No, it's not silly. It wasn't a timetable, it was a legally binding international agreement. The Obama administration negotiated with Iraq to extend the timeline for withdrawal but the Iraqi government would not approve it. The US government could either abide by their agreement with the Iraqi government, or ignore the Iraqi government's rule of law.
Obama's desire to abandon Iraq, to not leave a residual force resurrected ISIS/al-Quaeda in Iraq.
I'm sorry, that's ridiculous.
Daesh already had a presence in Syria before we withdrew our troops from Iraq. Remember, they made their first attack in Damascus in December of 2011. Troops in Iraq would have had no impact on Daesh in Syria.
Going further, while military actions in 2007 and 2010 hurt al Qaeda in Iraq, they did not wipe out the organization. There's no reason to believe that a small force could have done what a full force could not except the desire to blame President Obama.
Immunity for troops is part of nearly every agreement for US troop deployment in a foreign country, and was in force in Iraq before our troops left.
The immunity granted in 2014 would not have been enough to keep the troops in Iraq in 2011. The situations are different, as are the agreements. In 2011, the Iraqi parliament had to approve the negotiation, because they had approved the previous agreement. The PM could not override that.
The truth is this - though the Obama administration negotiated with Iraq to extend US troop presence in Iraq, the Iraqi government declined to modify the existing agreement it had made with the Bush administration.
No, I'm sorry, I'm not mistaken. The agreement made by the Bush administration held the force of law. It was an error to make that agreement; it, as so many other choices made by the Bush administration in Iraq, was overly optimistic. If the intention of the Bush administration was to leave behind a force, they had the opportunity to negotiate inclusion of the forces at that time. They did not. The Obama administration tried to renegotiate the agreement with Iraq and was denied.
Again, your understanding of the negotiations is false. Troop immunity is a standard part of any agreement when the US deploys troops to a foreign country.
The fact of the situation is that BHO was sitting in office when things went to shit. I believe it was a Democrat that said, "The buck stops here." BHO doesn't get a pass here.
Again, there's plenty of blame to go around. Blaming President Obama for the troop withdrawal, though, is blaming the wrong administration.
BTW, the Iraq situation went to shit long before President Obama took office. Anyone that doesn't acknowledge that is either ignorant or being dishonest with him/herself.
Neither of those claims are pertinent. You are discussing the negotiations, not the fact that the Bush administration made the agreement that caused the withdrawal of the troops.
Also, while the first is true, the second is false.
Immunity is a standard agreement wherever U.S. forces are deployed.
Look, I get it, blaming President Obama for an early troop withdrawal has become accepted truth for many. That doesn't mean it's true, though. You have two options - continue to cling to a falsehood, defending it with ever more unlikely claims, or move on.
The Obama administration tried to extend the presence of US troops in Iraq, but the Iraqi government denied the request.
That is not really true.
Nothing you wrote backs up that assertion. The Obama administration requested US troops be allowed to stay in Iraq after the negotiated deadline. The Iraqi government said no. Yes, the two governments negotiated, and you have your belief about how that went, but that's your belief. I'm just talking about the facts of the situation.
Yes, it is actually that simple. If, as you stated, it was being left to the next president, the withdrawal should not have been included in the agreement.
Your understanding of what the Obama administration wanted to do is also false. They negotiated with the Iraqi government to leave troops behind. The Iraqi government said no.
The reason we pulled troops out of Iraq was because of an agreement made during the Bush administration.
The Obama administration couldn't change that without the approval of the Iraqi government.
The Obama administration requested the Iraqi government extend the deadline, but the Iraqi government denied their request.
You can believe whatever you want about how hard the Obama administration tried, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter; the claim made by the GP was false.
I agree, that's why I said, "there is plenty of blame to go around".
The primary example the GP used to illustrate the point, though, was incorrect. The reason US troops were pulled out of Iraq when they were was because the Bush administration's agreement with the Iraqi government.
Your comment about President Clinton is true, but, isn't really relevant. It wasn't about invading Iraq, it was about supporting opposition groups in Iraq.
You made a false claim. The current administration did not decide to yank troops out of Iraq. The Bush administration made an agreement with the Iraqi government on when US troops would be withdrawn. See Pact, Approved in Iraq, Sets Time for U.S. Pullout. It was, as nearly every bit of policy from the Bush administration related to Iraq, optimistic and a bad choice.
Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around, but, contrary to your claim, the reason troops were pulled out of Iraq was because of an agreement between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government.
There is no "best" document format, open or otherwise, for "easy search, compression, rendering, etc." because those words are too fuzzy.
What does rendering mean (print, screen, mobile, or...)?
What is the search scope ("this" document or multiple documents)?
How important is compression?
If your use case is a typical one, then you actually want, for maximum search functionality, text (perhaps with some form of markup so you can assign weights to segments, like higher weight for titles), a HTML5 based website for screen rendering (including mobile), and PDFs for print. Depending on what the user wants, they can pick.
If you want to pick one format, then you need to weigh every factor and decide what matters most to you, but don't ask us to guess.
Yes, but the high speed rail being built in California is not high speed. In fact, it will be the slowest train ever built that is titled "high speed."
Interesting claim; can you support it with any proof?
From my reading, the trail will run at speeds around 200 MPH for significant parts of the route.
The current Amtrak is highly comparable to what is being built.
That's false. The current Amtrak line takes over 6 hours. The HSR will take around 3 hours; over time.
I'd say that first the GOP swerved hard right, which pulled the Democrats from slightly left of center to slightly right of center. If the GOP moves back towards the center, that will push the Democrats further left.
The GOP hasn't been a conservative party for many years. It really started with the election of President Reagan, but when Rep. Gingrich became speaker, any pretense that the GOP was conservative disappeared.
I'm so tired of people make this ridiculous comparison.
President Nixon's attorney's admitted there was no innocent reason for the missing content on those tapes. It was done to hide incriminating actions.
Ms. Clinton turned over every email as required under archiving laws. She then deleted personal emails. She did nothing remotely wrong unless you believe that private citizens give up their right to private correspondence once they become government employees.
And, of course, the article is nonsense. Booker is a horrible writer, with no understanding of the topic. The Global Warming Policy Foundation that is looking into it is a classic group that starts with an idea (that the global climate isn't changing) and then tries to prove it.
Facts do indeed trump propaganda. The facts are that, contrary to the initial claim, the IPCC models have been very good at predicting the changes we've seen.
If you want to talk about something else, start a new thread.
No, what he said is nowhere near an admission of deceit. It was a declaration that what he said, both about Mr. Romney's taxes, and the Koch brothers, help re-elect President Obama, nothing more.
Just because no proof ever came to light doesn't mean Sen. Reid wasn't told that by someone he trusted. Remember, even at the time Sen. Reid was clear he had no definitive proof, just a person's claim.
"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain, but obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?"
The facts do not support your accusation that Sen. Reid is a "known opportunist liar".
When it comes to stuff like this, it's better to go straight to the source, rather than repeat things you've heard.
Senator Reid did not "all but admit" to lying. Take a look at the actual interview, starting at 2:45 in the video:
Bash: "So no regrets about Mitt Romney about the Koch brothers... because some people even call it McCarthy-like"
Sen. Reid: "They can call it whatever they want... Romney didn't win, did he?"
There is no admission of deceit, just an admission that it was politically motivated.
Slashdot Mirror
Blaming the Bush timetable is silly.....
No, it's not silly. It wasn't a timetable, it was a legally binding international agreement. The Obama administration negotiated with Iraq to extend the timeline for withdrawal but the Iraqi government would not approve it. The US government could either abide by their agreement with the Iraqi government, or ignore the Iraqi government's rule of law.
Obama's desire to abandon Iraq, to not leave a residual force resurrected ISIS/al-Quaeda in Iraq.
I'm sorry, that's ridiculous.
Daesh already had a presence in Syria before we withdrew our troops from Iraq. Remember, they made their first attack in Damascus in December of 2011. Troops in Iraq would have had no impact on Daesh in Syria.
Going further, while military actions in 2007 and 2010 hurt al Qaeda in Iraq, they did not wipe out the organization. There's no reason to believe that a small force could have done what a full force could not except the desire to blame President Obama.
You keep making the same false claims.
Immunity for troops is part of nearly every agreement for US troop deployment in a foreign country, and was in force in Iraq before our troops left.
The immunity granted in 2014 would not have been enough to keep the troops in Iraq in 2011. The situations are different, as are the agreements. In 2011, the Iraqi parliament had to approve the negotiation, because they had approved the previous agreement. The PM could not override that.
The truth is this - though the Obama administration negotiated with Iraq to extend US troop presence in Iraq, the Iraqi government declined to modify the existing agreement it had made with the Bush administration.
No, I'm sorry, I'm not mistaken. The agreement made by the Bush administration held the force of law. It was an error to make that agreement; it, as so many other choices made by the Bush administration in Iraq, was overly optimistic. If the intention of the Bush administration was to leave behind a force, they had the opportunity to negotiate inclusion of the forces at that time. They did not. The Obama administration tried to renegotiate the agreement with Iraq and was denied.
Again, your understanding of the negotiations is false. Troop immunity is a standard part of any agreement when the US deploys troops to a foreign country.
Your first two claims were dealt with above.
The immunity agreement given by Iraq for fighting against Daesh is different than the one required in 2011.
The fact of the situation is that BHO was sitting in office when things went to shit. I believe it was a Democrat that said, "The buck stops here." BHO doesn't get a pass here.
Again, there's plenty of blame to go around. Blaming President Obama for the troop withdrawal, though, is blaming the wrong administration.
BTW, the Iraq situation went to shit long before President Obama took office. Anyone that doesn't acknowledge that is either ignorant or being dishonest with him/herself.
Neither of those claims are pertinent. You are discussing the negotiations, not the fact that the Bush administration made the agreement that caused the withdrawal of the troops.
Also, while the first is true, the second is false.
Quoting from Immunity for troops was Iraq deal breaker
Look, I get it, blaming President Obama for an early troop withdrawal has become accepted truth for many. That doesn't mean it's true, though. You have two options - continue to cling to a falsehood, defending it with ever more unlikely claims, or move on.
The Obama administration tried to extend the presence of US troops in Iraq, but the Iraqi government denied the request.
That is not really true.
Nothing you wrote backs up that assertion. The Obama administration requested US troops be allowed to stay in Iraq after the negotiated deadline. The Iraqi government said no. Yes, the two governments negotiated, and you have your belief about how that went, but that's your belief. I'm just talking about the facts of the situation.
Yes, it is actually that simple. If, as you stated, it was being left to the next president, the withdrawal should not have been included in the agreement.
Your understanding of what the Obama administration wanted to do is also false. They negotiated with the Iraqi government to leave troops behind. The Iraqi government said no.
The facts are clear and incontrovertible:
You can believe whatever you want about how hard the Obama administration tried, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter; the claim made by the GP was false.
I agree, that's why I said, "there is plenty of blame to go around".
The primary example the GP used to illustrate the point, though, was incorrect. The reason US troops were pulled out of Iraq when they were was because the Bush administration's agreement with the Iraqi government.
Your comment about President Clinton is true, but, isn't really relevant. It wasn't about invading Iraq, it was about supporting opposition groups in Iraq.
You made a false claim. The current administration did not decide to yank troops out of Iraq. The Bush administration made an agreement with the Iraqi government on when US troops would be withdrawn. See Pact, Approved in Iraq, Sets Time for U.S. Pullout. It was, as nearly every bit of policy from the Bush administration related to Iraq, optimistic and a bad choice.
The Obama administration tried to extend the presence of US troops in Iraq, but the Iraqi government denied the request. See Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay for just one of many contemporaneous articles on the attempts to keep US troops in Iraq.
Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around, but, contrary to your claim, the reason troops were pulled out of Iraq was because of an agreement between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government.
There is no "best" document format, open or otherwise, for "easy search, compression, rendering, etc." because those words are too fuzzy.
If your use case is a typical one, then you actually want, for maximum search functionality, text (perhaps with some form of markup so you can assign weights to segments, like higher weight for titles), a HTML5 based website for screen rendering (including mobile), and PDFs for print. Depending on what the user wants, they can pick.
If you want to pick one format, then you need to weigh every factor and decide what matters most to you, but don't ask us to guess.
Gas isn't the biggest cost of the trip.
Take a look at AAA's cost per mile figures. It's $0.45-$0.71 per mile. That makes the trip to LA from SF about $200 by car.
The biggest cost, though, is a human cost. Lives lost, time wasted, increased stress, etc.
Yes, but the high speed rail being built in California is not high speed. In fact, it will be the slowest train ever built that is titled "high speed."
Interesting claim; can you support it with any proof?
From my reading, the trail will run at speeds around 200 MPH for significant parts of the route.
The current Amtrak is highly comparable to what is being built.
That's false. The current Amtrak line takes over 6 hours. The HSR will take around 3 hours; over time.
I'd say that first the GOP swerved hard right, which pulled the Democrats from slightly left of center to slightly right of center. If the GOP moves back towards the center, that will push the Democrats further left.
The GOP hasn't been a conservative party for many years. It really started with the election of President Reagan, but when Rep. Gingrich became speaker, any pretense that the GOP was conservative disappeared.
I'm so tired of people make this ridiculous comparison.
President Nixon's attorney's admitted there was no innocent reason for the missing content on those tapes. It was done to hide incriminating actions.
Ms. Clinton turned over every email as required under archiving laws. She then deleted personal emails. She did nothing remotely wrong unless you believe that private citizens give up their right to private correspondence once they become government employees.
For a good, data rich, article, explaining what Mr. Booker doesn't understand, see Are surface temperature records reliable?.
And, of course, the article is nonsense. Booker is a horrible writer, with no understanding of the topic. The Global Warming Policy Foundation that is looking into it is a classic group that starts with an idea (that the global climate isn't changing) and then tries to prove it.
soooooooo.... why are IPCC backpedaling on the certainty of their models in light of the 'pause'?
They aren't. There is no "pause".
Yes, the predictions cover a broad range; that doesn't negate the fact that the original comment is false. The predictions do match the outcomes.
Facts do indeed trump propaganda. The facts are that, contrary to the initial claim, the IPCC models have been very good at predicting the changes we've seen.
If you want to talk about something else, start a new thread.
Actually, the IPCC models have been very good at predicting the changes.
No, what he said is nowhere near an admission of deceit. It was a declaration that what he said, both about Mr. Romney's taxes, and the Koch brothers, help re-elect President Obama, nothing more.
Just because no proof ever came to light doesn't mean Sen. Reid wasn't told that by someone he trusted. Remember, even at the time Sen. Reid was clear he had no definitive proof, just a person's claim.
"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain, but obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?"
The facts do not support your accusation that Sen. Reid is a "known opportunist liar".
When it comes to stuff like this, it's better to go straight to the source, rather than repeat things you've heard.
Senator Reid did not "all but admit" to lying. Take a look at the actual interview, starting at 2:45 in the video:
There is no admission of deceit, just an admission that it was politically motivated.