SOFA Agreement for Iraq

[chefgene23]

  First of all I can appreciate anyone opinion on any subject and respect their right to express said opinion. However;  I have spent a few years working in Iraq and Afghanistan. And though Adam made mention of the President pulling out our troops too soon, I'll agree with that. In fact I thought we would never leave Iraq because I saw first hand on Camp Victory how much equipment we had there. The new multi million dollar MWR they were building during 2010.

 

In the defense of the President I would have done the same thing! If anyone is familiar with the SOFA agreement it basically "states that no Military person can be put on trial under Iraq law for crimes with serving in the military while in a combat role". The President wanted Iraq to sign this agreement. They wouldn't! We pulled out. I too would not have wanted our military people in any country where they can jailed as criminals if an operation goes bad and civilians are hurt or worse, as the enemy is hiding among them. 

 

This is the same agreement that Afghanistan I had to sign before we would stay. They did with the new President.

 

Lastly Adam I respect you on the matters of the Iraq dinar and all the other investment opportunities you have presented. I was a little surprised at your conversation on the chat. What someone really needs to do is do research on how the Kuwaiti and Iraqi war got started in the first place. We were in bed with Saddam in his fight with Iran back in the day. The two biggest lies told of all was 1, the war would pay for itself and 2,there was weapons of mass destruction. But the fault was not doing the job right the first time in 1992 or so. But then Pres. Bush at that time had promised our allies that he was only going to remove Iraq from Kuwait.

This is not to be a condemnation of what you shared in your chat log, just some fyi that I have first hand knowledge of. Well as close to first since I was not in the White House. 

[gymrat76541]

I agree! Can you imagine watching a soldier getting his hand chopped off for stealing on CNN? How about a public stoning?

 

Middle Eastern justice is harsh!

 

Iraq is the main reason why the USA could not continue to assist their country!

[italiancat]

First of all I can appreciate anyone opinion on any subject and respect their right to express said opinion. However; I have spent a few years working in Iraq and Afghanistan. And though Adam made mention of the President pulling out our troops too soon, I'll agree with that. In fact I thought we would never leave Iraq because I saw first hand on Camp Victory how much equipment we had there. The new multi million dollar MWR they were building during 2010.

In the defense of the President I would have done the same thing! If anyone is familiar with the SOFA agreement it basically "states that no Military person can be put on trial under Iraq law for crimes with serving in the military while in a combat role". The President wanted Iraq to sign this agreement. They wouldn't! We pulled out. I too would not have wanted our military people in any country where they can jailed as criminals if an operation goes bad and civilians are hurt or worse, as the enemy is hiding among them.

Much appreciation for your service. Lost my best friend there at the beginning of the war. Edited October 11, 2014 by Markinsa
Repaired Quote Box

[ocdude]

  First of all I can appreciate anyone opinion on any subject and respect their right to express said opinion. However;  I have spent a few years working in Iraq and Afghanistan. And though Adam made mention of the President pulling out our troops too soon, I'll agree with that. In fact I thought we would never leave Iraq because I saw first hand on Camp Victory how much equipment we had there. The new multi million dollar MWR they were building during 2010.

 

In the defense of the President I would have done the same thing! If anyone is familiar with the SOFA agreement it basically "states that no Military person can be put on trial under Iraq law for crimes with serving in the military while in a combat role". 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In defense of the President, I will AGAIN point out that Obama ad no choice in pulling out under the agreement signed by BUSH.

 

 

 

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement(SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011

 

 

 

So, no, Obama had no choice in the matter.

Edited October 10, 2014 by ocdude

[mrparrot]

I agree! Can you imagine watching a soldier getting his hand chopped off for stealing on CNN? How about a public stoning?

 

Middle Eastern justice is harsh!

 

Iraq is the main reason why the USA could not continue to assist their country!

Maybe that's exactly what this country needs.

 

Public executions televised for all to see.

Stoning, hanging, electrocution, firing squads,

you name it.

 

Televise it all.

 

Thieves getting hands chopped off.

Rapists getting beaten to death with

baseball bats ( no hits above the chest.

If you kill him with the first swing, how

do you expect him to suffer for a little

while before he dies...? ) .

 

Same goes for child molesters.

 

And the level of punishments will go for

the white collar criminals as well.

 

Embezzlers shall be stripped naked,

the word "EMBEZZLER" tattoo'd on

their forehead, and paraded down the

downtown streets at high noon.

Everyday, for a month.

Then dropped off in the middle of

the desert to fend for themselves.

 

Middle Eastern justice may be harsh,

but it sure beats the hell out "Club Fed"

when it comes to prison recidivism...

[dontlop]

Try reading the cease fire agreement of 1991

http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

There was a bit more involved than removing saddam from kuwait

Saddam surrendered

But we had conditions to that cease fire agreement

He was not a man of his word

If Clinton did not win in 1992 bush senior would of invaded the first time saddam violated that cease fire agreement

Clinton was not a strong leader he swatted at the flies for years

The first attack on American soil with a strong leader like GW Bush

He said he's not swatting at the flies he's going to take them out

He was a man of his word

Not like the red line in Syria obama

Democrats are weak on national defense

[eastcreek]

First of all I can appreciate anyone opinion on any subject and respect their right to express said opinion. However;  I have spent a few years working in Iraq and Afghanistan. And though Adam made mention of the President pulling out our troops too soon, I'll agree with that. In fact I thought we would never leave Iraq because I saw first hand on Camp Victory how much equipment we had there. The new multi million dollar MWR they were building during 2010.

 

In the defense of the President I would have done the same thing! If anyone is familiar with the SOFA agreement it basically "states that no Military person can be put on trial under Iraq law for crimes with serving in the military while in a combat role". The President wanted Iraq to sign this agreement. They wouldn't! We pulled out. I too would not have wanted our military people in any country where they can jailed as criminals if an operation goes bad and civilians are hurt or worse, as the enemy is hiding among them. 

 

This is the same agreement that Afghanistan I had to sign before we would stay. They did with the new President.

 

Lastly Adam I respect you on the matters of the Iraq dinar and all the other investment opportunities you have presented. I was a little surprised at your conversation on the chat. What someone really needs to do is do research on how the Kuwaiti and Iraqi war got started in the first place. We were in bed with Saddam in his fight with Iran back in the day. The two biggest lies told of all was 1, the war would pay for itself and 2,there was weapons of mass destruction. But the fault was not doing the job right the first time in 1992 or so. But then Pres. Bush at that time had promised our allies that he was only going to remove Iraq from Kuwait.

This is not to be a condemnation of what you shared in your chat log, just some fyi that I have first hand knowledge of. Well as close to first since I was not in the White House.

Certainly one may have his opinion, but for you to say that, then boldly say you have firsthand knowledge of WMD in/not in Iraq; I call pure BS! With your statement on that subject, you are claiming that the U.S. intelligence services,the German intelligence services, the British,French, all Israeli services knew less than you. You sir, ARE A LIAR!

[skeetdog]

It's all in how a person goes about deception and their determination to see it though. I was a Convey Commander for KBR on my 1st tour escorted by Marines. When the Rules of Engagement changed and our troops weren't allowed to fight. The Marines basically told the administration, you don't need a fighting force then we're not needed and pulled out. I stayed until we recovered the voting booths from Iraq's first free election in 05' and to finish out a 2 year tour.  I feel the administration at the time referred to in this post by Mr. ''chefgene'' was not concerned with even entertaining the idea of a SOFA agreement. My convictions on this was the proven fact in how o went about winning the election though lies and deceptions.  O's campaign went after the most impressionable groups of people that could fire-up the lies behind his ''Change and Hope'' ideology deception or anyone with the mentally to start a computer.  Yes, I'm implying that this was the Extreme Liberal Pro-Muslim Administrative that was hand chosen by o too continue to play the tune that continues to lead the dancing crowd of sheeple to his defense with their lack of intelligence to have a single thought pattern of their own. With antics and motivations by this administration has proven time and again that the near sightedness of arguments of the poster is o's only ability of the ''Commuity Organizer's'' few abilities to have the devoted weak minded sheeple to come to his defense knowing they can't form an individual thought pattern of their own. No, I aint been in the ''White House'' either but I'm pretty sure it's for two interiorly different reasons....  

                                       By the way...''They found the WMD'' that you and every other sheeple have mud on your face for ''LIAR''...

[ocdude]

  

                                       By the way...''They found the WMD'' that you and every other sheeple have mud on your face for ''LIAR''...

No actually, they did not.Even Bush admitted it.

 

Now, look, I didn’t — part of the reason we went into Iraq was — the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question — my answer to your question is, is that — imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/8/22/president_bush_admits_iraq_had_no

[umbertino]

Much appreciation for your service. Lost my best friend there at the beginning of the war.

Sorry to hear.

[TexasGranny]

A little different take on the SOFA Agreement and our current administration's failure to extend it.

 

How the Obama administration bungled the Iraq withdrawal negotiations

• BY Josh Rogin
• OCTOBER 21, 2011 - 11:26 AM
•  

 

 

The Obama administration is claiming it always intended to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year, in line with the president's announcement today, but in fact several parts of the administration appeared to try hard to negotiate a deal for thousands of troops to remain -- and failed.

 

"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," President Barack Obama said today, after speaking with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "The last American soldier will cross the border out of Iraq with their held -- heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops. That is how America's military efforts in Iraq will end."

 

Deputy National Security Advisors Denis McDonough and Tony Blinken said in a White House briefing that this was always the plan.

"What we were looking for was an Iraq that was secure, stable, and self reliant, and that's what we got here, so there's no question that was a success," said McDonough, who traveled to Iraq last week.

 

But what about the extensive negotiations the administration has been engaged in for months, regarding U.S. offers to leave thousands of uniformed soldiers in Iraq past the deadline? It has been well reported that those negotiations, led by U.S. Ambassador James Jeffrey, Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and White House official Brett McGurk, had been stalled over the U.S. demand that the remaining troops receive immunity from Iraqi courts.

 

"What the president preferred was for the best relationship for the United States and Iraq going forward. That's exactly what we have now," McDonough said, barely acknowledging the administration's intensive negotiations.

 

"We talked about immunities, there's no question about that.... But the bottom line is that the decision you heard the president talk about today is reflective of his view and the prime minister's view of the kind of relationship we want to have going forward. That relationship is a normal relationship," he said.

Of course, the U.S.-Iraqi relationship is anything but normal. Following nine years of war, the death of over 4,000 Americans and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and the disbursement of at least hundreds of billions of dollars of American taxpayer' money, the United States now stands to have significantly less influence in Iraq than if the administration had been able to come to terms with Iraq over a troop extension, according to experts and officials.

 

"Iraq is not a normal country, the security environment is not normal, the embassy is not a normal embassy," said Marisa Cochrane Sullivan, managing director at the Institute for the Study of War, who traveled to Iraq this summer and has been sounding the alarm about what she saw as the mishandling of the negotiations ever since.

 

For more evidence that the administration actually wanted to extend the troop presence in Iraq, despite today's words by Obama and McDonough, one only has to look at the statements of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

 

In July, Panetta urged Iraqi leaders to, "Dammit, make a decision" about the U.S. troop extension. In August, he told reporters that, "My view is that they finally did say, ‘Yes.'" On Oct. 17, he was still pushing for the extension and said, "At the present time I'm not discouraged because we're still in negotiations with the Iraqis."

 

Sullivan was one of 40 conservative foreign policy professionals who wrote to Obama in September to warn that even a residual force of 4,000 troops would "leave the country more vulnerable to internal and external threats, thus imperiling the hard-fought gains in security and governance made in recent years at significant cost to the United States."

 

She said that the administration's negotiating strategy was flawed for a number of reasons: it failed to take into account Iraqi politics, failed to reach out to a broad enough group of Iraqi political leaders, and sent contradictory messages on the troop extension throughout the process.

 

"From the beginning, the talks unfolded in a way where they largely driven by domestic political concerns, both in Washington and Baghdad. Both sides let politics drive the process, rather than security concerns," said Sullivan.

 

As recently as August, Maliki's office was discussing allowing 8,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops to remain until next year, Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaida'ie said in an interview with The Cable. He told us that there was widespread support in Iraq for such an extension, but the Obama administration was demanding that immunity for U.S. troops be endorsed by the Iraqi Council of Representatives, which was never really possible.

 

Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cable that the demand that the troop immunity go through the Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy's diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity.

 

"An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that's done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry," said one former senior Hill staffer. "If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up its ass."

The main Iraqi opposition party Iraqiya, led by former U.S. ally and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, decided to tie that vote to two non-related issues. It said they would not vote for the troop extension unless Maliki agreed give them control of a high-level policy council and let them choose the minister of defense from their ranks. Maliki wasn't about to do either.

 

"It was clear from the beginning that Maliki wasn't going to make a move without the support of the other parties behind him," Sullivan explained, adding that the Obama administration focused on Maliki and neglected other actors, such as Allawi. "There was a misunderstanding of how negotiations were unfolding in Iraq. The negotiations got started in earnest far too late."

 

"The actions don't match the words here," said Sullivan. "It's in the administration's interest to make this look not like they failed to reach an agreement and that they fulfilled a campaign promise. But it was very clear that Panetta and [former Defense Secretary Robert] Gates wanted an agreement."

 

So what's the consequence of the failed negotiations? One consequence could be a security vacuum in Iraq that will be filled by Iran.

 

"It's particularly troubling because having some sort of presence there would have really facilitated our policy vis-a-vis the Iranians and what's going on in Syria. The Iranian influence is going up in Iraq," said Andrew Tabler, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "It makes it harder for us to play our cards, and that's a real setback. We've spent a lot of blood and treasure in Iraq. And these days, stability in that region is not what it used to be."

 

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) echoed those sentiments in a statement today and expressed skepticism that Iraq is as "safe, stable, and self reliant" as the White House claims.

 

"Multiple experts have testified before my committee that the Iraqis still lack important capacities in their ability to maintain their internal stability and territorial integrity," McKeon said. "These shortcomings could reverse the decade of hard work and sacrifice both countries have endured to build a free Iraq."

 

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA), in his own Friday statement, backed up the administration's argument that the lack of a troop extension was in the best interest of the United States and Iraq.

 

"The United States is fulfilling our agreement with an Iraqi government that wants to shape its own future," he said. "The President is also following through on his commitment to end both the conflict in Iraq and our military presence... These moves appropriately reflect the changes on the ground. American troops in Iraq will be coming home, having served with honor and enormous skill."

 

UPDATE: This article was amended after a White House official called in to say that it was not the "White House" that was pushing for an extension of U.S. troops. 

"The White House has always seen the president's pledge to get all troops out of Iraq as a core commitment, period," the White House official said.

 

*****************************************************************************************************

 

This article is dated October 21, 2011 - interesting to see who was right about Iraq's security situation.

 

 

[ocdude]

Yes Granny...he TRIED to extend it. Iraq would not agree. He did not bungle it...he was bound by the agreement signed by Bush. He tried to renegotiate...Iraq refused. As a sovereign nation, that was their right. The OPINION that somehow Obama could break the agreement and stay in Iraq over the objection of the Iraqis is interesting... After all the whining about his Executive Orders.....even though he has the LEAST amount of EO's of all recent presidents...I can imagine the outrage had he single handedly broken Bush's agreement.

Edited October 11, 2014 by ocdude

[skeetdog]

ocdude...I was raised in Oil City and we went by the ''OC Boyz'' I really hate it that a guy with your mentality has that ''Handel''....Your defiantly a sheeplr that listens to the MSM and hinges on o's every word. On my second tour of Iraq, 7-07 til 6-10, I was the EF O/M stationed on old Ananconda, Ballad now JBB....One of my responsibilities was to maintain FOB's and their Heavy Equipment needs....To keep things within security prospective I'll generalize...We were called into an unusual briefing before an enter theater obscuration where we were medically observed through blood extraction and other forms of medical documentation. We were not allowed to take the equipment we'd used in every other operation and when we arrived the equipment was sealed and had plastic on all controls. We had been issued uniform w/SCBA....For two days I operated a crane in an area ENE of Bagdad, in a very old location, loading HET Lowboys with boxed crates...We were kept separate from the main personnel at the loading site. The people that were around the DEFAC and MWR's let out that they'd gotten the word that ''Bush'' was right....I replied that Clinton was a _ _ ssy.... Their reply was , ''Yea, And that too''...You can drink all the ''Kool-Aid'' the MSM put out but when they're ''Special Forces'' surrounding the entire operation and no cameras, phones and made to sign a statement tells me that it aint goin' to get out to far... and I don't know Shiiite....No he did not have any intention to extent the SOFA or anything but the length of how much he could get his sheeple to believe....There was too much greed and corruption to be done, that has been discovered, and your boy o might be caught dealing from the bottom of the deck for profit. You o ''Kool-Aid'' drinker's boy has  now got associations with Maliki and has shown his hand in the decisions made in fighting the ISIS... Just keep on backing that LIAR it suits you to a tee...Looks good on people of your stature.....                   

[ocdude]

Thank you for your service, but not your vitriol. So sorry that the FACTS offend you so much that you feel the need to denigrate another poster.

 

Whether or not he could get the Iraqis to agree to an extension has no bearing on the fact that it was BUSH who signed the agreement saying that ALL TROOPS WOULD BE OUT BY 2011. Period.

 

And no, there were no WMD's that we did not already know about.

Edited October 11, 2014 by ocdude

[dontlop]

Read the cease fire agreement

It doesn't matter if we knew about them or not

Yes we knew about them that's why we went to iraq

[skeetdog]

Do you realize the magnitude of your statements...You do understand that there are systems under the earth in Iraq that are so deep that the newer bunker breakers can't shatter....If you had the privilege to be on Anaconda and had the fortitude to walk down the stairs, thru the destruction of the first few flights of steps you could of witness, before they put the chained locked fences up and constructed a little known state of the art medical center that went the entire five stories below the ground, the extent of their abilities....Iraq is the Pearl of the ME countries throughout past history....People by the name of King Solomon , considered the wisest of people to ever walk this earth had dealing in this part of the world. There are numerous Kings throughout history with hundred of thousand of slaves at there disposal. With the heat involved and knowing the only way to gain any relief was to dig down and make shade. Don't yea think that the people that could make rock figures, I'll let you spell the word seeming you want to impress with your vocabulary beside I'm curious if you can figure it out with your knowledge, that it would be even simpler to use gravity as an ally. Before I left Al Asad in 7-10 there was an Iraqi spotted by a post guard and captured. Upon questioned the Iraqi they used video tape to see where he'd come from. They looked for two day until they found the secrete little passage he had come out of.  Upon entering and further investigation, they found under ground tunnels that a semi-truck could travel through to locations miles outside the base. This was the oasis where Moses village is located and preserved within the Al Asad base...With this said, how can you in all your infamous wisdom even entertain an idea as arrogant as your reply...      

[skeetdog]

             Wanting too and having the ability are to different concepts...To mislead, lie and proclaim a faults interpretation to redeem some cloak of majesty within his cult is inexcusable...Of course if ya drink the o flavored Kool-Aid...I care not to even try to understand yalls point of view.... 

[Shelley]

Yes Granny...he TRIED to extend it. Iraq would not agree. He did not bungle it...he was bound by the agreement signed by Bush. He tried to renegotiate...Iraq refused. As a sovereign nation, that was their right. The OPINION that somehow Obama could break the agreement and stay in Iraq over the objection of the Iraqis is interesting... After all the whining about his Executive Orders.....even though he has the LEAST amount of EO's of all recent presidents...I can imagine the outrage had he single handedly broken Bush's agreement.

Some of your points are correct and some omit what actually happened, I have been listening to Leon Panetta's accounts of what the negotiations were about. I think I will continue to believe and trust what he has to say until someone else that was there gives me something different to think about.

[yendor]

It really baffles me how , when a president and his vice president was forced to resigns in humiliation for the "cover-up" of a hotel break-in  and was CONSTANTLY reported in the news for months and months, while today's president's administration has cover-ups on cover-ups on cover-ups and even one where our Ambassadors was murdered after signals were sent days(if not weeks) before the attack and the lamestream media reported it sparsely for a day o two because their beloved president had reported that Al Queda was "on the run". Not to mention the other scandal cover-ups like the IRS and the prostitution GSA, the Fast and Furious, and  it goes on and on with this administration I tink the number is around 2 dozen and counting....... and he still goe golfing. What a guy.

[ocdude]

Some of your points are correct and some omit what actually happened, I have been listening to Leon Panetta's accounts of what the negotiations were about. I think I will continue to believe and trust what he has to say until someone else that was there gives me something different to think about.

Doesn't matter what they were about...the point is that he tried to negotiate, and the Iraqis did not agree, as was their right..They refused to allow the troops immunity and that was a non negotiable item for us.Therefore he was BOUND by the agreement signed by Bush.

[Bunk]

Doesn't matter what they were about...the point is that he tried to negotiate, and the Iraqis did not agree, as was their right..They refused to allow the troops immunity and that was a non negotiable item for us.Therefore he was BOUND by the agreement signed by Bush.

 

 

  Hooeey...Obama did not know what he was doing..As a matter of fact,he still doesnt!     The only thing he knows about is his golf handicap and at what time his next fundraiser is...

[ocdude]

  Hooeey...Obama did not know what he was doing..As a matter of fact,he still doesnt!     The only thing he knows about is his golf handicap and at what time his next fundraiser is...

 

 

Um...guess you mean that BUSH didn't know what he was doing , since HE was the one who signed the original agreement.

[Bunk]

Um...guess you mean that BUSH didn't know what he was doing , since HE was the one who signed the original agreement.

 

 Obama could have got a deal,but he was to busy claiming victory in Iraq and declaring that he pulled out ALL Soldiers and that al quada was destroyed.. It gets SO friggen tiresome,to listen to the blame Bush crowd..Why cant You admit that Obama has bungled from the start??Or of You of the mindset that he has done a wonderful job,its just EVERYONE elses fault for everything that has happened in his 6 years so far.. 

[ocdude]

 Obama could have got a deal,but he was to busy claiming victory in Iraq and declaring that he pulled out ALL Soldiers and that al quada was destroyed.. It gets SO friggen tiresome,to listen to the blame Bush crowd..Why cant You admit that Obama has bungled from the start??Or of You of the mindset that he has done a wonderful job,its just EVERYONE elses fault for everything that has happened in his 6 years so far.. 

 

 

Why must you blame Obama for not fixing what Bush did??

[Jaxinjersey]

Why must you blame Obama for not fixing what Bush did??

What you are failing to consider, is that times change... threats change.... ISIS grows.  Bush did what was prudent at the time (as I believe you are acknowledging) in protecting our troops against a stubborn Iraqi leadership, by not signing an extended SOFA agreement without immunity in place.  However, it's quite apparent that Bush and military leadership at the time did not want to leave.   It is also quite apparent that today, that past leadership is again voicing that sentiment... as well as the current military leadership.   The point is... that we can only rely on the subsequent, and now current leadership to adjust its policy to current circumstances... assertively and aggressively... renegotiating... not taking NO for an answer.  That's what a leader does... especially as its citizenry and allies are threatened.   To simply defer to a "previous agreement" is simply weak and pathetic.  Obama has not listened to our country's advisors, nor adjusted to current issues...  as threats have evolved.  He could have, and should have.  THAT is Obama's extreme failure...  and frankly, his inaction has put us futher in peril.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Jaxinjersey