Iraq Prime Minister: It was Iraq who refused to let U.S. troops remain in Iraq

[Better Believe It]

So President Obama wanted to keep U.S. troops in Iraq but the Iraq government wouldn't let him. That's good news! BBI

Iraq PM: Immunity issue scuttled US troop deal
Comments make clear that it was Iraq who refused to let US remain under US terms
By LARA JAKES, REBECCA SANTANA
October 22, 2011

Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits.

The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans' terms.

A day earlier, President Barack Obama had hailed the troops' withdrawal as the result of his commitment — promised shortly after taking office in 2009 — to end the war that he once described as "dumb."

"When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki told reporters in Baghdad. "The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started."

Read the full article at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44998833/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/

[ProSense]

1. Iraq still seeking U.S. trainers: PM Maliki

Iraq still seeking U.S. trainers: PM Maliki


This is called handwringing!

[Dragonfli]

2. They are really trying to bury this here, so many unrecs, so little time (they must hate truth)

[MjolnirTime]

5. The truth is the Iraq War is over.

[Dragonfli]

7. Yes! thank Goddess the Iraqis had enough of us, someone had to end it as we sure weren't /nt

[ProSense]

8. Um,

"They are really trying to bury this here, so many unrecs, so little time (they must hate truth)"

...there is nothing to bury. You think the OP is "truth": a couple of inconsistent statements from Maliki and a neocon's perspective? From the OP article:

Al-Maliki told reporters he still wants American help in training Iraqi forces to use billions of dollars worth of military equipment that Baghdad is buying from the United States. He did not say if the prospective U.S. trainers would be active-duty troops, and said any immunity deals for them would have to be worked out in the future.

Michael O'Hanlon, an expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington said continued violence in Iraq was always a threat, whether or not U.S. troops remain.

"But it's true that their frequency may increase absent U.S. help in areas of intelligence and special operations," said O'Hanlon, who was among a group of Bush administration officials and academics who called on Obama to keep a robust U.S. force in Iraq. "In addition, I do fear the residual risk of civil war goes up with this decision, as the north in particular will become more fraught."

The troops are leaving, and no matter how much the media and others try to create the ridiculous impression that a massive departure of troops, which has been ongoing, was decided based on call on Friday, the Iraq war is ending.

[Number23]

26. Exactly. You would have to pretend that Obama has not been reducing troop numbers

steadily since he took office to buy this. You would also have to pretend that he has not repeatedly stated his intent to end the war in Iraq.

But if people want to pretend that the decision to kick out these last 4000 troops (out of 145,000 to begin) is somehow not what the president intended, more power to them. Personally, I think most Americans will either just be glad to see those folks COME HOME after all of this time or they will see it as the president getting out of the Iraqis' way and heeding their call for sovereignty, which is exactly what the denial of immunity was.

This is not a loss for the president in any way shape or form. But I do wonder what will happen if the Iraqis change their minds, particularly before the troops are sent home...

[rug]

28. Well, which is it? Did Obama and the military want to keep troops there or not?

Hint: It would make no sense to seek immunity for them if the answer is no.

[BrentWil]

42. Yes

If people were paying attention, they would know that there was an ongoing effort to keep around 5K to 10K there to train. I would argue that it would have been a good thing.

[Bobbie Jo]

3. Posting your google search?

One by one?

[Honeycombe8]

4. Talk about a slanted article/post. You say it yourself in your post...Iraq did NOT refuse to let

US troops stay. Iraq refused to give troops immunity. Iraq wants the US troops to stay.

Just to be clear and factual. It burns me up to read slanted posts like the ones I get occasionally from rightwingnuts...full of half truths and slanted to read a certain way, with just a germ of truth.

I don't know a lot about the situation in Iraq (like you don't, either), but I do know that we supply Iraq with money and supplies and training and security, among other things. If we wanted, we could twist some arms and get immunity, is my guess.

Sort of like in any negotiation...you don't get what you first ask for, so you back out altogether, since you weren't that keen on staying, anyway.

If Bush were President, we'd be staying, immunity or no immunity. But I would wager that Bush/Cheney and the neocons would get immunity, even if they had to capture and torture someone in the Iraqi government to get it. Obama's taking a different path. He's pulling out altogether.

Yeah, it's for political and economic reasons. But whatever the reasons, it's yet another good thing that he has done.

[BrentWil]

43. Iraq also wanted troops to stay...

But couldn't do it politically and grant immunity. It is a complicated mess, but Iraqis are very nervous about the future right now.

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. Unrec. Ask the American people if they give a shit? It's the end to an unpopular war.

Fuck the reason. It's over! :bounce:

[Dragonfli]

9. I think they should know that Obama not only wanted it continued, but also unaccountably

Instead he is pretending he wasn't trying to negotiate a longer stay where no one would be accountable to laws, I am glad the Iraqis chose not to sanction lawlessness, it shows they care more about the rule of law than we do, for that we should be ashamed.

[Tarheel_Dem]

11. You tell 'em then. See if they give a shit.

:rofl:

[Dragonfli]

12. Why then do you keep us from "telling them" with unrecs? besides, some do care about the truth

and do not like being lied to.

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. Tell 'em over at Free Republic, I'm sure they care much more than "Democrats".

Afterall, they're the ones who go all apoplectic if they think this president might get credit for something, or ANYTHING for that matter. "They're" trying to defeat him, you know? This is "Democratic" Underground, in case you forgot. :eyes:

[Dragonfli]

39. That is your answer? "The truth is not convenient so you should be posting at freeperville?"

I have been a Democrat for over thirty years, my concern is that some believe that the same policies are good when Democrats pursue them but evil when Republicans pursue them.

I actually am not that flexible, I will not adopt Bush policies simply because some in my party agree with them all of the sudden.

But we were talking about the truth were we not?

It is true that Obama was attempting to negotiate for a longer stay with a provision that there was to be no rule of law for our soldiers and "contractors". That is a pretty screwed up view to argue for to begin with, but to then turn around and claim you are ending it when in fact the Iraqis failed to agree with those terms is simply dishonest. I would suggest rather than lying to give him credit one might instead give him credit for things that do not depend on lies, it is better form really (and Democratic) while the former is a favored tactic of Republicans that care little (or nothing) for honesty.

Don't you agree it is better to honestly promote one's candidate than to lie to mislead your fellow voters?

[Tarheel_Dem]

48. Unlike you & I, Greenwald is not a "Democrat".

;)

http://rootedcosmopolitan.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/glenn-greenwald-neither-a-liberal-nor-a-progressive/

[Dragonfli]

51. Neither is Bernie Sanders, but he acts according to the same principles our party was founded on. /n

[Tarheel_Dem]

52. With a choice between Sanders & my party, I'll always choose the "Democratic" party.

I am not a "Socialist", or a "Libertarian", I am a lifelong "D-e-m-o-c-r-a-t". There's a fraction of the Republican party who believe that Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain best represent their ideology, and almost as many on the left who feel folks like Bernie & Glenn are the ideal representatives (I'm not one of them). So, what's your point? This is a huge tent we have here, and ideas range from the very liberal to the very conservative.

Bernie & Glenn have one thing in common that destroys their credibility for me as a Democrat, neither of them want my "Democratic" president reelected. Hence, they are both my enemy. :hi:

[BrentWil]

45. Actually that is heavily biased....

Given the number of prosecutions that the military has done for US troops in Iraq. The issue is gaining a fair trail in the Iraqi system and how an Iraqi trail would look to the American public.

[dionysus]

62. it's easy to see just how much this burns you up....

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

10. FACT:"the two governments failed to reach an agreement over giving American soldiers legal immunity"

From Reuters today: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x804382

[BklnDem75]

14. The article itself reads exactly opposite your claim

They wanted troops to stay, a condition was made, they refused, US says cya. Everything else is just spin.

[Bobbie Jo]

15. Gee...you think this is a pattern of some sort?

:think:

[BklnDem75]

17. It's the fourth stage of ODS...

The better he does, the worse it gets.

[ClarkUSA]

23. The current MSM talking point is that all this foreign policy success means nothing for 2012.

I've heard the same thing repeated here, too. Funny how coincidental that is, eh?

Meanwhile, Pres. Obama's approval rating has jumped a net +7 in one day in the Gallup daily tracking poll:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x803279

[BklnDem75]

36. That's gonna be a real 'monkey' wrench...

for a certain hopeful. O8)

[ClarkUSA]

38. Not that it's any of our "business"...

... except that it is when our BS meters start pinging. ;)

[DCBob]

16. I think this was the President's calculated strategy to provide political cover for leaving...

should things go south once we leave. I am convinced he wanted to get out of Iraq since day one but he knew he had to do it very carefully.

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. He maintained that he wanted to be "as careful getting out, as we were careless going in".

I think he's done that, and it pisses off the very people who've been screaming that we should get out. We're leaving. What's the problem? That the president might get some credit for bringing an end to an unpopular war? That's the real threat here. When there's good news, Obama critcs go into overdrive just to blunt any credit this president might get for ANYTHING.

It's the damndest phenomenon I've ever witnessed, especially on a site with "democratic" in its name. :shrug:

[Tx4obama]

31. It's like living in the Twilight Zone. n/t

[BrentWil]

46. That is the point..

This President is actually thoughtful and has worked hard to find the best solutions to problems that he didn't create.

[SidDithers]

18. Unrec...

keep trying.

Sid

[AngkorWot]

19. But I thought the Iraqi government was a puppet of the imperial United States.

:shrug:

Funny how that works.

[Swede]

20. I know this week has been hard on you.

Buck up skippy!

[SidDithers]

25. LOL...

:thumbsup:

Sid

[Tarheel_Dem]

47. LOL!

:spray:

[Tx4obama]

22. How many times is this bullshit spin going to be posted on DU.

Facts are that a long time ago President Obama decided to pull out all U.S. troops by December 31, 2011 just like the agreement that Bush signed with Iraq stated.

The Obama administration said that IF Iraq requested the US to stay longer, he would 'consider it' - Obama never said he would 'do' it.

Folks need to stop trying to make Iraq look good and Obama look bad.

It was President Obmaa's plan to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011 the whole time.

And btw there will be 'trainers' in Iraq, but they will work out of the US Embassy (with immunity) working under the State Department.
See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5035084

This has panned out EXACTLY like President Obama wanted it to :)

[Number23]

27. As long as the gullible keep a'kicking and a'rec'ing

Folks will keep a'postin...

[BrentWil]

44. Actually, they already basically said they would keep up to 10K there,

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/06/world/la-fg-us-iraq-20110706

[LittleBlue]

24. K&R

This is the truth that many yesterday would not believe.

[Better Believe It]

29. The anti-war movement has won! Obama and others who wanted to keep U.S. troops in Iraq have lost!

This is a time to celebrate.

I'm thankful that the Iraqi government didn't cave in to Obama's demands and insisted on the total U.S. withdrawl of troops from Iraq.

As we all know, for months the Obama administration attempted to cut a deal with the Iraq government to keep thousands of U.S. combat troops in Iraq. But, the Iraq government wouldn't and couldn't cave in to Obama's insistence on immunity from prosecution for possible future illegal and/or criminal activity by Obama's military "warriors".

The Iraqi people and all political factions in Iraq and the U.S. anti-war movement wanted the complete withdrawl of all U.S. troops from Iraq.

We and the Iraqi people have won!

President Obama and others who wanted to keep U.S. troops in Iraq have lost.

That's the bottom line.

[Tx4obama]

32. Your whole post is wrong.

The fact is a long time ago President Obama decided to pull out all U.S. troops by December 31, 2011 just like the agreement that Bush signed with Iraq stated.

The Obama administration said that IF Iraq requested the US to stay longer, he would 'consider it' - Obama never said he would 'do' it.

Folks need to stop trying to make Iraq look good and Obama look bad.

It was President Obmaa's plan to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011 the whole time.

And btw, Iraq still wants us there. There will be 'trainers' from the USA in Iraq, but they will work out of the US Embassy (with immunity) working under the State Department.
See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5035084

This has panned out EXACTLY like President Obama wanted it to :)



Edited to fix typo.

[Better Believe It]

34. There were dozens of credible news reports on Obama's efforts to keep U.S. troops in Iraq posted.

None of them were refuted on Democratic Underground.

I don't have time to look them up and link them now but are saying that you didn't see or read any of those objective and factual reports on Democratic Underground?

[BklnDem75]

37. LOL! Keep spinning Mister Deejay

[Lord Helmet]

40. so the antiwar movement forced his hand with an agreement Bush signed?

:dunce:

[Better Believe It]

53. The anti-war movement isn't taking credit for Iraq's decision to not allow U.S. troops remain.

But, I'm sure that anti-war activists are pleased by Iraq's decision to demand Obama remove his "warriors" from Iraq.

We all know that President Obama tried for months to strike a deal with the Iraq government to permit U.S. troops and bases to remain in Iraq.

You also know that, right?

[Lord Helmet]

56. Your own words: "The anti-war movement has won!"

Don't know why you have two threads saying the exact same thing,
double the laughs from you I guess.

[SidDithers]

49. Oh ffs...

Sid

[dionysus]

64. hey man, it's what i call free entertainment. pure comedy gold...

:rofl:

[dionysus]

63. LOL, spinning like a top, by now it's just a punchline...

:rofl:

[BlueIris]

30. Interesting. And I am not one bit surprised.

Nothing but being forced out would get us out.

[Tx4obama]

33. I'm not surprised that some folks are falling for the spin, instead of the truth. n/t

[Major Hogwash]

35. Pass the salt.

It's obvious that anything that happens that makes President Obama look good must be shat on.

:popcorn:

[BrentWil]

41. WOuld have been better for all parties to keep 5000K trainers in the desert...

Would have been a bulwark against Iranian influence and helped Iraqis to keep the led on communal violence. This was certainly what the administration wanted. It would have been cheap and a good thing for the US to do. However, we couldn't take the risk of having US military members tried in Iraqi courts and the Iraqis couldn't give us that, so it didn't happen.

Hopefully, Iraq does not blow up. However, i am not hopeful.

[Better Believe It]

54. It's up to the Iraqi people, not U.S. troops and the Obama administration to determine their future.

[BrentWil]

57. I agree...that is why we didn't stay there...

However, would have been better for the Iraqi people if an agreement could have been reached.

[Better Believe It]

58. I disagree. I'm against permanent U.S. military bases and U.S. troops in Iraq.

[Better Believe It]

59. I disagree. I'm against permanent U.S. military bases and U.S. troops in Iraq.

[BrentWil]

61. Me too

But 10K in for a 3 to 10 year timeline isn't permeant, I don't think. And it would have been always up to the Iraqis, as it was to start with.

[Better Believe It]

60. I disagree. I'm against permanent U.S. military bases and U.S. troops in Iraq.

[joshcryer]

50. I thought the US could occupy any country it wanted?

[Robb]

55. Bit of a love/hate thing going with al-Maliki, I think.

Today, he's reliable. Yesterday, he wasn't.

I'll check back tomorrow.

[harun]

65. We'd still be occupying the Philippines if they didn't ask us to leave too.

The U.S. doesn't cede any territory unless it has to.