Welcome to America

Ask any local gun store, they will tell you they miss the Obama days. More guns were sold during the Obama reign than Trumps, by far. Same thing with Schiff...booyah..

You dwell on money. You should dwell on the fact that 51% of the country wants to see Trump impeached and removed from office, and two Russian henchmen are now arrested for multiple crimes.

Mr. Obama has found those conflicts maddeningly hard to end. On Oct. 21, 2011, he announced that the last combat soldier would leave Iraq by the end of that year, drawing that eight-year war to a close. “Our troops will definitely be home for the holidays,” Mr. Obama said at the White House.

Afghanistan followed a similar cycle of hope and disappointment. In May 2014, Mr. Obama announced that the United States would withdraw the last combat soldier from the country by the end of 2016.

Looking back, wondering where are the fake abandonment outrage was in 2011 and 2014.

I don’t think we left an entire ethnic “nation” to be massacred. I don’t think we deserted our allies either. I don’t think we allowed 10,000 IS combatants to have a chance to escape prison. That is how this differs from your two examples.

Mr. Obama has found those conflicts maddeningly hard to end. On Oct. 21, 2011, he announced that the last combat soldier would leave Iraq by the end of that year, drawing that eight-year war to a close. “Our troops will definitely be home for the holidays,” Mr. Obama said at the White House.

Afghanistan followed a similar cycle of hope and disappointment. In May 2014, Mr. Obama announced that the United States would withdraw the last combat soldier from the country by the end of 2016.

Looking back, wondering where are the fake abandonment outrage was in 2011 and 2014.

I don’t think we left an entire ethnic “nation” to be massacred. I don’t think we deserted our allies either. I don’t think we allowed 10,000 IS combatants to have a chance to escape prison. That is how this differs from your two examples.

You did allow for the creation/growth of ISIS as world threat, abandonment of Kurds, and all the Iraqi and Afghanistan fighters that fought alongside US troops. If we hadn’t abandoned IRaq, ISIS would never of established a caliphate.

Before they attempted to flee the country yesterday Rudy had lunch with the two indicted henchmen.
Barr should start an investigation.

Mr. Obama has found those conflicts maddeningly hard to end. On Oct. 21, 2011, he announced that the last combat soldier would leave Iraq by the end of that year, drawing that eight-year war to a close. “Our troops will definitely be home for the holidays,” Mr. Obama said at the White House.

Afghanistan followed a similar cycle of hope and disappointment. In May 2014, Mr. Obama announced that the United States would withdraw the last combat soldier from the country by the end of 2016.

Looking back, wondering where are the fake abandonment outrage was in 2011 and 2014.

Did you just google then copy and paste? Did you read what you posted? You reference combat troops leaving. There were still tens of thousands of troops left for the peace keeping part. As for Iraq Obama was honoring the Status of Forces Agreement signed by his predecessor. He honored the agreement unlike the piece of sht we have now who is only interested in breaking them.

Did you just google then copy and paste? Did you read what you posted? You reference combat troops leaving. There were still tens of thousands of troops left for the peace keeping part. As for Iraq Obama was honoring the Status of Forces Agreement signed by his predecessor. He honored the agreement unlike the piece of sht we have now who is only interested in breaking them.

Oh, I thought the reason for the Iraq withdrawal was we were unable to reach a status of forces agreement. Good spin tho.that was the line from Obama administration anyway

Ask any local gun store, they will tell you they miss the Obama days. More guns were sold during the Obama reign than Trumps, by far. Same thing with Schiff...booyah..

So you're admitting that you fell for the "skeery dark man taking guns" conspiracy theory.

Oh, I thought the reason for the Iraq withdrawal was we were unable to reach a status of forces agreement. Good spin tho.that was the line from Obama administration anyway

Please post something to support this claim.

You did allow for the creation/growth of ISIS as world threat, abandonment of Kurds, and all the Iraqi and Afghanistan fighters that fought alongside US troops. If we hadn’t abandoned IRaq, ISIS would never of established a caliphate.

Right, that's known as a mistake due to unforeseen consequences. Now that Turkey is invading Syria and killing Kurds, no observer is sitting back saying "Well I'll be damned". Trump had relative stability in his back pocket, and he relinquished it against the advice of people who are experienced in foreign policy and military strategy. After all that hard work he says, "Not my problem, why should we protect a group of people who's name rhymes with turd".

WASHINGTON—The White House gave a politically appointed official the authority to keep aid to Ukraine on hold after career budget staff members questioned the legality of delaying the funds, according to people familiar with the matter, a shift that House Democrats are probing in their impeachment inquiry.

President Trump’s order to freeze nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine in mid-July is at the center of House Democratic efforts to investigate allegations that Mr. Trump used U.S. foreign policy powers to benefit himself politically. The hold came days before Mr. Trump’s request, on a July 25 call, that the Ukrainian president work with Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr to conduct investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden, a Democratic presidential hopeful.

Barr should start an investigation.

WASHINGTON—The White House gave a politically appointed official the authority to keep aid to Ukraine on hold after career budget staff members questioned the legality of delaying the funds, according to people familiar with the matter, a shift that House Democrats are probing in their impeachment inquiry.

President Trump’s order to freeze nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine in mid-July is at the center of House Democratic efforts to investigate allegations that Mr. Trump used U.S. foreign policy powers to benefit himself politically. The hold came days before Mr. Trump’s request, on a July 25 call, that the Ukrainian president work with Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr to conduct investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden, a Democratic presidential hopeful.

Barr should start an investigation.

I think impeachment is imminent. It would make for a nice Thanksgiving. Removal on Christmas Eve would be perfect.

WASHINGTON—The White House gave a politically appointed official the authority to keep aid to Ukraine on hold after career budget staff members questioned the legality of delaying the funds, according to people familiar with the matter, a shift that House Democrats are probing in their impeachment inquiry.

President Trump’s order to freeze nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine in mid-July is at the center of House Democratic efforts to investigate allegations that Mr. Trump used U.S. foreign policy powers to benefit himself politically. The hold came days before Mr. Trump’s request, on a July 25 call, that the Ukrainian president work with Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr to conduct investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden, a Democratic presidential hopeful.

Barr should start an investigation.

My biggest issue is that Trump obviously and transparently is investigating Biden for purely political purposes. If this were some noble effort to fight corruption for some higher purpose, then he would be carrying out the investigation methodically. That is, he would not be broadcasting a presumption of guilt. How can any elected official, let alone the nation's highest office holder, make a positive declaration of guilt of anyone without the slightest presentation of evidence? This is absolutely a gross abuse of power.

Please post something to support this claim.

You asked for it‍♂️
The legal basis for the presence of US troops in Iraq in 2011 was the status of forces agreement (SOFA) signed by President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki in December 2008. Although the SOFA included an aspirational timeline for the complete withdrawal of American troops by the end of 2011, both US and Iraqi officials agreed that the timeline could be extended by a simple exchange of diplomatic notes.[xxii] However, US policy changed substantially at President Obama’s direction in 2011, as the administration reluctantly considered whether to keep a residual force in Iraq after the end of the year.

President Obama entered office in January 2009 determined to fulfill his campaign promise of ending the Iraq War and withdrawing all US forces from Iraq. He accomplished this by employing ambiguity throughout the 2011 negotiations and setting an unachievably high bar for an agreement authorizing a residual force, which allowed him to deflect political blame when negotiations failed. He used three methods to ensure a new SOFA was unachievable. First, he refused to authorize US negotiators to make an explicit offer to the Iraqi government to leave US troops in the country. Second, he insisted that a residual force could only remain under a new SOFA, ratified by the Iraqi parliament. Third, he demanded immunity for US troops from prosecution in Iraqi courts. By establishing ostensibly reasonable terms that he knew were unlikely to gain support in Iraq, President Obama avoided much of the political backlash that would have been associated with a unilateral withdrawal.

Throughout the negotiations, Obama kept his intentions ambiguous. He repeatedly trumpeted his plan to withdraw all remaining US troops from Iraq by the end of 2011, even as his military advisors almost unanimously supported a continued presence of 10,000 to 20,000 troops.[xxiii]Iraqi officials also understood that they needed American troops to continue training and advising the Iraqi security forces, and to help protect Iraq’s borders.[xxiv] In May 2011, Prime Minister Maliki indicated that he too would support a continued American military presence.[xxv] Under pressure from his commanders and some of his cabinet officials, Obama indicated in May that he was prepared to keep up to 10,000 troops in Iraq, which he revised to about 5,000 troops by August. However, that number was a closely guarded secret, and he never authorized his negotiators to convey to the Iraqi government how many troops he was willing to keep in Iraq.[xxvi] This ambiguity led to uncertainty on the Iraqi side—without an offer from the United States, there was nothing for Iraq’s leaders to debate or negotiate.

Obama’s insistence that US troops could only remain in Iraq under new SOFA came as a surprise to both US negotiators and to Prime Minister Maliki, who had been working off the understanding that the US presence could be extended through an exchange of diplomatic notes. The Bush administration had spent nearly a year negotiating the 2008 SOFA, but the Obama administration did not begin negotiations until June 2011, less than six months prior to the planned completion of the US troop withdrawal.[xxvii] The condensed negotiation timeline added to the confusion and ambiguity, complicating the new agreement’s chances of success.

Obama’s insistence on legal immunity for US troops, while ostensibly reasonable, was an artificial barrier designed to kill the deal. When the same issue had arisen in 2008, Bush’s lead negotiator, Brett McGurk, had devised a creative solution. He asserted that it was possible to “offer the Iraqis in principle what they say they need… while retaining in practice essential protections for all US military personnel in Iraq [original emphasis in bold].”[xxviii] The 2008 SOFA granted Iraq the “primary right to exercise jurisdiction” over US troops in cases of “grave premeditated felonies… when such crimes are committed outside agreed facilities and areas and outside duty status.”[xxix] However, accused persons would remain in US custody, and it was understood that, in practice, no US servicemember would be tried before the Iraqi judicial system.[xxx] Obama refused to accept this solution, which had already been passed in Iraq’s parliament and had been implemented without incident in the intervening period.

Obama’s negotiators knew that his demand for legal immunities would never make it through the Iraqi parliament.[xxxi] Knowing that parliamentary ratification was unlikely, Obama was negotiating in bad faith. The Bush administration had determined in 2008 that ratification was unnecessary.[xxxii] The Obama administration’s position was that approval in parliament was necessary for the agreement to be binding under international law.[xxxiii] However, as lawmakers in the United States pointed out, US personnel operate in many countries under executive agreements or exchanges of diplomatic notes, neither of which require parliamentary ratification.[xxxiv] Furthermore, the phrase “binding under international law” is, in practice, essentially meaningless. By its own definition, the U.S. State Department considers any international agreement “to be legally binding in the absence of an express provision indicating its nonlegal nature.”[xxxv]

In October 2011, Iraqi leaders approved the continued presence of US military trainers but refused to grant them immunity. This ended the SOFA negotiations, and the 45,000 remaining US troops withdrew from Iraq by the end of the year.[xxxvi] The withdrawal of US troops led to the deterioration of the Iraqi security forces, the reemergence of a security vacuum in parts of the country, and the oppression of the Sunnis, laying the groundwork for the return of AQI.

President Obama’s support for Maliki and withdrawal of US troops from Iraq reversed the tenuous progress made since the Sunni Awakening and the US strategy shift in 2007. The decision to back Maliki for a second term as prime minister profoundly undermined the development of a legitimate Iraqi government, the primary objective of counterinsurgency.[xxxvii] Passive US support for Maliki’s reinterpretation of the Iraqi constitution to serve his own purposes signaled to Iraqis that the US did not believe they deserved to choose their own leaders. The second and third order effects were disastrous.

I don't know, Kardashians are Armenian. Armenians were slaughtered by the Turks about 100 years ago.

Oh Sorry, for some reason I thought they were of Kurdish descent.

So you're admitting that you fell for the "skeery dark man taking guns" conspiracy theory.

Now Leader, you should know by now that before I post something I have usually have found a source from the pre-approved list of Leftist wacko sources: Obama is the greatest gun salesman in America I thought we becoming sowal forum friends...



The Business of Guns
Obama is the best gun salesman in America

by Aaron Smith @AaronSmithCNNJanuary 6, 2016: 8:17 AM ET








Obama lists new gun control measures

President Obama has proven, once again, that he's the greatest gun salesman in America.

Bob, can you expound on your comment of where the United States discusses human rights re: Christians in other countries? As opposed to other religions or opposed to within the US? Just trying to understand this.

My point by my comment was if persecution is expected we shouldn't be concerned by it.
Remarks by President Trump at the United Nations Event on Religious Freedom | New York, NY | The White House

My biggest issue is Trump

There, I fixed it for you. Just this one time I changed your words. Now you never have to post again!!

You asked for it‍♂️
The legal basis for the presence of US troops in Iraq in 2011 was the status of forces agreement (SOFA) signed by President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki in December 2008. Although the SOFA included an aspirational timeline for the complete withdrawal of American troops by the end of 2011, both US and Iraqi officials agreed that the timeline could be extended by a simple exchange of diplomatic notes.[xxii] However, US policy changed substantially at President Obama’s direction in 2011, as the administration reluctantly considered whether to keep a residual force in Iraq after the end of the year.

President Obama entered office in January 2009 determined to fulfill his campaign promise of ending the Iraq War and withdrawing all US forces from Iraq. He accomplished this by employing ambiguity throughout the 2011 negotiations and setting an unachievably high bar for an agreement authorizing a residual force, which allowed him to deflect political blame when negotiations failed. He used three methods to ensure a new SOFA was unachievable. First, he refused to authorize US negotiators to make an explicit offer to the Iraqi government to leave US troops in the country. Second, he insisted that a residual force could only remain under a new SOFA, ratified by the Iraqi parliament. Third, he demanded immunity for US troops from prosecution in Iraqi courts. By establishing ostensibly reasonable terms that he knew were unlikely to gain support in Iraq, President Obama avoided much of the political backlash that would have been associated with a unilateral withdrawal.

Throughout the negotiations, Obama kept his intentions ambiguous. He repeatedly trumpeted his plan to withdraw all remaining US troops from Iraq by the end of 2011, even as his military advisors almost unanimously supported a continued presence of 10,000 to 20,000 troops.[xxiii]Iraqi officials also understood that they needed American troops to continue training and advising the Iraqi security forces, and to help protect Iraq’s borders.[xxiv] In May 2011, Prime Minister Maliki indicated that he too would support a continued American military presence.[xxv] Under pressure from his commanders and some of his cabinet officials, Obama indicated in May that he was prepared to keep up to 10,000 troops in Iraq, which he revised to about 5,000 troops by August. However, that number was a closely guarded secret, and he never authorized his negotiators to convey to the Iraqi government how many troops he was willing to keep in Iraq.[xxvi] This ambiguity led to uncertainty on the Iraqi side—without an offer from the United States, there was nothing for Iraq’s leaders to debate or negotiate.

Obama’s insistence that US troops could only remain in Iraq under new SOFA came as a surprise to both US negotiators and to Prime Minister Maliki, who had been working off the understanding that the US presence could be extended through an exchange of diplomatic notes. The Bush administration had spent nearly a year negotiating the 2008 SOFA, but the Obama administration did not begin negotiations until June 2011, less than six months prior to the planned completion of the US troop withdrawal.[xxvii] The condensed negotiation timeline added to the confusion and ambiguity, complicating the new agreement’s chances of success.

Obama’s insistence on legal immunity for US troops, while ostensibly reasonable, was an artificial barrier designed to kill the deal. When the same issue had arisen in 2008, Bush’s lead negotiator, Brett McGurk, had devised a creative solution. He asserted that it was possible to “offer the Iraqis in principle what they say they need… while retaining in practice essential protections for all US military personnel in Iraq [original emphasis in bold].”[xxviii] The 2008 SOFA granted Iraq the “primary right to exercise jurisdiction” over US troops in cases of “grave premeditated felonies… when such crimes are committed outside agreed facilities and areas and outside duty status.”[xxix] However, accused persons would remain in US custody, and it was understood that, in practice, no US servicemember would be tried before the Iraqi judicial system.[xxx] Obama refused to accept this solution, which had already been passed in Iraq’s parliament and had been implemented without incident in the intervening period.

Obama’s negotiators knew that his demand for legal immunities would never make it through the Iraqi parliament.[xxxi] Knowing that parliamentary ratification was unlikely, Obama was negotiating in bad faith. The Bush administration had determined in 2008 that ratification was unnecessary.[xxxii] The Obama administration’s position was that approval in parliament was necessary for the agreement to be binding under international law.[xxxiii] However, as lawmakers in the United States pointed out, US personnel operate in many countries under executive agreements or exchanges of diplomatic notes, neither of which require parliamentary ratification.[xxxiv] Furthermore, the phrase “binding under international law” is, in practice, essentially meaningless. By its own definition, the U.S. State Department considers any international agreement “to be legally binding in the absence of an express provision indicating its nonlegal nature.”[xxxv]

In October 2011, Iraqi leaders approved the continued presence of US military trainers but refused to grant them immunity. This ended the SOFA negotiations, and the 45,000 remaining US troops withdrew from Iraq by the end of the year.[xxxvi] The withdrawal of US troops led to the deterioration of the Iraqi security forces, the reemergence of a security vacuum in parts of the country, and the oppression of the Sunnis, laying the groundwork for the return of AQI.

President Obama’s support for Maliki and withdrawal of US troops from Iraq reversed the tenuous progress made since the Sunni Awakening and the US strategy shift in 2007. The decision to back Maliki for a second term as prime minister profoundly undermined the development of a legitimate Iraqi government, the primary objective of counterinsurgency.[xxxvii] Passive US support for Maliki’s reinterpretation of the Iraqi constitution to serve his own purposes signaled to Iraqis that the US did not believe they deserved to choose their own leaders. The second and third order effects were disastrous.

Link please.

My biggest issue is that Trump obviously and transparently is investigating Biden for purely political purposes. If this were some noble effort to fight corruption for some higher purpose, then he would be carrying out the investigation methodically. That is, he would not be broadcasting a presumption of guilt. How can any elected official, let alone the nation's highest office holder, make a positive declaration of guilt of anyone without the slightest presentation of evidence? This is absolutely a gross abuse of power.

My biggest issue is that Schiff/Nancy obviously and transparently are investigating Trump for purely political purposes. If this were some noble effort to fight corruption for some higher purpose, then they would be carrying out the investigation methodically. That is, they would not be broadcasting a presumption of guilt. How can any elected official, let alone the Speaker of the house, make a positive declaration of guilt of anyone without the slightest presentation of evidence? This is absolutely a gross abuse of power.

My biggest issue is that Schiff/Nancy obviously and transparently are investigating Trump for purely political purposes. If this were some noble effort to fight corruption for some higher purpose, then they would be carrying out the investigation methodically. That is, they would not be broadcasting a presumption of guilt. How can any elected official, let alone the Speaker of the house, make a positive declaration of guilt of anyone without the slightest presentation of evidence? This is absolutely a gross abuse of power.

While you believe it’s clever it doesn’t quite work. You’re now gaslighting. Oh, and how about that link?

So I noticed Former Representative Trey Gowdy has been hired by President Trump. Obviously, Rep Gowdy has learned something in his time as lead prosecutor over Secretary Clinton and will apply what he learned in defending the President.

While you believe it’s clever it doesn’t quite work. You’re now gaslighting. Oh, and how about that link?

While you believe it’s clever it doesn’t quite work. You’re now gaslighting. Oh, and how about that link?

How the 2011 US Troop Withdrawal from Iraq Led to the Rise of ISIS | Small Wars Journal

Note: He gives you his sources at the end.

So I noticed Former Representative Trey Gowdy has been hired by President Trump. Obviously, Rep Gowdy has learned something in his time as lead prosecutor over Secretary Clinton and will apply what he learned in defending the President.

'Trey is a joke among us': Gowdy is a divisive addition to Trump's legal team

“Trey Gowdy doesn’t know s***,

Victoria Toensing

Are you kidding? ... Trey is a joke among us.

Victoria Toensing

How the 2011 US Troop Withdrawal from Iraq Led to the Rise of ISIS | Small Wars Journal

Note: He gives you his sources at the end.

Thanks