Panetta Unloads On WH.....Again

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

For the second time in a week former DOD Sec. Leon Panetta (Democrat) is critical of Obama. I can't wait for him to tell us what he told Obama on the night of 9/11/12 as to what was going on Benghazi and Obama's response. That will be when the crap hits the fan and, for all practical purposes, the end of the Obama presidency. There on b enough soap in the world to clean all the egg off Dem's faces.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/02/panetta-unloads-on-white-house-over-failure-to-leave-us-forces-in-iraq/

[japantiger 4,051]

There's just not much you can say to this info. Painfully obvious.

[cptau 169]

This administration is incapable of negotiating with anyone. Doesn't surprise me they botched the negotiations with the Iraqis over the SoFA.

[Raven_tiger 5]

Not to mention Obama's position in one of the debates:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/23/barack-obama/obama-romney-said-troops-should-still-be-iraq/

Barack Obama: Mitt Romney said troops should still be in Iraq

By Katie Sanders on Tuesday, October 23rd, 2012 at 5:34 p.m.

President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney sparred during the third presidential debate over how Obama ended the Iraq war, a decision he announced about a year ahead of their final matchup.

The candidates at one point saw eye-to-eye on an exit strategy, Romney said, though they now disagree over Obama’s call to withdraw all troops by the end of 2011.

"With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should be a status of forces agreement," Romney said during the Lynn University debate in Boca Raton, Fla.

Obama cut in, saying, "That’s not true," prompting more cross-talk about the number of troops each wanted to remain and the lack of a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government.

Obama criticized Romney for saying in a speech "just a few weeks ago that you indicated that we should still have troops in Iraq."

"No, I didn’t, I’m sorry -- I indicated that you failed to put in place a status of forces agreement at the end of the conflict --" Romney said before Obama jumped in again.

"Governor, here’s one thing … I’ve learned as commander in chief. You’ve got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean," Obama said. "Now, you just gave a speech a few weeks ago in which you said we should still have troops in Iraq. That is not a recipe for making sure that we are taking advantage of the opportunities and meeting the challenges of the Middle East."

We were interested in Obama’s claim that Romney recently said troops should still be in place in Iraq.

First, we’ll note Romney’s point about how both candidates wanted some troops to remain as part of an agreement with the Iraqi government is fair. Before President George W. Bush left office in 2008, the Iraqi Parliament ratified a pact, or a status of forces agreement, with the U.S. that put the complete withdrawal of troops by the end of 2011.

Still, officials on both sides expected some American troops to remain to help protect and train the Iraqis with security threats to their border, waterways and airspace, the New York Times reported. Over the course of 2011, Obama scaled down the number of troops he thought should be in place to between 3,000 and 5,000.

In the end, the breaking point was not over the size of a remaining force, but over Iraqi officials not wanting to grant American soldiers immunity under Iraqi law.

The result: No combat troops remained in Iraq. About 200 people in the military are there now, and they report to the U.S. ambassador, a U.S. Defense Department spokesman said. This does not include security contractors, for which the spokesman had no estimate.

Some U.S. military officers saw Obama’s Oct. 21, 2011, announcement of a complete withdrawal as him "putting best face on a breakdown in tortured negotiations with the Iraqis," the New York Times reported.

This brings us back to our check: Did Romney say the U.S. should have troops in Iraq to this day?

He has not used those words, but it’s a reasonable inference of his public positions on the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

The Obama campaign directed us to Romney’s remarks on foreign policy at the Virginia Military Institute on Oct. 8, 2012. In that speech, like many times before, Romney criticized Obama for pursuing a total withdrawal from the country instead of securing a residual force.

"In Iraq the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent al-Qaida, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad and the rising influence of Iran," he said. "And yet America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The president’s tried, he tried, but he also failed to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secured our gains."

Romney did not specify in his foreign policy speech what he thought a reasonable residual force would be. But in a December 2011 interview with Fox News, he said "we should have left 10-, 20-, 30,000 personnel there to help transition to the Iraqi's own military capabilities."

We could not find an instance in which Romney said how long troops should have been in place. The main takeaway from the debate exchange, a Romney spokesman said, is Obama did not fulfill his own plan to leave a residual force in Iraq after 2012.

The Obama campaign says it is reasonable to say thousands of troops would still be in place had Romney has his way.

"So those comments -- and with no clear plan forward on Iraq – mean troops would be there right now," wrote Kara Carscaden, Obama campaign spokeswoman, in an email.

Our ruling

According to Obama, Romney said in a recent speech "we should still have troops in Iraq."

In a speech at the Virginia Military Institute, Romney said the United States has been "undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence" and that Obama "failed to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown."

So Romney wanted a sizeable presence of U.S. troops in Iraq past 2011 as part of a status of forces agreement, which the Obama administration sought but did not get with the Iraqi government. The agreement would have been part of an overall drawdown.

We rate Obama’s claim Mostly True.

[TexasTiger 12,849]

I'm never voting for him again...

[Elephant Tipper 430]

I'm never voting for him again...

You're over your quota for him anyway.

[WarTim 3,456]

Leon P. WILL not be invited to any future WH parties. The Truth is not allowed.

[cooltigger21 0]

Panetta is working to help Hillary distance herself from Obama and put herself in the best light possible heading into 2016.

[cooltigger21 0]

I'm never voting for him again...

If he could run again and did you would.

[TheBlueVue 177]

but but but, we could negotiate immunity for our troops. LOL. yeah, we couldn't once BHO refused to take ANY advice provided by the Generals on the ground that total unilateral withdrawal would be a HUGE mistake. They recommended 24K troops with a bare minimum to do the job at 10K so BHO said, we'll offer 5K. That was such a paltry offer Maliki had no incentive to grant immunity. The bottom line is clear. If BHO had wanted to stay a SOF agreement would have been negotiated. He didn't and it wasn't....and now ISIS controls about 1/4 of Iraq. THE END.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I'm never voting for him again...

If he could run again and did you would.

I'm never voting for him again...

If he could run again and did you would.

Like the teen-aged smart ass, tex's only recourse is to make stupid jokes. Its kinda sad to watch, now, the biggest defender of ineptitude on this board has only wise cracks...oh wait, that's all he's ever had. :-\

[AUUSN 823]

Good gosh enough with the Presidential bashing. We get it, he sux! No get to fixing the situation. Get a new AUMF signed, open up the pocketbook and let us get to the business of fixing this mess. Find offsets in the budget to pay for it.

Hopefully this serves as a life lesson for the buffet eating, XBox playing, attention deficit American public that this is the LONG WAR. It will not end in your, your children's or your grandchildren's lifetime.

Get used to it and harden yourself for the long battle.

Who's ready to sign up?

[TheBlueVue 177]

Good gosh enough with the Presidential bashing. We get it, he sux! No get to fixing the situation. Get a new AUMF signed, open up the pocketbook and let us get to the business of fixing this mess. Find offsets in the budget to pay for it.

Hopefully this serves as a life lesson for the buffet eating, XBox playing, attention deficit American public that this is the LONG WAR. It will not end in your, your children's or your grandchildren's lifetime.

Get used to it and harden yourself for the long battle.

Who's ready to sign up?

I agree its been going on since 678 AD. Muhammed, their prophet, spread Islam through coercion ie. force, all the while, beheading Christians and Jews. Something that has had stayng power for almost 1400 years should not have been taken so lightly in the immediate past nor going forward. The reason it wont end is because the end game of Islam is world domination. Deny that if you must but its hard to deny it on the one hand and then on the other say it going to end even in our children's children's lifetime..

[AUUSN 823]

Good gosh enough with the Presidential bashing. We get it, he sux! No get to fixing the situation. Get a new AUMF signed, open up the pocketbook and let us get to the business of fixing this mess. Find offsets in the budget to pay for it.

Hopefully this serves as a life lesson for the buffet eating, XBox playing, attention deficit American public that this is the LONG WAR. It will not end in your, your children's or your grandchildren's lifetime.

Get used to it and harden yourself for the long battle.

Who's ready to sign up?

I agree its been going on since 678 AD. Muhammed, their prophet, spread Islam through coercion ie. force, all the while, beheading Christians and Jews. Something that has had stayng power for almost 1400 years should not have been taken so lightly in the immediate past nor going forward. The reason it wont end is because the end game of Islam is world domination. Deny that if you must but its hard to deny it on the one hand and then on the other say it going to end even in our children's children's lifetime..

WTF are you talking about? When was your last trip to the Middle East? You and I are talking about different applications of the Military IOP.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Good gosh enough with the Presidential bashing. We get it, he sux! No get to fixing the situation. Get a new AUMF signed, open up the pocketbook and let us get to the business of fixing this mess. Find offsets in the budget to pay for it.

Hopefully this serves as a life lesson for the buffet eating, XBox playing, attention deficit American public that this is the LONG WAR. It will not end in your, your children's or your grandchildren's lifetime.

Get used to it and harden yourself for the long battle.

Who's ready to sign up?

I agree its been going on since 678 AD. Muhammed, their prophet, spread Islam through coercion ie. force, all the while, beheading Christians and Jews. Something that has had stayng power for almost 1400 years should not have been taken so lightly in the immediate past nor going forward. The reason it wont end is because the end game of Islam is world domination. Deny that if you must but its hard to deny it on the one hand and then on the other say it going to end even in our children's children's lifetime..

WTF are you talking about? When was your last trip to the Middle East? You and I are talking about different applications of the Military IOP.

I am talking about what I see happening. ..you've been to the ME, good for you. Ive been to Browns Ferry nuclear plant but dont profess to be a nuclear scientist. Im not saying there aren't decent Muslims in the world. What I am saying is that the religion of Islam was created in perversion and continues to be perverted today. Muhammed was a mass murderer and a pedophile and spread his religion via military conquest. That is undeniable historical fact....that same MO will continue among a certain element which, in case you haven't checked lately, is still pretty much waging war by staging terrorists acts world wide. At least we can agree that its not going to be stopped any time soon.

[AUUSN 823]

"Last Friday we had a public event at USIP where we featured Vinya Ariyaratne from Sri Lanka, speaking about Sarvodaya’s efforts to counter Buddhist extremism, Pastor Esther Ibanga from Nigeria who works against Christian and Muslim extremist movements, and Sheikh Abdallah bin Bayyah, a prominent Muslim scholar who recently issued a fatwa against ISIS and spoke eloquently, along with Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, about the Muslim heritage of peaceful treatment to minorities, and the worthlessness of violence. Among the many things Sheikh bin Bayyah said was this: ‘There are some who say justice first, and no peace without justice. But from my perspective, if we say no peace without justice, then given the amount of grievances that we’re dealing with, let’s forget about peace altogether.” It’s true. I recognize there are real grievances that drive people into violent movements — very real issues of injustice. But violence and hate will not bring a solution. It will only fuel more injustice, more grievances, more hate. I see that in Myanmar and Sri Lanka, where I primarily work these days, where Buddhist extremism and violence targeted against the Muslim community has created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Communities that had previously been pacifist are now trending toward violence to protect themselves.

We have to work together. The world is dark right now, the circumstances bleak, but this is just the time when things can turn — when we can wake up, find one another in the darkness, and start struggling toward the inevitable end God promises. Thanks be for the Vinyas, the Sheikh bin Bayyahs, the Pastor Esthers. Their stories are more powerful than the stories of beheadings and rapes and assassinations. I believe that, honestly, because that’s what my faith is about in the end: believing the promise."

http://epistemologicalgap.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/countering/

[AUUSN 823]

Good gosh enough with the Presidential bashing. We get it, he sux! No get to fixing the situation. Get a new AUMF signed, open up the pocketbook and let us get to the business of fixing this mess. Find offsets in the budget to pay for it.

Hopefully this serves as a life lesson for the buffet eating, XBox playing, attention deficit American public that this is the LONG WAR. It will not end in your, your children's or your grandchildren's lifetime.

Get used to it and harden yourself for the long battle.

Who's ready to sign up?

I agree its been going on since 678 AD. Muhammed, their prophet, spread Islam through coercion ie. force, all the while, beheading Christians and Jews. Something that has had stayng power for almost 1400 years should not have been taken so lightly in the immediate past nor going forward. The reason it wont end is because the end game of Islam is world domination. Deny that if you must but its hard to deny it on the one hand and then on the other say it going to end even in our children's children's lifetime..

WTF are you talking about? When was your last trip to the Middle East? You and I are talking about different applications of the Military IOP.

I am talking about what I see happening. ..you've been to the ME, good for you. Ive been to Browns Ferry nuclear plant but dont profess to be a nuclear scientist. Im not saying there aren't decent Muslims in the world. What I am saying is that the religion of Islam was created in perversion and continues to be perverted today. Muhammed was a mass murderer and a pedophile and spread his religion via military conquest. That is undeniable historical fact....that same MO will continue among a certain element which, in case you haven't checked lately, is still pretty much waging war by staging terrorists acts world wide. At least we can agree that its not going to be stopped any time soon.

What you are "seeing" is wrong. I want to kill tards like this:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/10/02/i_am_only_looking_up_to_paradise_french_isis_fighter_islamic_state?utm_content=buffer13a27&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

While AT THE SAME TIME protect peaceful Muslims, a mission we have been executing for more than 30 years!

[TexasTiger 12,849]

I'm never voting for him again...

If he could run again and did you would.

Given the bozo guys like you would likely nominate, yep.

[homersapien 11,370]

I'm never voting for him again...

If he could run again and did you would.

I'm never voting for him again...

If he could run again and did you would.

Like the teen-aged smart ass, tex's only recourse is to make stupid jokes. Its kinda sad to watch, now, the biggest defender of ineptitude on this board has only wise cracks...oh wait, that's all he's ever had. :-\

Gee. And how do you feel about WarTim's contributions?

[TexasTiger 12,849]

Panetta just admitted Maliki was unlikely to ever offer immunity.

[AURaptor 1,122]

I'm never voting for him again...

You would though if you could.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Panetta just admitted Maliki was unlikely to ever offer immunity.

Think he'd offer it NOW ?

A true leader would have found a way to explain it to Maliki that if he played his cards right, he could bring peace to Iraq AND stay in power.

Obama was too busy shootin' hoops, fundraising and playin' golf to actually do the job of President.

[cooltigger21 0]

Panetta just admitted Maliki was unlikely to ever offer immunity.

The agreement we have now is the same one we rejected back then Obama was never going to keep our troops there. People like you would have blown a gasket had he not gotten out. He never wanted us there and he was not going to ever not pull out.

[TexasTiger 12,849]

Panetta just admitted Maliki was unlikely to ever offer immunity.

Think he'd offer it NOW ?

A true leader would have found a way to explain it to Maliki that if he played his cards right, he could bring peace to Iraq AND stay in power.

Obama was too busy shootin' hoops, fundraising and playin' golf to actually do the job of President.

I guess you're admitting the Bush was not a true leader.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Panetta just admitted Maliki was unlikely to ever offer immunity.

Think he'd offer it NOW ?

A true leader would have found a way to explain it to Maliki that if he played his cards right, he could bring peace to Iraq AND stay in power.

Obama was too busy shootin' hoops, fundraising and playin' golf to actually do the job of President.

I guess you're admitting the Bush was not a true leader.

If Obama had a dime and one call, I honestly believe he'd call you tex. You very well might be the last guy standing thats still defnding this ass clown