Obama - changing his tune and the talking points,,,,,,,,,,,

[Tigermike 3,425]

Is he the real Teflon President?

President Obama took credit in 2012 for withdrawing all troops from Iraq. Today he said something different.

President Obama surprised a few people during a news conference Thursday by claiming that the 2011 decision to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq, a politically popular move on the eve of an election year, was made entirely by his Iraqi counterpart. The implication ran counter to a number of claims that Obama has made in the past, most notably during a tight campaign season two years ago, when he suggested that it was his decision to leave Iraq and end an unpopular war.

His remarks, coming as an Islamist insurgency seizes territory across northern Iraq and threatens the central government, recalled key moments in his reelection race when he called his opponent hopelessly out of step with Middle East realities for wanting to keep U.S. forces in the still-fragile country America had invaded nearly a decade earlier.

In the 2012 campaign’s stretch, Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney met inside the performing arts center of Lynn University for the last of three presidential debates. The race remained close, and in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission and CIA-run annex in Benghazi, Libya, the Romney team saw foreign policy as an area of potential vulnerability for the incumbent. The debate focused on the issue.

For much of that election year, Obama had included a line of celebration in his standard stump speech, one that among an electorate exhausted by more than a decade of war always drew a rousing applause: “Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq,” Obama proclaimed in Bowling Green, Ohio, in September 2012, and did nearly every day after until the election. “We did.”

For Obama, who four years earlier had distinguished himself from Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton through his opposition to the war in Iraq, the fact he had withdrawn all U.S. forces from the country was a problem solved and a political chip to be cashed in come November.

It was also a way to once again draw contrasts with Romney, who criticized Obama for failing to secure a so-called status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government. The agreement would have granted immunity from Iraqi prosecution to all U.S. troops in country after 2011. Reaching such a deal -- a political risk for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- would have allowed a contingent of several thousand U.S. troops to remain, largely to help with training and specific counter-terrorism operations.

"With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should be a status of forces agreement," Romney told Obama as the two convened on the Lynn University campus in Boca Raton, Fla., that October evening. "That’s not true," Obama interjected. “Oh, you didn't want a status of forces agreement?” Romney asked as an argument ensued. “No,” Obama said. “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”

On Thursday, Obama addressed reporters in the White House Briefing Room about Iraq’s latest crisis. “Do you wish you had left a residual force in Iraq? Any regrets about that decision in 2011?” a reporter asked. “Well, keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me,” Obama said. “That was a decision made by the Iraqi government.” (True, but only because the Obama administration had engineered it to be that way. They knew how all of our other Status of Forces Agreements were done and deliberately included conditions and a step that was unnecessary that all but guaranteed rejection by the Iraqi government.)

In that same foreign policy debate, Obama scolded Romney -- for failing to state his position in a way voters could understand. “Here’s one thing … I’ve learned as commander in chief,” Obama said. “You’ve got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean."

link

Here's a piece from October 2011 to give things a little context.

Obama's Tragic Iraq Withdrawal

The president says we're leaving because of Iraqi intransigence—but he never took negotiations seriously.

By

Max Boot

October 31, 2011

Quite simply it was a matter of will: President Bush really wanted to get a deal done, whereas Mr. Obama did not. Mr. Bush spoke weekly with Mr. Maliki by video teleconference. Mr. Obama had not spoken with Mr. Maliki for months before calling him in late October to announce the end of negotiations. Mr. Obama and his senior aides did not even bother to meet with Iraqi officials at the United Nations General Assembly in September.

The administration didn’t even open talks on renewing the Status of Forces Agreement until this summer, a few months before U.S. troops would have to start shuttering their remaining bases to pull out by Dec. 31. The previous agreement, in 2008, took a year to negotiate.

The recent negotiations were jinxed from the start by the insistence of State Department and Pentagon lawyers that any immunity provisions be ratified by the Iraqi parliament—something that the U.S. hadn’t insisted on in 2008 and that would be almost impossible to get today. In many other countries, including throughout the Arab world, U.S. personnel operate under a Memorandum of Understanding that doesn’t require parliamentary ratification. Why not in Iraq? Mr. Obama could have chosen to override the lawyers’ excessive demands, but he didn’t.

He also undercut his own negotiating team by regularly bragging—in political speeches delivered while talks were ongoing—of his plans to “end” the “war in Iraq.” Even more damaging was his August decision to commit only 3,000 to 5,000 troops to a possible mission in Iraq post-2011. This was far below the number judged necessary by our military commanders. They had asked for nearly 20,000 personnel to carry out counterterrorist operations, support American diplomats, and provide training and support to the Iraqi security forces. That figure was whittled down by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 10,000, which they judged to be the absolute minimum needed.

The Iraqis knew about these estimates: U.S. military commanders had communicated them directly to Iraqi leaders. Prime Minister Maliki was said (by those who had talked to him) to privately support such a troop commitment, and almost all Iraqi political leaders—representing every major faction except for the rabidly anti-American Sadrists—assented on Aug. 2 to opening negotiations on that basis.

When the White House then said it would consent to no more than 5,000 troops—a number that may not even have been able to adequately defend itself, much less carry out other missions—the Iraqis understandably figured that the U.S. wasn’t serious about a continued commitment. Iraqi political leaders may have been willing to risk a domestic backlash to support a substantial commitment of 10,000 or more troops. They were not willing to stick their necks out for such a puny force. Hence the breakdown of talks.

link

The talks on SOFA broke down which gave Obama a reason to “end the war” and to blame the breakdown on Iraq and Iraq’s government. Worked out perfect didn't it?

Except for the people being killed in Iraq.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Is he the real Teflon President?

President Obama took credit in 2012 for withdrawing all troops from Iraq. Today he said something different.

President Obama surprised a few people during a news conference Thursday by claiming that the 2011 decision to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq, a politically popular move on the eve of an election year, was made entirely by his Iraqi counterpart. The implication ran counter to a number of claims that Obama has made in the past, most notably during a tight campaign season two years ago, when he suggested that it was his decision to leave Iraq and end an unpopular war.

His remarks, coming as an Islamist insurgency seizes territory across northern Iraq and threatens the central government, recalled key moments in his reelection race when he called his opponent hopelessly out of step with Middle East realities for wanting to keep U.S. forces in the still-fragile country America had invaded nearly a decade earlier.

In the 2012 campaign’s stretch, Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney met inside the performing arts center of Lynn University for the last of three presidential debates. The race remained close, and in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission and CIA-run annex in Benghazi, Libya, the Romney team saw foreign policy as an area of potential vulnerability for the incumbent. The debate focused on the issue.

For much of that election year, Obama had included a line of celebration in his standard stump speech, one that among an electorate exhausted by more than a decade of war always drew a rousing applause: “Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq,” Obama proclaimed in Bowling Green, Ohio, in September 2012, and did nearly every day after until the election. “We did.”

For Obama, who four years earlier had distinguished himself from Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton through his opposition to the war in Iraq, the fact he had withdrawn all U.S. forces from the country was a problem solved and a political chip to be cashed in come November.

It was also a way to once again draw contrasts with Romney, who criticized Obama for failing to secure a so-called status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government. The agreement would have granted immunity from Iraqi prosecution to all U.S. troops in country after 2011. Reaching such a deal -- a political risk for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- would have allowed a contingent of several thousand U.S. troops to remain, largely to help with training and specific counter-terrorism operations.

"With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should be a status of forces agreement," Romney told Obama as the two convened on the Lynn University campus in Boca Raton, Fla., that October evening. "That’s not true," Obama interjected. “Oh, you didn't want a status of forces agreement?” Romney asked as an argument ensued. “No,” Obama said. “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”

On Thursday, Obama addressed reporters in the White House Briefing Room about Iraq’s latest crisis. “Do you wish you had left a residual force in Iraq? Any regrets about that decision in 2011?” a reporter asked. “Well, keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me,” Obama said. “That was a decision made by the Iraqi government.” (True, but only because the Obama administration had engineered it to be that way. They knew how all of our other Status of Forces Agreements were done and deliberately included conditions and a step that was unnecessary that all but guaranteed rejection by the Iraqi government.)

In that same foreign policy debate, Obama scolded Romney -- for failing to state his position in a way voters could understand. “Here’s one thing … I’ve learned as commander in chief,” Obama said. “You’ve got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean."

link

Here's a piece from October 2011 to give things a little context.

Obama's Tragic Iraq Withdrawal

The president says we're leaving because of Iraqi intransigence—but he never took negotiations seriously.

By

Max Boot

October 31, 2011

Quite simply it was a matter of will: President Bush really wanted to get a deal done, whereas Mr. Obama did not. Mr. Bush spoke weekly with Mr. Maliki by video teleconference. Mr. Obama had not spoken with Mr. Maliki for months before calling him in late October to announce the end of negotiations. Mr. Obama and his senior aides did not even bother to meet with Iraqi officials at the United Nations General Assembly in September.

The administration didn’t even open talks on renewing the Status of Forces Agreement until this summer, a few months before U.S. troops would have to start shuttering their remaining bases to pull out by Dec. 31. The previous agreement, in 2008, took a year to negotiate.

The recent negotiations were jinxed from the start by the insistence of State Department and Pentagon lawyers that any immunity provisions be ratified by the Iraqi parliament—something that the U.S. hadn’t insisted on in 2008 and that would be almost impossible to get today. In many other countries, including throughout the Arab world, U.S. personnel operate under a Memorandum of Understanding that doesn’t require parliamentary ratification. Why not in Iraq? Mr. Obama could have chosen to override the lawyers’ excessive demands, but he didn’t.

He also undercut his own negotiating team by regularly bragging—in political speeches delivered while talks were ongoing—of his plans to “end” the “war in Iraq.” Even more damaging was his August decision to commit only 3,000 to 5,000 troops to a possible mission in Iraq post-2011. This was far below the number judged necessary by our military commanders. They had asked for nearly 20,000 personnel to carry out counterterrorist operations, support American diplomats, and provide training and support to the Iraqi security forces. That figure was whittled down by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 10,000, which they judged to be the absolute minimum needed.

The Iraqis knew about these estimates: U.S. military commanders had communicated them directly to Iraqi leaders. Prime Minister Maliki was said (by those who had talked to him) to privately support such a troop commitment, and almost all Iraqi political leaders—representing every major faction except for the rabidly anti-American Sadrists—assented on Aug. 2 to opening negotiations on that basis.

When the White House then said it would consent to no more than 5,000 troops—a number that may not even have been able to adequately defend itself, much less carry out other missions—the Iraqis understandably figured that the U.S. wasn’t serious about a continued commitment. Iraqi political leaders may have been willing to risk a domestic backlash to support a substantial commitment of 10,000 or more troops. They were not willing to stick their necks out for such a puny force. Hence the breakdown of talks.

link

The talks on SOFA broke down which gave Obama a reason to “end the war” and to blame the breakdown on Iraq and Iraq’s government. Worked out perfect didn't it?

Except for the people being killed in Iraq.

How much of a difference do you think 10K troops would make?

[Tigermike 3,425]

How much of a difference do you think 10K troops would make?

We will never know but we do know Obama's word isn't worth much and he didn't 'negotiate' in good faith with those people. We also know a lot of them will die because of it. But that's OK isn't it, since they are Muslim's.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

How much of a difference do you think 10K troops would make?

We will never know but we do know Obama's word isn't worth much and he didn't 'negotiate' in good faith with those people. We also know a lot of them will die because of it. But that's OK isn't it, since they are Muslim's.

I wish I could believe you were truly concerned about innocent Iraqis instead of just getting in one of your daily shots at the President .

[Tigermike 3,425]

How much of a difference do you think 10K troops would make?

We will never know but we do know Obama's word isn't worth much and he didn't 'negotiate' in good faith with those people. We also know a lot of them will die because of it. But that's OK isn't it, since they are Muslim's.

I wish I could believe you were truly concerned about innocent Iraqis instead of just getting in one of your daily shots at the President .

What you believe you believe because you want to and not because you have any evidence to think or believe it of me.

But you know what, I hate to see innocent people killed by the butchers taking over now. I hate that the POTUS did this to them. If I'm taking another shot at this president it's because he deserves it. It's because people are dying because of him and his lack of honor or caring of anyone. I hate that he didn't live up to the lofty pretty speech he talked about. But he didn't and now untold numbers of people will die because of his callousness.

[homersapien 11,812]

Now we should start counting the Iraqi dead? Because Obama is POTUS?

[Tigermike 3,425]

Now we should start counting the Iraqi dead? Because Obama is POTUS?

I think you would lose a checker game with a bowl of soup.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

How much of a difference do you think 10K troops would make?

We will never know but we do know Obama's word isn't worth much and he didn't 'negotiate' in good faith with those people. We also know a lot of them will die because of it. But that's OK isn't it, since they are Muslim's.

I wish I could believe you were truly concerned about innocent Iraqis instead of just getting in one of your daily shots at the President .

What you believe you believe because you want to and not because you have any evidence to think or believe it of me.

But you know what, I hate to see innocent people killed by the butchers taking over now. I hate that the POTUS did this to them. If I'm taking another shot at this president it's because he deserves it. It's because people are dying because of him and his lack of honor or caring of anyone. I hate that he didn't live up to the lofty pretty speech he talked about. But he didn't and now untold numbers of people will die because of his callousness.

I have the evidence of what you post . Let's look at your "concerns for the Iraqi people" thread ratio compared to "let's slam the President threads." I wish the archives allowed us to look at your comments regarding the collateral damage triggered by Bush's invasion. You supported those as worth it and didn't even seem too concerned about them. At least be honest with yourself.

[AUUSN 823]

Those pesky SOFA hangups are suddenly no problem with the deployment of "trainers"

[cptau 169]

Those pesky SOFA hangups are suddenly no problem with the deployment of "trainers"

They'll probably give them state department diplomatic immunity, so no worries if a trainer kills a civilian. However that immunity doesn't help against explosions and weapons fire.

[homersapien 11,812]

Those pesky SOFA hangups are suddenly no problem with the deployment of "trainers"

They'll probably give them state department diplomatic immunity, so no worries if a trainer kills a civilian. However that immunity doesn't help against explosions and weapons fire.

I heard (somewhere) they were sent primarily for intelligence. Maybe the CIA didn't have enough "boots"?

Regardless, I don't think a SOFA would be an issue since the government is asking for our help.

[alexava 6,974]

So many times I have referred to innocent Iraqis and heard no compassion, usually the opposite of compassion. Now Obama is killing these poor people himself.

[DKW 86 7,726]

Those pesky SOFA hangups are suddenly no problem with the deployment of "trainers"

Been wondering about that myself. Vietnam started with JFK deploying "advisors."

[DKW 86 7,726]

Those pesky SOFA hangups are suddenly no problem with the deployment of "trainers"

They'll probably give them state department diplomatic immunity, so no worries if a trainer kills a civilian. However that immunity doesn't help against explosions and weapons fire.

I heard (somewhere) they were sent primarily for intelligence. Maybe the CIA didn't have enough "boots"?

Regardless, I don't think a SOFA would be an issue since the government is asking for our help.

So was S Vietnam...

[Tigermike 3,425]

How much of a difference do you think 10K troops would make?

We will never know but we do know Obama's word isn't worth much and he didn't 'negotiate' in good faith with those people. We also know a lot of them will die because of it. But that's OK isn't it, since they are Muslim's.

I wish I could believe you were truly concerned about innocent Iraqis instead of just getting in one of your daily shots at the President .

What you believe you believe because you want to and not because you have any evidence to think or believe it of me.

But you know what, I hate to see innocent people killed by the butchers taking over now. I hate that the POTUS did this to them. If I'm taking another shot at this president it's because he deserves it. It's because people are dying because of him and his lack of honor or caring of anyone. I hate that he didn't live up to the lofty pretty speech he talked about. But he didn't and now untold numbers of people will die because of his callousness.

I have the evidence of what you post . Let's look at your "concerns for the Iraqi people" thread ratio compared to "let's slam the President threads." I wish the archives allowed us to look at your comments regarding the collateral damage triggered by Bush's invasion. You supported those as worth it and didn't even seem too concerned about them. At least be honest with yourself.

I am honest. Yes I did support the decision to go in back then. So did almost everyone. Collateral damage is different from what will be happening now with these guys coming in. You know that so maybe it's you who should be honest. Also you know the point of the thread wasn't Iraqi people being killed and you know that also. It was Mr. Obama changing his tune then and now. Just more people under the Obama bus.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

How much of a difference do you think 10K troops would make?

We will never know but we do know Obama's word isn't worth much and he didn't 'negotiate' in good faith with those people. We also know a lot of them will die because of it. But that's OK isn't it, since they are Muslim's.

I wish I could believe you were truly concerned about innocent Iraqis instead of just getting in one of your daily shots at the President .

What you believe you believe because you want to and not because you have any evidence to think or believe it of me.

But you know what, I hate to see innocent people killed by the butchers taking over now. I hate that the POTUS did this to them. If I'm taking another shot at this president it's because he deserves it. It's because people are dying because of him and his lack of honor or caring of anyone. I hate that he didn't live up to the lofty pretty speech he talked about. But he didn't and now untold numbers of people will die because of his callousness.

I have the evidence of what you post . Let's look at your "concerns for the Iraqi people" thread ratio compared to "let's slam the President threads." I wish the archives allowed us to look at your comments regarding the collateral damage triggered by Bush's invasion. You supported those as worth it and didn't even seem too concerned about them. At least be honest with yourself.

I am honest. Yes I did support the decision to go in back then. So did almost everyone. Collateral damage is different from what will be happening now with these guys coming in. You know that so maybe it's you who should be honest. Also you know the point of the thread wasn't Iraqi people being killed and you know that also. It was Mr. Obama changing his tune then and now. Just more people under the Obama bus.

You be honest. Your feigning outrage that a politician acts like...gasp...a politician.

[Tigermike 3,425]

How much of a difference do you think 10K troops would make?

We will never know but we do know Obama's word isn't worth much and he didn't 'negotiate' in good faith with those people. We also know a lot of them will die because of it. But that's OK isn't it, since they are Muslim's.

I wish I could believe you were truly concerned about innocent Iraqis instead of just getting in one of your daily shots at the President .

What you believe you believe because you want to and not because you have any evidence to think or believe it of me.

But you know what, I hate to see innocent people killed by the butchers taking over now. I hate that the POTUS did this to them. If I'm taking another shot at this president it's because he deserves it. It's because people are dying because of him and his lack of honor or caring of anyone. I hate that he didn't live up to the lofty pretty speech he talked about. But he didn't and now untold numbers of people will die because of his callousness.

I have the evidence of what you post . Let's look at your "concerns for the Iraqi people" thread ratio compared to "let's slam the President threads." I wish the archives allowed us to look at your comments regarding the collateral damage triggered by Bush's invasion. You supported those as worth it and didn't even seem too concerned about them. At least be honest with yourself.

I am honest. Yes I did support the decision to go in back then. So did almost everyone. Collateral damage is different from what will be happening now with these guys coming in. You know that so maybe it's you who should be honest. Also you know the point of the thread wasn't Iraqi people being killed and you know that also. It was Mr. Obama changing his tune then and now. Just more people under the Obama bus.

You be honest. Your feigning outrage that a politician acts like...gasp...a politician.

It's not about me, as much as you want it to be, it's not.

Hellsbelles even WAPO is not accepting the Obama SPIN on this.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

How much of a difference do you think 10K troops would make?

We will never know but we do know Obama's word isn't worth much and he didn't 'negotiate' in good faith with those people. We also know a lot of them will die because of it. But that's OK isn't it, since they are Muslim's.

I wish I could believe you were truly concerned about innocent Iraqis instead of just getting in one of your daily shots at the President .

What you believe you believe because you want to and not because you have any evidence to think or believe it of me.

But you know what, I hate to see innocent people killed by the butchers taking over now. I hate that the POTUS did this to them. If I'm taking another shot at this president it's because he deserves it. It's because people are dying because of him and his lack of honor or caring of anyone. I hate that he didn't live up to the lofty pretty speech he talked about. But he didn't and now untold numbers of people will die because of his callousness.

I have the evidence of what you post . Let's look at your "concerns for the Iraqi people" thread ratio compared to "let's slam the President threads." I wish the archives allowed us to look at your comments regarding the collateral damage triggered by Bush's invasion. You supported those as worth it and didn't even seem too concerned about them. At least be honest with yourself.

I am honest. Yes I did support the decision to go in back then. So did almost everyone. Collateral damage is different from what will be happening now with these guys coming in. You know that so maybe it's you who should be honest. Also you know the point of the thread wasn't Iraqi people being killed and you know that also. It was Mr. Obama changing his tune then and now. Just more people under the Obama bus.

You be honest. Your feigning outrage that a politician acts like...gasp...a politician.

It's not about me, as much as you want it to be, it's not.

Hellsbelles even WAPO is not accepting the Obama SPIN on this.

A politician spins. News at 11.

[Tigermike 3,425]

A politician spins. News at 11.

President Obama took credit in 2012 for withdrawing all troops from Iraq. Today he said something different.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

TT.....you get desperate for substantial comments when backed in a corner.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

TT.....you get desperate for substantial comments when backed in a corner.

I'm not responding to anything substantial. That's my point.

[Tigermike 3,425]

TT.....you get desperate for substantial comments when backed in a corner.

I'm not responding to anything substantial. That's my point.

Obviously you don't have a problem with Mr. Obama's latest attempt at changing history. That's no surprise.

[DKW 86 7,726]

In some circles, everyone is allowed their own opinions...AND FACTS... :-\

[TexasTiger 13,556]

TT.....you get desperate for substantial comments when backed in a corner.

I'm not responding to anything substantial. That's my point.

Obviously you don't have a problem with Mr. Obama's latest attempt at changing history. That's no surprise.

I've just never seen a politician that doesn't spin facts. Doesn't make it at all admirable, of course.

And I don't see you guys getting worked up when Republicans do it - I guess you don't notice that.

[TheBlueVue 177]

TT.....you get desperate for substantial comments when backed in a corner.

I'm not responding to anything substantial. That's my point.

Obviously you don't have a problem with Mr. Obama's latest attempt at changing history. That's no surprise.

I've just never seen a politician that doesn't spin facts. Doesn't make it at all admirable, of course.

And I don't see you guys getting worked up when Republicans do it - I guess you don't notice that.

TT.....you get desperate for substantial comments when backed in a corner.

I'm not responding to anything substantial. That's my point.

Obviously you don't have a problem with Mr. Obama's latest attempt at changing history. That's no surprise.

I've just never seen a politician that doesn't spin facts. Doesn't make it at all admirable, of course.

And I don't see you guys getting worked up when Republicans do it - I guess you don't notice that.

Dont forget a progressive believes that his story can always "evolve", which code for LIE, to fit his immediate needs.