[quote]
We have a situation that two presidents, one Republican and one Democrat, failed to correctly handle, to literally the exact same effect.[/quote]
…and all of the other evidence I’ve offered in unconditional proof of the [b]fact[/b] --fact, as in fact, as in f-a-c-t, as in “it happened,” as in, “I have proved that it happened”–that both Bush and Obama tried and failed to negotiate a remnant American security force in Iraq, with each of them winning the concession of exactly nothing.
Or don’t, in which case my purpose in this thread has been satisfied.[/quote]
Only the sitting president can make decisions about troops deployment, not the former one.[/quote]
There were two sitting presidents. Both of them tried to secure the provision of a remnant security force in Iraq. Both of them failed. It does not get any simpler.
Disprove something in the previous paragraph, or accept it for the reality that it is.
Yes it’s true the Iraqis didn’t accept Obama’s terms. My contention is that Obama didn’t really want them to. Obama needed a withdrawal for his second term election. Mr Nobel Peace Prize ran on a “I ended the war” platform. That was his rhetoric and spin. And pulling out of Iraq was an essential component of that narrative.[/quote]
But my challenge is that this contention requires proof in order to be accepted here. It cannot simply be a “hunch.” Well, it can, but it is then a personal speculation, not a good peg on which to hang an argument in debate.
If Obama really hadn’t wanted any troops to remain, why make the offer at all?[/quote]
Because there were many in the military, in his administration and across the floor who wanted it. And he also needed an out so when the shit hit the fan he could say “hey, I tried but the Iraqis wouldn’t play ball” - which is precisely what he’s doing now.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
So, claim: Both Bush and Obama sought the concession of a remnant American security force in Iraq beyond December, 2011, and both Bush and Obama failed to that end.
Accepted, or rejected?[/quote]
Obama made a pretence of seeking it.[/quote]
Do you have any direct evidence which proves that Obama did not intend to supply the troops he was offering in the summer of 2011?
Because there were many in the military, in his administration and across the floor who wanted it. And he also needed an out so when the shit hit the fan he could say “hey, I tried but the Iraqis wouldn’t play ball” - which is precisely what he’s doing now.[/quote]
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
So, claim: Both Bush and Obama sought the concession of a remnant American security force in Iraq beyond December, 2011, and both Bush and Obama failed to that end.
Accepted, or rejected?[/quote]
Obama made a pretence of seeking it.[/quote]
Do you have any direct evidence which proves that Obama did not intend to supply the troops he was offering in the summer of 2011?
[/quote]
It wasn’t a case of him intending to not supply troops. It was a case of him not applying sufficient pressure on the Iraqis to accept them.
[quote]
We have a situation that two presidents, one Republican and one Democrat, failed to correctly handle, to literally the exact same effect.[/quote]
…and all of the other evidence I’ve offered in unconditional proof of the [b]fact[/b] --fact, as in fact, as in f-a-c-t, as in “it happened,” as in, “I have proved that it happened”–that both Bush and Obama tried and failed to negotiate a remnant American security force in Iraq, with each of them winning the concession of exactly nothing.
Or don’t, in which case my purpose in this thread has been satisfied.[/quote]
Only the sitting president can make decisions about troops deployment, not the former one.[/quote]
There were two sitting presidents. Both of them tried to secure the provision of a remnant security force in Iraq. Both of them failed. It does not get any simpler.
Disprove something in the previous paragraph, or accept it for the reality that it is.[/quote]
Disprove to me that current, not former presidents make decisions on troop deployment.
And the fact that obama failed to do get something vitally important done is not a shock to me at all.
Just for the sake of accuracy, this is what I came in to refute:
[quote]pat wrote:
Obama really, seriously fucked up this time. The pull out was his idea and it has blown up in his face. [/quote]
Since Pat wrote this, we have learned that:
Bush tried to negotiate a remnant security force, failed, and signed an agreement prescribing a complete withdrawal by December 2011.
Obama, in a bid to re-negotiate Bush’s agreement with the addition of a remnant security force (as Bush had originally wanted), discussed with Maliki in the summer of 2011 an agreement of up to 10,000 and as few 3,500 American troops. Exactly as Bush had, Obama failed, and we followed the withdrawal timeline signed in Bush’s SOFA–a timeline that both Bush and Obama offered to nix in favor of a provision for a stay-behind force that would have had direct impact on Iraq’s current situation.
Unless somebody can prove that any of this was misreported–by AP, by the NYT, by the WSJ, by the WashPost, by the National Journal, by Huffpo, by Reuters, by AFP–or that there is some evidence, of which the rest of us are not aware, proving that it was Obama’s plan not to supply the troops he offered to Maliki in 2011, my work here is done.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
So, claim: Both Bush and Obama sought the concession of a remnant American security force in Iraq beyond December, 2011, and both Bush and Obama failed to that end.
Accepted, or rejected?[/quote]
Obama made a pretence of seeking it.[/quote]
Do you have any direct evidence which proves that Obama did not intend to supply the troops he was offering in the summer of 2011?
[/quote]
It wasn’t a case of him intending to not supply troops. It was a case of him not applying sufficient pressure on the Iraqis to accept them.
[/quote]
As it was with Bush, yes?
If you don’t get it, you didn’t apply enough pressure.
Disprove to me that current, not former presidents make decisions on troop deployment.[/quote]
Nobody, and I mean nobody, has argued or implied anything to the contrary. That doesn’t change anything about my having been provably correct, and you having been provably incorrect, throughout the entirety of this disagreement. Please see the scores of pieces of direct evidence that I’ve offered on this subject, and, for a summary, my last post wherein I quoted your original misstatement. Also, please note that nobody who understands these things is still pursuing the “well, he could have just ignored the SOFA” line of reasoning. His options were to re-negotiate, or abide. He tried the former and failed at the same sticking point as did Bush, and then he did the latter (as with Bush).
[quote]
And the fact that obama failed to do get something vitally important done is not a shock to me at all. [/quote]
Does it shock you that Bush failed to get the same vitally important thing done?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
So, claim: Both Bush and Obama sought the concession of a remnant American security force in Iraq beyond December, 2011, and both Bush and Obama failed to that end.
Accepted, or rejected?[/quote]
Obama made a pretence of seeking it.[/quote]
Do you have any direct evidence which proves that Obama did not intend to supply the troops he was offering in the summer of 2011?
[/quote]
It wasn’t a case of him intending to not supply troops. It was a case of him not applying sufficient pressure on the Iraqis to accept them.
[/quote]
As it was with Bush, yes?
If you don’t get it, you didn’t apply enough pressure.[/quote]
It’s apparent that Obama didn’t try to apply pressure. He left it to the last minute then went through a charade. He wanted out. Everything points to that. The fact that Bush ran out of time is immaterial to Obama’s subsequent handling of the situation.
It’s apparent that Obama didn’t try to apply pressure. He left it to the last minute then went through a charade. He wanted out. Everything points to that. The fact that Bush ran out of time is immaterial to Obama’s subsequent handling of the situation.[/quote]
You are making ridiculous excuses. I have already refuted the timing thing. Bush negotiated for 9 1/4 months at most, whereas Obama negotiated for 7 at least, and he began at Bush’s sticking point. I.e., he had a hell of a lot less to get through before coming to the point of contention between Maliki and the U.S.
They both tried, they both failed. But somehow, one of them couldn’t help it, whereas the other could? I don’t think so.
Edit: And what you wrote above does not constitute evidence. It’s a guy’s interpretation of some things. I’m taking about what can be proved, and what cannot be proved, in debate.
It’s apparent that Obama didn’t try to apply pressure. He left it to the last minute then went through a charade. He wanted out. Everything points to that. The fact that Bush ran out of time is immaterial to Obama’s subsequent handling of the situation.[/quote]
You are making ridiculous excuses. I have already refuted the timing thing. Bush negotiated for 9 1/4 months at most, whereas Obama negotiated for 7 at least, and he began at Bush’s sticking point. I.e., he had a hell of a lot less to get through before coming to the point of contention between Maliki and the U.S.
They both tried, they both failed. But somehow, one of them couldn’t help it, whereas the other could? I don’t think so.
Edit: And what you wrote above does not constitute evidence. It’s a guy’s interpretation of some things. I’m taking about what can be proved, and what cannot be proved, in debate.[/quote]
Herein lies the difference: Bush signed because he ran out of time in respect to his term of office - he passed the ball to Obama. Obama should have continued the process immediately. He had three years to negotiate terms but left it to halfway through 2011.
Herein lies the difference: Bush signed because he ran out of time in respect to his term of office - he passed the ball to Obama. Obama should have continued the process immediately. He had three years to negotiate terms but left it to halfway through 2011.[/quote]
So–Bush starts negotiations 9 months before he’s going to run out of time, and then he runs out of time: Hip hip hurray for Bush.
Obama starts 7 months* before he’s going to run out of time and he starts from Bush’s sticking point: Bad Obama, bad bad Obama.
*At least. I haven’t gone hunting for anything before the June 2 video call, but I don’t know that there isn’t anything.
So–Bush starts negotiations 9 months before he’s going to run out of time, and then he runs out of time: Hip hip hurray for Bush.
[/quote]
Bush started three years and nine months before the proposed withdrawal. Obama then did nothing for the next two and a half years. Therein lies the difference.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, Bush had since May 20, 2006 to deal with Maliki on the future of the American forces that Bush put in Iraq. And he didn’t deliver.[/quote]
2006 was the height of the insurgency. You don’t start negotiating a withdrawal till the country is stabilised.
It’s apparent that Obama didn’t try to apply pressure. He left it to the last minute then went through a charade. He wanted out. Everything points to that. The fact that Bush ran out of time is immaterial to Obama’s subsequent handling of the situation.[/quote]
You are making ridiculous excuses. I have already refuted the timing thing. Bush negotiated for 9 1/4 months at most, whereas Obama negotiated for 7 at least, and he began at Bush’s sticking point. I.e., he had a hell of a lot less to get through before coming to the point of contention between Maliki and the U.S.
They both tried, they both failed. But somehow, one of them couldn’t help it, whereas the other could? I don’t think so.
Edit: And what you wrote above does not constitute evidence. It’s a guy’s interpretation of some things. I’m taking about what can be proved, and what cannot be proved, in debate.[/quote]
Herein lies the difference: Bush signed because he ran out of time in respect to his term of office - he passed the ball to Obama. Obama should have continued the process immediately. He had three years to negotiate terms but left it to halfway through 2011.[/quote]
Diplomacy isn’t a continuous, unbroken process. Negotiations broke down in 2008. It’s not unordinary in diplomatic history that it took roughly 3 year for the parties to return to the bargaining table. In fact, 3 years is a relatively short amount of time for such a security agreement to come back onto the agenda.
Gentlemen, at this point, does it really matter whether the Scarecrow or the Cowardly Lion deserves more blame for the rapid irruptions of flying monkeys?
Meanwhile, Vlad Putin called up Maliki to say “don’t worry, Comrade, Russia’s got your back”, while Iran snidely remarked that the U.S. just doesn’t have the sack to deal with the problem.
So–Bush starts negotiations 9 months before he’s going to run out of time, and then he runs out of time: Hip hip hurray for Bush.
[/quote]
Bush started three years and nine months before the proposed withdrawal. Obama then did nothing for the next two and a half years. Therein lies the difference.
[/quote]
The withdrawal was created in the negotiations. Bush didn’t start negotiating three years before it–he set it, after starting. And in setting it, he also signed his name to the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces. Because he failed to get anything better. Not because he ran out of time–he had years to try to fix the mess he made in Iraq. Not because he just couldn’t–he had the same opportunity as had Obama. He just failed. Just like Obama.