SOFA so far

[Pudfark]

Obama flip-flops on Iraq: Not having residual forces ‘wasn’t a decision made by me’

During a press conference on Thursday, President Obama maintained American troops will not return to combat in Iraq – even though he is sending 300 “military advisors” to the country on top of the 275 troops deployed last week to provide security at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. The most noteworthy thing Obama said, however, came in response to a question posed by CNN’s Jim Acosta, who pressed the President on his decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011.

ACOSTA: Just real quickly, do you wish you had left a residual force in Iraq? Any regrets about that decision in 2011?

OBAMA: Keep in mind, that wasn’t a decision made by me. That was a decision made by the Iraqi government. We offered a modest residual force to help continue to train and advise Iraqi security forces. We had a core requirement which we require in any situation where we have U.S. troops overseas, and that is that they are provided immunity, since they are being invited by the sovereign government there so that if, for example, they end up acting in self-defense, if they are attacked and find themselves in a tough situation, that they’re not somehow called before a foreign court.

That’s a core requirement that we have for U.S. troop presence anywhere. The Iraqi government and Prime Minister Maliki declined to provide us that immunity. And so I think it is important, though, to recognize that despite that decision, that we have continued to provide them with very intensive advice and support and have continued throughout this process over the last five years to not only offer them our assistance militarily, but we’ve also continued to urge the kinds of political compromises that we think are ultimately necessary in order for them to have a functioning multi-sectarian democracy inside the country.

“It’s staggering the fact that he has, on every issue, never taken responsibility,” Pat said on radio this morning. “He said he has, as he pushes it off and says it is not his responsibility.”

At this point, we have come to understand President Obama has never and will never take responsibility for anything. But it is the media’s failure to point out his blatant flip-flop on this particular issue that is most frustrating.


On October 21, 2011, President Obama held a press briefing to announce the end of the war in Iraq. During his speech, he reiterated his commitment to bringing all of our troops home.

OBAMA: As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end — for the sake of our national security and to strengthen American leadership around the world. After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011.

As Commander-in-Chief, ensuring the success of this strategy has been one of my highest national security priorities. Last year, I announced the end to our combat mission in Iraq. And to date, we’ve removed more than 100,000 troops. Iraqis have taken full responsibility for their country’s security.

A few hours ago I spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. I reaffirmed that the United States keeps its commitments. He spoke of the determination of the Iraqi people to forge their own future. We are in full agreement about how to move forward.
So today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.

About a year later, President Obama doubled down on those remarks:

ROMNEY: Number two, with regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, there should have been a status of forces agreement.

OBAMA: No. What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down, but that certainly would not help us.

“So he calls it untrue,” Pat said. “Then he changes the subject from status of forces to ‘what I wouldn’t do is leave 10,000 troops there.’”

“It’s funny. Listening to him in his attempt to evade and be dishonest during the Romney debate, he actually makes his dishonesty worse today,” Stu concluded. “He’s sitting there trying to get out of the status of forces question to talk about number of troops, [which is] the question he’s trying to get out of currently. This is what happens with every liar. He’s put such a web of lies together, he can’t keep track of them anymore. Luckily, he has no one to call him on it.”

http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/06/20/oba ... ade-by-me/

Inquiring minds want to know?
Do the 575 soldiers, Obama ordered to Iraq, do they have immunity, now?

[callmeslick]

what 'flip-flop'? Seriously, Pud, you have no grasp on reality if you buy that load o crap. Here's the back history. Bush made the committment of a date certain for a status of forces agreement. Obama never got the Iraqis to agree on same. The Bush agreement said no troops without an Iraqi committment. Obama pulled the troops out, as he promised the American people. We were committed, under International Law to leave if not requested by the Iraqis, so that decision was not his.
Thus, he is exactly correct.

[Pudfark]

IF what you say is true?
Bush negotiated an agreement and Berry hauled ass...do you not read what you write?

BTW....Barack and Iraq....rhyme.
Is that a coincidence?
In this instance?

[callmeslick]

IF what you say is true?
Bush negotiated an agreement and Berry hauled ass...do you not read what you write?

the inital withdrawal agreement was all done by Bush's people. Obama just refused to allow for extra excuses(like we hear suggested now) to stay. Good for him!

BTW....Barack and Iraq....rhyme.
Is that a coincidence?
In this instance?

you're an idiot. No that doesn't rhyme, but it's true nonetheless.

[Pudfark]

"Obama just refused to allow for extra excuses(like we hear suggested now) to stay."

Start naming the excuses....

[Pudfark]

Post subject: SOFA so farPostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 4:11 pm

Inquiring minds want to know?
Do the 575 soldiers, Obama ordered to Iraq, do they have immunity, now?

Today: 23 Jun 2014, 7:02 AM PDT

OBAMA SENDING TROOPS WHO COULD BE PROSECUTED IN IRAQI COURTS

When U.S. troops arrive back in Iraq to try to salvage its rapidly deteriorating situation, they have more to worry about than fighting ISIS terrorists. Those soldiers could also face criminal prosecution in Iraqi courts, since President Barack Obama failed to secure an immunity agreement for American forces.

Obama pulled troops out of Iraq in 2011 when he failed to get the Iraqis to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), part of which would grant American troops immunity from lawsuits (including criminal prosecutions) in Iraq’s courts. Far from the “equal justice under law” that is the hallmark of America’s judiciary, Iraq’s courts are thoroughly compromised and unreliable.

As Obama sends U.S. forces back into Iraq without an immunity agreement, they would daily face threat of arrest and prosecution. Any American service member on the ground in the Islamic state could, therefore, end up in an Iraqi prison.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... aqi-Courts

Old Pudfark sez: " Denial.....it's a state...within the State of Delaware. "