Currently you ... are trying to vilify Obama because he withdrew from Iraq because he would not leave troops in a country where they could be brought up on charges doing their job....yet you have the gall to say a response to your vilifying is wrong? ....
Originally Posted by WTF
It would be "nice" for you to find a post of mine in which I "villified" your favorite President ....
"....because he withdrew from Iraq because he would not leave troops in a country where they could be brought up on charges doing their job..."
I won't bother asking your echo-BigTitsLiar .... it would require facts.
If it will save you any time, I believe I responded to a post about the Iraqis not agreeing to status of force agreement with an explanation that it is reported that the conditions placed on it by the Obaminable administration made it unreasonable and unacceptable to the Iraqis and that such a bargaining tactic is often employed to defeat negotiations. It has since been disclosed that the Obaminable administration constantly reduced the number of troops to an unacceptable level (3,000 if I recall) to the Iraqis.
The confirmation of that is irony: Obaminable wants 300 in country now!
There are 10 times (at least) that many "contractors" in Iraq now (by estimates) and they not only don't have a "status of force agreement" they don't have any resources for "extraction" in the event of a "cave-in"!
"Villify" .... you apparently don't know what the word means. Not surprizing.
Again, I wouldn't expect BigTitsLiar to know what it means either.
He just does it....in a factless manner.
