Secondly, it's important to remember that the Iraqi government was insisting on terms of an extended U.S. military presence that no American in his right mind should even consider ... namely, the elimination of any prosecutorial immunity for U.S. troops under Iraqi law. I remember this well because I had a number of heated conversations right here on FreeRepublic on this specific point. This was a drop-dead issue for the U.S. military, and every lawyer in the Obama administration (and you can be sure that a Democratic administration will have plenty of those) knew it.
It was bad enough that the original SOFA in 2008 explicitly stated that all U.S. military and civilian operations would be conducted "with full respect for the Iraqi Constitution and the laws of Iraq." That's a disgraceful statement to include in an international agreement with a defeated nation who has just approved a new constitution in which Islam is enshrined as the official state religion. Freepers would rightly vomit at the thought of Barack Hussein Obama agreeing to any such terms. Why are we so dismissive and accepting of this when the Bush administration is the culprit?
There you go again. Lying by omission, maybe even lying outright.
I'm not going to do your homework for you, but the idea that the bamster isn't the one who screwed the pooch here is beyond comprehension, the news reports of the day were quite clear. I'm not going to do your homework for you, but neither am I going to let you lie (or more kindly be stupid) and not report correctly what happened.
I suppose you don't remember that the bamster bragged about how well things were going then either?
Maybe you can tell us like Ron Paul did, just how excited everyone was to go to war, right?
Egads, ignorance beyond belief on FR.