This is what else President Obama said in that answer to the reporter that your C&P omitted .http://www.caintv.com/despite- his-previous-claims-ob
Here, Barney. This should make it easier for you to cut and paste when you begin to parrot your favorite guy!!
This is a perfect example of how Barney can deny, distort, and lie about his previous erroneous claims! He just follows the example set by his hero!
“And the Iraqi government, based on its political considerations, in part because Iraqis were tired of a U.S. occupation, declined to provide us those assurances. And on that basis, we left…. So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were – a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq.”
That’s not a bad answer, though it’s almost beside the point.
The GOP argument seems to be, if only the Obama administration had committed tens of thousands of U.S. troops to Iraq, and left them there for the indefinite future, Iraq would be stable and there’d be less violence. It’s hard not to get the impression that these critics somehow slept through the last decade or so.
Obama’s response, in effect, is that the decision wasn’t ours to make. But put that aside for a moment. If we follow the Republicans’ argument to its next logical steps, some fairly obvious questions arise. If the United States decides it’s in our national-security interests to prevent violence, weaken ISIS, and deter sectarian conflicts in Iraq, it necessarily means a vastly expanded U.S. military presence. How many American servicemen and women should be deployed to maintain stability in Iraq? McCain and his allies haven’t said, exactly, but the answer appears to be,“As many as it takes.”
And how long should Americans expect these deployments to last? McCain and his allies haven’t elaborated on this front, either, but again the answer appears to be,“As long as it takes.”