No. I posted that article because u expressed concerns about bias. A piece criticizing a republican couldnt be considered a dar right basement or whatever term u used.


The point that u made was that obama was bound by the sofa, which is patently false. He could have renegotiated it or REMISSIONED a force of a certain size as something other than combat troops to get around it. He did neither.


What did he do? He forced a public meeting on immunity for troops. That was a poison pill. Why? Because his party had spent the last 5 years running against our military as "rapists in the dead of night" and public sentiment in iraq killed the deal. It could have been negotiated quietly but in this scenario obama got his pull out and a fig leaf of political cover.


Has he done this in other instances? Why yes. The request for authorization of force in syria was written in a way that actually limited the authority of the executive in other o u f legislation and set a date certain. These were intentional poison pills. Its plain as day to anyone paying attention


I find it interesting that u cant actually defend obamas foreign policy and instead want to play word games about the terms "anticipated from the start" ( your term by the way) and "widely anticipated"

---