Yeah I see who is spinning it. The problem you have is while you can pull out select sentences to make your argument you have absolutely no proof. You’re welcome to believe the worst as part of a partisan approach to facts.
An accusation based on such flimsy evidence is hardly convincing to anyone unless they prefer to believe the worst.
An accusation based on the words of the prime minister, backed up by Obama’s adviser. It was challenged based on the notion that troop withdrawal was not discussed (in troop negotiations no less) and I backed that up. You have brought nothing except your own disbelief. THAT is spin.
Was he lying, or was he just relying on false intelligence?
The Logan Act
You seem to be saying that delaying the SOFA/Framework agreement will mean that we will not be able to reduce our troops in Iraq.
Clearly this isn’t true. All five combat brigades which constituted the surge have been ordered back to the US. In September, Bush ordered the return of an additional 9,000 troops. All of this has been done without the agreement.
So yes, there’s no question that Obama has said the next president should have the sign-off on the agreement under discussion. But no, delaying that agreement does not mean that withdrawal of troops is being delayed.
Do you now see what nonsense you’re spouting?
See my post above. The Logan Act doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Why would he want to? The Iraqis are already in “Here’s your hat, there’s the door, hello, you must be going” mode. The Bushiviks have done and are doing their level best to talk them out of it, but no sale so far. If there is any effective pressure from anyone to delay the withdrawal, its coming from the Bushiviks, because, you know, they can actually issue orders and stuff. That whole CinC, deciderer thing…
So whats to gain for Obama? Does he want to delay troop withdrawal until he can appoint Jane Fonda Sec of Defense? Whats in it for him?
No, I AM saying that Obama attempted to delay the process. And I backed it up. Had Obama’s meddling been successful he would have delayed it 6 months on the US side and then it would have had to go through the Iraqi assembly and they have elections coming up.
Obama wants to take credit for the troop withdrawal which is part of his platform.
No, you haven’t backed it up, because you are taking snippets out of context and you don’t understand whatsoever what is actually being discussed. You don’t even seem to understand that there is not today any such agreement, as you are implying that Obama’s “meddling” was unsuccessful.
US troop withdrawals are not contingent upon Iraqi assent. Nothing has been or would be delayed. As I’ve said, there’s been five BCTs withdrawn from Iraq this year without an agreement. The pullout of another 9,000 troops has been ordered without an agreement. How do you explain that?
The US could order the entire fucking Army out of Iraq tomorrow without an agreement. The absence of an agreement doesn’t tie anyone’s hands for putting more troops into Iraq, keeping force levels stable, or pulling more troops out of Iraq.
The relevance of when US troops quit Iraq to the discussed agreement has to do with what assumptions are being made for how to deal with security threats to Iraq in the long term.
And if you had bothered to read my citation from a highly respected, non-partisan institution (which was provided in my first post in this thread), you’d understand this. Instead you rely on selective reading, willful ignorance, political bias, and colorful text to make an utterly absurd partisan argument.
Complete head in the sand denial. You’ve provided nothing, absolutely nothing in defense of Obama. And yet you keep posting.
Yeah, it’s funny… almost as though he didn’t need defending from utter horseshit!
Yet another rebutal with nothing in it. I brought a cite from Obama’s Spokeswoman which verified the op cite of a Foreign Minister. The response to that was a denial that it involved negotiations of troop withdrawals for which I provided a cite that it did, in fact, involve negotiations of troop withdrawals.
From there it devolved into an argument that the negotiations were irrelevant with a flippant remark: “The US could order the entire fucking Army out of Iraq tomorrow without an agreement.” Which is in direct conflict with the statements made by Zebari who doesn’t want the process delayed. These were important negotiations and Obama wanted to delay them.
The thread is specifically “Did Obama try to delay US troop withdrawal from Iraq?”
You’ve presented a big zero in the way of any realistic substantial evidence to support a yes on that question.
The article you’re quoting now says they’re shooting for 2011 and they still can’t agree, while Obama is shooting for 2010. Hardly a delay is it? Obama may have been suggesting that waiting for a new administration might make negotiations easier, but there’s zero evidence he was trying to delay troop withdrawal. That’s zero as in none, goose egg, nada, nothing. You can try to infer something else but you’ll have to do it without supporting evidence.
Wow! Absolutely no argument offered to refute Raveman’s position. It may be true that nothing is “proved” but when it comes to evidence and a logical argument Raveman wins by a mile.
I think the point was and the evidence shows that Obama could not slow down troop withdrawal if the current adimin decided to do it. You got nothing and I’m sure you won’t admit it. Have fun with semantics and posturing.
That doesn’t make any sense. Obama asked that negotiations be delayed 6 months. If you read the original post you would have seen that by doing this it would have landed in the middle of Iraqi elections which would have slowed it down even more.
The UN mandate ends this year and these negotiations are necessary to continue the process. For the Cindy Sheehan crowd who thought the Democrats were actually going to walk away from Iraq the reality of the situation came out in the campaigns. We will not be pulling out like Obama originally touted. The post war process of withdrawing troops requires an orderly, negotiated program, which Obama attempted to delay. Fortunately his attempt failed.
You know that ship, the USS Constitution, old Revolutionary War era frigate, you know, they called her “Old Ironsides”? You know why? Because in battle, the British would fire thier biggest, baddest cannon at “Old Ironsides”, which was made of seasoned oak, and the cannonballs would just bounce off, not even leave a dent or a mark, like they were Nerf balls or something… Absolutly impenetrable and impervious!
Don’t know what made me think of that…
Simple question: so do you believe that once the UN mandate expires, and if there never is an agreement between Iraq and the US, that US troops will be prohibited from ever leaving Iraq?
Yet another great rebuttal with no information. Why don’t you post your favorite poem.
Lets try another approach. If what you say is true, and so perfectly obvious to even the meanest intelligence…why so little airplay on it? I mean, something like this would blow Obama right ouf of the water (if it were true). Where’s all the pinched sphincters on this, your Rush, your Hannity, your O’Reilly? Have they too much good taste? Too circumspect, don’t want to be rude? Too nice? Do they cringe in fear of the vengeance from Daily Kos and Move On?
Isn’t the simplest explanation that you’ve been had? But good?
While I was enjoying watching this conversation unfold, this thread had boiled down to** Magiver **putting his or her fingers in his or her ears and saying “lalalalalala…I can’t hear youuuuuuu…lalalalala”…