About that Iraq withdrawal...

[PETRUS]

First, the troop withdrawal is required by an agreement which George W. Bush negotiated and entered into with Iraq and which was ratified by the Iraqi Parliament prior to Obama’s inauguration.

*snip*

Second, the Obama administration has been working for months to persuade, pressure and cajole Iraq to allow U.S. troops to remain in that country beyond the deadline. The reason they’re being withdrawn isn’t because Obama insisted on this, but because he tried — but failed — to get out of this obligation.

*snip*

None of this is to say that this is bad news (it isn’t: it’s good news), nor is it to say that Obama deserves criticism for adhering to the withdrawal plan (he doesn’t). It would just be nice if these central facts — painfully at odds with the two self-serving narratives that started being churned out before the President even spoke — were acknowledged.

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/21/about_that_iraq_withdrawal/singleton

More at the link.

[Robb]

1. Oh please. On what planet does this author live?

If any US President truly wanted troops to remain in Iraq, there's nothing about a piece of paper with a puppet parliament that would stand in the way.

[TheWraith]

3. Well OBAMA BAD! don'tcha know.

Must find talking points to deny him any kind of positive recognition for his accomplishments, no matter how laughable the "logic" is. Case in point, the spin that the Obama administration has been trying to arrange to keep troops there, even though their repeated position has been that there are NO plans to keep troops there.

[PETRUS]

8. I don't care whether Obama is "good" or "bad."

But I do care about results, I voted for him based largely on stated positions during the campaign that subsequent actions of the executive branch have failed to match, and I think we should hold our government accountable.

[TheWraith]

16. So you're pissed that he lived up to his promise? What the fuck is that?

He campaigned on getting the US troops out of Iraq; he has now done that.

[PETRUS]

19. His administration was attempting to keep troops there longer.

He also promised:

To close Guantanamo
To enact a windfall profits tax on oil companies
To restore the Superfund program
To allow judges to modify terms of home mortgages
To include a public option in the health plan
To allow for the importation of prescription drugs.

And quite a number of other things that I don't remember at this moment.

Frankly, I don't think it matters whether or not these failures were his fault. What's at issue is that the government is not responsive to the people, and politics should be about seeking solutions, not defending "your guy" or defeating the "other team" regardless of truth or cost.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[sabrina 1]

24. Why is everything about Obama to you? This is about FACTS.

What is wrong with presenting facts now? This country does not revolve around any one individual. For far too long, both extremes in this country have distracted from real issues with this nonsensical attempt to make every issue about their favorite politician. It has proven to be disastrous for this country.

When the people lead, the politicians will follow. Up to now, the people have not done that, but fortunately a majority of them appear to have awakened and the conversation has changed. And that is a good thing for this country and way past time.

The Iraqis did not want us there, for a long, long time. We never belonged there. We don't belong in any of the countries we are currently dropping bombs on. Let's hope we get the troops out of all of them, and start minding our own business.

I am glad they are leaving Iraq. I am glad they are planning to leave Afghanistan. I hope they will also leave Yemen, Pakistan, Libya and do not even think of going to Iran, or Syria or anywhere else. But it's a start to see the troops leaving Iraq. And it is NOT about Obama.

[PETRUS]

5. Umm... the White House confirmed this. nt

[Robb]

9. That the WH wanted to keep troops in Iraq? Laughable.

They've been saying precisely the opposite.

As to whether a SOFA has any real bearing on events when things become hot, I direct you to postwar agreements with Germany, Japan and South Korea as starting points.

[PETRUS]

14. If you say so.

Facts are facts.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61731.html

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-declares-iraq-war-over-182400285.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/10/15/u-s-troops-to-return-from-iraq.html

[Robb]

17. The facts are not with you, even in your links.

Panetta also said, according to the official transcript, that the Pentagon will abide by President Barack Obama’s pledge to end U.S. military operations in Iraq.

[Donnachaidh]

22. Pentagon: Troop-numbers talks with Iraq 'are ongoing'

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/17/us/iraq-troop-reduction/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

From OCTOBER 18th --

The remaining 39,000-plus U.S. troops who remain in Iraq are slated to leave by year's end, and U.S. commanders are "very comfortable" that they can meet that deadline if needed, said Capt. John Kirby, another Pentagon spokesman. U.S. and Iraqi officials have been trying to work out an agreement to leave a U.S. training mission, possibly numbering several thousand, in Iraq past December 31.

At the State Department, spokesman Mark Toner told reporters that he would not discuss details of the talks. But he added, "We're always going to ensure that we have appropriate protections for our people."

"No final decisions have been made. And they're going at, I would say, multiple levels, but certainly bilaterally on the ground in Baghdad," Toner said.

But earlier, a senior U.S. military official with direct knowledge of the discussions told CNN that a key issue regarding legal immunity for U.S. troops who would remain in Iraq after the end of the year had effectively ended the discussion. The Iraqi government's refusal to grant legal protections for any Americans who stay after the current status of forces agreement ends in 2011 has been an issue for the Obama administration, which insists that immunity is necessary.

yes they were :rofl:

[Robb]

27. I wonder how you pick which unnamed military officials to trust?

The process must be painstaking.

[Donnachaidh]

29. oh fer chrissakes --

I listen to the news on a daily basis. Try it sometime. Without blinkers, of course. :sarcasm:

[Robb]

32. I'm sure.

[Exilednight]

30. Hate to burst your bubble, but there was WH spokesperson on NPR who confirmed this. n/t

[kenny blankenship]

41. Do not try to tempt the True Believer with facts!

[obxhead]

13. The land of a fact based reality obviously.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/06/iraq-troop-withdrawal-reducing-forces_n_950576.html

Administration and Pentagon officials had hoped to secure Iraqi-government approval for a larger troop presence in Iraq into 2012, with the U.S. recently pushing for a final figure of around 10,000. But administration officials have lately come to believe that approval would be hard to get for anything more than a few thousand troops.

[PETRUS]

15. Thank you.

What's wrong with confronting the truth? Blind faith is not helpful.

[Robb]

18. HuffPo quoting Fox News' unnamed sources. Fucking brilliant.

Pull the other one.

[obxhead]

28. I can dig for more sources,

but the source I used is one of a great many that say the exact same thing.

I guess you missed the part where it was the WH saying it, not fox news.

[Robb]

33. Yet still, not a single name. Just this suddenly trustworthy military official

... With a story -- widely picked up by the "liberal" media, of course -- wholly at odds with attributed quotes and actual events, yet just *happens* to serve as fodder to critics of the President and/or Democrats in general.

As predictable as sunrise.

[obxhead]

35. Here's another source for you. A far more Obama friendly source.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-wants-to-keep-3000-5000-us-troops-in-iraq-into-2012/2011/09/07/gIQAcnkhAK_story.html

It's up to you though. Some opinions just can't be changed even when the facts prove them wrong.

[Robb]

37. Again, no names. Just the mystery military man you choose to trust despite events.

Nothing more.

[obxhead]

38. I would bet my life savings that if this story were from 2007

and about Bush you would accept it as fact from any source linked here though.

;)

[Robb]

39. So you can't actually make your argument without trying to smear me. Got it.

[obxhead]

43. I have made my argument.

Your misguided opinion is simply entrenched on this issue. Facts be damned.

[Donnachaidh]

20. yeah, Glenn Greenwald is such a tool, eh?

chest-thumping before reading the article....:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[FarCenter]

2. Wasn't the key point that Iraq refused to give US troops immunity in the Status of Forces Agreement?

And, will other countries follow Iraq's lead and use Status of Forces Agreement negotiations as a way to eject US bases around the world?

Which generally would be a good thing.

[PETRUS]

4. Legal immunity was the central issue, yes. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. In Germany that does not matter

South Korea WANTS the speed bump.

[Donnachaidh]

21. yup. They have been in negotiations and at one point some general or such

said basically the Iraqis were telling them the equivalent of *Don't let the door hit you in the ass before you leave*.

This was several DAYS ago. Then all of a sudden we get this *historic* photo-op of how Obama's pulling the troops out. Conveniently leaving out the bit about the Iraqi's telling us to leave.

[DCBob]

7. A President McCain would have found a way to keep the troops there.

I have no doubt.

[PETRUS]

10. You may be right.

The current administration is concerned with legal immunity for American forces; I could imagine a McCain administration saying who gives a damn about that, we're staying.

[JoePhilly]

11. Bush adopted Obama's timeline on his way out the door.

The article should show the timelines each proposed, and when.

When did Obama call for the exit ... and when did Bush sign the agreement ... I'm sure a stellar journalist like Glenn could determine that.

Agenda much???

[sad sally]

34. Campaigning Senator Obama called for an exit in 2008.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, one of the most prominent Democrats in the 2008 presidential field, proposed for the first time setting a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq, as part of a broader plan aimed at bolstering the freshman senator's foreign policy credentials.

Obama's legislation, offered on the Senate floor last night, would remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008. The date falls within the parameters offered by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which recommended the removal of combat troops by the first quarter of next year.

"The days of our open-ended commitment must come to a close," Obama said in his speech. "It is time for us to fundamentally change our policy. It is time to give Iraqis their country back."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001586.html?du

But obviously after meeting with the military decision makers, President-elect Obama changed his mind before he was sworn in:

WASHINGTON — On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to “end the war” in Iraq.

But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.

In the meantime, military planners are drawing up tentative schedules aimed at meeting both Mr. Obama’s goal for withdrawing combat troops, with a target of May 2010, and the Dec. 31, 2011, date for sending the rest of American troops home that is spelled out in the new agreement between the United States and the Iraqi government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/politics/04military.html?du

[JoePhilly]

36. you might alos want to read this ... and then re-read your WAPO article.

Bush finally decides its time to set a time line in August 2008.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.main/?iref=mpstoryview

The WAPO article you reference notes that while Obama proposes removing troops within about 1.5 years, the article also states ...

"The Obama plan, called the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007, would begin a troop withdrawal no later than May 1, 2007, but it includes several caveats that could forestall a clean break: It would leave a limited number of troops in place to conduct counterterrorism activities and train Iraqi forces. And the withdrawal could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets a series of benchmarks laid out by the Bush administration. That list includes a reduction in sectarian violence; the equitable distribution of oil revenue; government reforms; and democratic, Iraqi-driven reconstruction and economic development efforts. Obama's proposal also would reverse Bush's troop-increase plan."

Bush's plan, announced in August 2008, long after Obama proposed his plan, took this exact path. Recognize also that Obama's proposal did not base, which means that his withdraw could only start after he took office. The first phase was a drawn down of around 100k of the 150k, leaving behind some for EXACTLY what the paragraph above from WAPO article states.

Obama proposed this time line in January 2007, Bush adopts basically the same one in August 2008.

Of course you might also notice that the GOP is out claiming that Obama is withdrawing too fast. Which seems odd if the plan was Bush's.

[SidDithers]

12. Greenwald. LOL...nt

Sid

[whatchamacallit]

23. Greenwald is awesome

You...

[SidDithers]

25. You too...

:rofl:

Sid

[dionysus]

26. let me guess... greenwald.

[BlueCheese]

31. Hey, if you're getting run out of town...

Get out in front and make it seem like you're leading a parade.

Obama taking something that was forced on him reluctantly and saying that it was his choice does require a certain amount of chutzpah. But as political theater goes, it's a minor act. Nowhere near as bad as a lot of other things that happen in Washington.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[demmiblue]

44. .