. . . no definition of the concept of sovereignty.
John Mace leaves out much of the context of Obama’s fare thee well to Iraq speech in December 2011.
Here’s more of it:
Obama said:
Now, Iraq is not a perfect place.
It has many challenges ahead.
leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.
Which one of those statements was a lie or Obama not knowing what was going on?
It is certainly true that the events this past week are a challenge.
Iraq has been certainly more stable not perfect or without challenges in that the elected government has remained in power since Obama used that phrase.
Not so in Ukraine last February when that democratically elected government was overthrown by violent mobs and riots and secessionist states burning down government buildings and the like.
Now the Iraqis face a big challenge - but John Mace gives us two choices about Obama - he is a liar or clueless for pointing out tremendous improvement in Iraq compared to earlier years when US troops were in the middle of the quagmire.
Is that what is happening now? A “challenge”? Well, that’s completely different then!!
It’s merely a “challenge”. Like a playground pick-up basketball game!!
I gave you 3 choices, and I told you the 3rd one was most likely. Yet another thing you’ve gotten wrong. Not that anyone is keeping track.
Ahead of his meeting at the White House, Senate Democratic leader Reid said the U.S. had no business sending American troops into what he called Iraq’s civil war.
I agree 100%. But someone needs to tell Reid that this isn’t a civil war, it’s “a challenge”.
Obama prefaced his remarks in 2011 regarding the stability of Iraq at that time by saying there would be challenges ahead. I’m quite certain that a civil war will definitely be a challenge to the government of Iraq. Therefore Obama did not lie about what was to come.
it is a knee-jerk reaction to call the president a liar for predicting there will be challenges ahead.
What started? Is that when you jumped on the bandwagon to advise people that Obama has to be either a liar or clueless about what was going on in Iraq in December 2011?
Calling Obama a liar or clueless is an interesting way to support a president that did what you claim you wanted him to do.
You want to call a politician a liar, why not apply it to this one:
Our leaders cooked up a lie to sell us on a war they absolutely wanted for some reason. I wish I knew that reason. There’s a thousand different theories. I can’t help feel that personal distaste for Saddam and oil were involved.
Only the fool at the poker table believes it had anything to do with a legitimate existential threat to the United States, or some misguided aim to “spread democracy.” He will get taken every time.
Google civil war + Lincoln + challenge. And what do you get?
So what? When our elected government does something in our name and then gets re-elected, “we” did it.
And by people who don’t want some foreign power exploiting or attacking them.
No. The goal was to remove Saddam and install a puppet government, and to turn Iraq into a colony of the US and a base for further expansion in the region. America never had (and never does have) any interest in democracy or in liberating anyone. And most Iraqis are less free now, not more. And plenty are just dead.
No, it was a stated goal of the Project for a New American Century people whose plans largely drove the war and occupation, and something that we didn’t put much effort into hiding. We built far larger and more permanent military bases and the like than if we’d ever intended to leave.
No; we conquered it. We just weren’t willing to hang on to it when it the occupation wasn’t as easy and profitable as we thought it would be.
Your own words explain the reality . We invaded and occupied but failed very much to conquer. We have the military capacity to conquer a place like Iraq - if we had been true conquerors. We are willing to kill and subdue as a true conquerer would do.
No, conquest means that you’ve overcome a place and occupied it, not that there’s no resistance. Plenty of conquered regions engage in resistance off and on indefinitely.
Keep digging. That’s what you’re good at!
Amusing, though as far as I know most of them were for staying in Iraq for the indefinite future. McCain said we could stay for 100 years and made analogies to our permanent bases in Germany, Japan, South Korea, or countless bases around the rest of the ME.
And it looks like he was basically right, as far as “stability” goes. Obviously the electorate wasn’t thrilled about that prospect. I look forward to bombing more green cities in the future.
Speaking about Senstor John McCain:
He isn’t right as far as “stability” goes either. The principle that applies today applied the day the last US combat soldier left Iraq. The US should not fight for one side in a religious driven civil war.
McCain is wrong, Petraeus is right:
Petraeus issues warning on Iraq: U.S. can not be ‘the air force for Shia militias’
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/18/petraeus-issues-warning-iraq-us-can-not-be-air-for/
What has happened recently that wouid make Obama a liar or ignorant back in 2011 to say that he was leaving a stable and capable Iraqi Defense Force behind?
Does anyone believe John Mace was not referring to ‘what is happening now’ when he asked:
At the end of his second term, President Bush’s Ambassador negotiated a Status of Forces Agreementwith Prime Minister Maliki’s government. It delayed withdrawal from December 31, 2008 to December 31, 2011.
Iraq demanded, and was given, “jurisdiction over members of the United States Forces and of the civilian component for grave premeditated felonies.” “Jurisdiction over United States contractors and United States contractor employees” was also given.
These concessions were made because there was friction with the Iraqi government over a string of incidents involving Blackwater USA, a security firm contracted to protect diplomatic personnel. One of its agents reportedly killed the Iraqi Vice President’s security guard. He was quickly flown out of the country.
excerpt from House Oversight Committee memo
"On December 25 , the day after the shooting of the guard, Blackwater terminated the contractor from the State Department contract based on its policy against possessing a firearm while intoxicated. That same day, only hours after the shooting, Blackwater arranged to have the contractor flown out of lraq. The State Department was informed of Blackwater’s arrangements for the contractor and received a copy of his itinerary. On the morning of December 26, less than 36 hours after the killing, Blackwater transported the contractor to Baghdad Intemational Airport, from which he flew to Jordan, and then back to the United States.”
(Off topic but interesting: Richard J Griffin, the Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security was responsible for oversight on the operations conducted by Blackwater USA. He approved the evacuation of the security guard who was accused of homicide. In November 2007, Griffin resigned over the incident. A year later, Bush appointed him to the position of Deputy VA Inspector General. That’s where he remains though he rose to Acting VA Inspector General. People died under his watch twice, in two separate positions. Anyway . . .)
When Bush went to Iraq in December 2008, to sign the SOFA, he was greeted with a flying shoe.
President Obama’s negotiators met with Maliki in 2011 to renew the SOFA with diplomatic immunity for American personnel but the Iraqis still wanted jurisdiction in the event of any criminal activity that might be committed. Rather than make the same deal as Bush, he brought the last of the combat troops home.
John Mace opines that Obama “either lied to us or didn’t know what he was talking about” referring to 2011 when announcing that all US Troops would be pulled out of Iraq.
Nearly three years have passed since Obama supposedly lied because he knew that there were no capable Iraqi Defense Forces functioning in Iraq in 2011. Here is what John Mace specifically said.
But John Mace is now suggesting that his statement (above) is not saying that Obama should have seen this attack coming.
But how can that be. In Mace world it would have to be that an attack of this magnitude would have to be foreseen by Obama in 2011 to be accused of lying for saying the Iraqi troops were capable to counter such an attack without US troops remaining in Iraq beyond the 2011 date.
Obama actually used the term “self-reliant” in 2011 as he said we were leaving behind a ‘self-reliant’ Iraqi government.
Mace pretty much supplies the proof that Obama in 2011 needed to foresee some kind of test of the Iraqi government’s self-reliance in order for Mace to be accurate in proclaiming ‘after the test came’ that Obama lied in any way back in 2011.
This is for the record since Mace has indicated he will not counter this phase of the argument.
It is my view that he has no way to counter it and has lost interest in defending this statement that he made:
“But Obama told us all that he was pulling everyone out and that he was leaving a stable and capable Iraqi Defense Force behind. So, he either lied to us or didn’t know what he was talking about.” -John Mace
What are you quoting here?
It seems that Congress was of a different mind about the matter:
sponsored by Mitch McConnell
Sec. 612. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used by the Government of the United States to enter into an agreement with the Government of Iraq that would subject members of the Armed Forces of the United States to the jurisdiction of Iraq criminal courts or punishment under Iraq law.
sponsored by Nita Lowey
Sec. 612. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this division may be used by the Government of the United States to enter into an agreement with the Government of Iraq that would subject members of the Armed Forces of the United States to the jurisdiction of Iraq criminal courts or punishment under Iraq law.