs office, reporters in Baghdad were told on Saturday. The lawyers gave a variety of options, but Obama chose the most stringent, approval by Iraq's legislature of a new agreement, citing as precedent that the Iraqi parliament had approved the 2008 agreement, reporters were told.


Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/10/25/128294/as-us-iraqi-troop-talks-faltered.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_term=news#ixzz1bqMqqFyw

[FrenchieCat]

1. I'ts called "leading from behind

the scenes".

It works.

[Pirate Smile]

3. Sometimes that is just smart.

:)

[AtomicKitten]

8. Susan Rice on Rachel yesterday elaborated on the work behind the scenes.

It was jaw-dropping and quite the opposite of what some were peddling yesterday.

Here's a link to the interview: http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/ambassador-rice-on-what-guides-u-s-foreign-policy/65i0yxo?from=

[Number23]

13. You REALLY should make that an OP

I have made no secret of my admiration for Susan Rice, but she is absolutely superb.

And as you said, her remarks represent the polar opposite of so much stupidity that was posted here a few days ago (but which appears to have mercifully stopped since no one was buying the garbage being peddled -- this time).

[AtomicKitten]

15. I was really impressed with her fund of knowledge and experience.

Her vivid description of behind the scenes activities and strategies was really enlightening and at the same time jaw-dropping. As our representative to the UN, we are in good hands.

[LiberalFighter]

22. I would put her on par with Hillary Clinton on intelligence

Very smart and very capable and warm and sane. Compared to the likes of Condi Rice.

[Vattel]

33. Wow, she really ties herself into a knot

trying to give credit to Obama for regime change in Libya while denying that we used military force to achieve regime change in Libya. She says that regime change was "not a military objective," but of course everyone knows that regime change was a US objective that was achieved partly through NATO military force. Well-phrased Susan!

[AtomicKitten]

40. Of course he deserves some credit. The U.S. played an integral part in Libya.

Also she didn't deny using military force, she said we did it without boots on the ground. She described the air-strikes at the beginning and missions in cooperation with NATO. Your post makes zero sense plus it's factually inaccurate. I understand you are probably regurgitating some blog post, but dayum.

[Vattel]

42. wooosh

[AtomicKitten]

44. Read a newspaper. Seriously.

[Vattel]

45. You completely missed my point.

All snark aside, I didn't really express myself clearly; so let me try again:

The UN only authorized the use of military force to protect civilians. Maddow suggests to Rice that the aims of the intervention in Libya included regime change in addition to protecting civilians. (I hope I don't need to explain why this is a sensitive issue.) Rice dances around the issue by denying that regime change was a "military objective," and by suggesting that the Libyans themselves changed the regime, but she also suggests that Obama deserves credit for helping to bring about the change. It's no big deal. I really like Rice. But I always find it funny to listen to politicians carefully choosing words to avoid admitting something that they do not want to admit.

[tblue]

2. He said it a lot during the campaign.

I think he means it.

[sofa king]

4. That's a pretty damned smooth move.

The President gets to salvage a little bit of the United States' reputation by abiding by the (in)decision of the Iraqi people, through their parliament, while slipping around Dick Cheney's defense contractors and the Iraqi ministers they no doubt bought off to shill for keeping the vein open.

All with a no-touch approach that keeps his own hands clean, apparently planned out months before anyone else notices, which somehow delivers exactly what he wants.

It's a good thing all that multi-dimensional chess stuff is bullshit, otherwise all you sock puppets are going to be out of jobs next December.

[quaker bill]

5. In short,

he told the Iraqi President to get Al Sadr and his buddies in the legislature on board, or we are out of here. Al Sadr and his allies were promising to fight us if we stayed. They ran and won seats in the legislature on an "American Troops go home" platform. Barack wanted nothing to do with that and did not want the presence of our troops to be a focus for their internal political disagreements. Very well played.

Republicans, on the other hand, seem to think that winning means you stay forever (to the extent they think at all). Perhaps this is why we have small to large contingents of troops all over the planet (because that is what they think winning means). Winning actually means that you stop shooting at people and go home.

[DCBob]

7. +1

precisely.

[underpants]

29. Well played indeed. Why is Obama so good at foreign policy? He doesn't have to deal with Repubs

that is clear.

[DCBob]

6. The constant complainers wont like this.

Doesnt fit their Obama-is-bad meme.

[ClassWarrior]

11. Really? Someone posts some great news about the President, and you see it as an opportunity...

...to take a swipe at other DUers?

What do you hope to accomplish with that?

NGU.

[DCBob]

14. Who said I was talking about other DUers??

[ClassWarrior]

26. Then who were you talking about?

NGU.

[DCBob]

30. constant complainers are everywhere...

unfortunately.

[Ikonoklast]

37. And they are constantly trying on shoes.

To see if they fit.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

9. How could that be? He's not liberal and war-hating enough, right? nt

[YvonneCa]

10. This is why electing a President...

...who is intelligent on policy and the issues is important. ;)

[Number23]

12. Absolutely.

:thumbsup:

[Vattel]

16. Lol. More contortions to deny that Obama sought a troop presence in 2012.

A White House spokesman, Tommy Vietor, noted, however, that Maliki's office released a statement Sept. 22 saying that Maliki and Biden had had a phone conversation that day in which the disposition of U.S. troops after Dec. 31 was discussed. He said the embassy list obviously had been prepared by someone not familiar with the full range of contacts.

Vietor declined to provide any details about the president's contacts.

"The VP talked to senior Iraqi leaders multiple times during that period of time," Vietor wrote in an email. "The President also engaged with Iraqi leaders. Your story is totally wrong."

[quaker bill]

18. But on what terms did they speak?

It seems more like "we will stay, if you get the republicans to pass a massive tax increase on the 1%". - or "if you can make snowballs in hell".

Talking is one thing, it is rather normal for leaders to talk, what is said is another matter.

[vaberella]

20. How does that confirm that they wanted troop presence?

I think you're selling a conspiracy theory.

[Vattel]

32. It wasn't a secret that the administration wanted troops to stay.

That is what they were trying to accomplish through their negotiations. The conspiracy theory is that secretly Obama didn't want them to stay.

[vaberella]

34. Actually that's false.

The only one who had said anything about wanting troops to stay on was Panetta. Obama has given his fellow people in the admin free reign to state their opinion but he makes the final decision. Panetta, Clinton, Gates and so on wanted Obama to send in 90,000 troops into Afghanistan and to give the military leaders in both Afghanistan and Iraq a wide berth. Obama did not. I was reading on this. Obama had this plan in the works with the removal of soldiers for over 2 years. Shoot if you go back to the Rachel Maddow show when troops were first moving out in 2008... one of the military heads said 3 times this was his order. So while there maybe people in the Admin who have their opinions. This order has been decreed for over 2 years.

[Vattel]

43. You are incorrect.

They were negotiating in Iraq to see if they could get troops to stay.

[Arkana]

31. How does that prove that Obama secretly wanted the troops to stay?

You and yours are determined to see things that just aren't there, and maintaining the illusion is killing you--isn't it?

[Skittles]

17. no, he has other plans

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/25/us-departure-iraq-illusion

[vaberella]

19. These goalposts keep getting moved.

Someone had posted an article from the guardian a few days ago where they say Obama was negotiating tirelessly to keep troops in Iraq. Now he was not negotiating but has a different agenda/ and or methodology? Additionally, why are we counting people who are in the Embassy or consulate... We have those people in most EVERY single nation in the world. This is not some conspiracy you're making it out to be. As for the private contractors... That is really the only concern and I hope he starts wanning down on them because they are an expense we can ill afford.

[ClassWarrior]

25. I agree with you about the contractors. But why, when someone wants something to be the best...

...it can possibly be, is it dismissed as "the goalposts being moved," as if to imply that this is only about the President, and not about getting the best result for the troops and the American people?

Why this knee-jerk tendency to demonize someone who just hopes for a better world??

I just don't get it.

:shrug:

NGU.

[vaberella]

35. Hardly.

I'm not demonizing anything. However there seems to be people who are running on a lot of different information when the actuality of the situation is staring them in the face; There were posters running rampant about an article from the Guardian several days before and several other news places who wanted to paint Obama as some dirty dealer. Even when the fact of the matter says something else. Obama put out this removal order over 2 years ago. This was the plan. Then it's a promise kept.

We count consulate and embassy as military who are still in the nation? We have embassy and consulate people in a lot of nations and a lot of them are not very welcoming of us if our embassy bombings mean anything. This is not an occupation in the normal sense. It's territory we have to protect any of our citizens who might be there...ie business men people, tourists, reporters, and whatever else. 3 years ago my friend was in Afghanistan as a visitor...he knew where the American embassy was so if he had any problems he knew where to go. But it's as though people want our removal in every way, shape, and form. That's nonsensical.

The contractors are different and I can understand that...maybe even willing to engage in some conspiracy process over it. But the poster made the consulate and embassy people to be part of some grand conspiracy. Because troops coming home is not satisfactory---every American needs to be removed. It doesn't work that way nor makes sense.

[ClassWarrior]

36. "Not demonizing??" Then what do you mean to insinuate when you say...

..."there seems to be people who are running on a lot of different information when the actuality of the situation is staring them in the face?"

Like I said, knee jerk. There's an automatic assumption that anyone who disagrees has devious motives, and you don't even realize it.

NGU.

[vaberella]

38. What "knee jerk" or "demonizing" are you talking about?

You act as though I am in some painting them as liars or cheats. But I will say they are mistaken and seem to be ignoring the obvious. That is not demonization it's an apparent fact. And I don't even know what you're on about in regardss to the "knee jerk" statement...since I researched well my information and I do know how to read posts on this site.

Actually I never said they had devious motives unless conspiracy theories is considered devious-- if it is, that's new to me. And do you not realise what is being disagreed against. So you're telling me it makes sense to say that Obama is actually keeping the Embassy, consulate, along with contractors as some sort of new plan? Really now?! Because that was what I was responding too.

In actuality your post is better posted to the poster I was responding too. Not to me...because they seem to think Obama has a devious motive.

[ClassWarrior]

41. Why assume what "they seem to think" and dismiss them? Why not ask what they think...

...and use that as an opportunity to engage them? Wouldn't that be a more effective way to bring people around to our perspective?

:shrug:

Unless of course you're not interested in bringing people around to our perspective...

NGU.

[vaberella]

46. When someone claims there's an alterior motive.

And equating innocent people like embassy officials as nefarious accomplices in the agenda... it's not worth it.

[ClassWarrior]

47. But answering them in a dismissive way IS worth it?

I don't get it. If it's not worth it, why even bother to answer them at all?

:crazy:

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

48. No answer?

NGU.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kind of Blue]

21. Well played, indeed.

KnR!

[Pirate Smile]

24. kick

[great white snark]

27. Whatever the case may be, please support our brothers and sisters as they come home.

Our President's Jobs Act has initiatives to get our returning vets employed. Please support it even if you don't support the author.

[Pirate Smile]

28. True.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

39. Are all the troops leaving Iraq?

Even if we don't occupy the country, there's going to be a good-sized contigent to provide security for the embassy and the surrounding compound.

Any prediction on the number of troops for that task?

:hi: