Well I have to give props to GWB for bringing the Iraq occupation to an end. Despite Obama's efforts to continue the occupation, it will end this year as GWB outlined. Obama decided that if we couldn't have immunity from committing crimes then there was no interest in staying.

I haven't researched into it, but I don't think Obama wanted military forces to stay in Iraq. I believe there were Iraqi factions requesting Washington keep the 3,900 or so troops there past the deadline, while other factions wanted the troops out. The ultimate decision was that the 3,900 non-combat troops wouldn't be able to prevent civil war if that were to happen, so the Iraqi government made the decision that keeping them there wouldn't offer any real benefit and would only inflame insurgency; so the Iraqi government said U.S. troops could no longer expect any immunity. As soon as Obama received a final decision from the Iraqi government, he ordered the withdrawal.

I think you're referring to candidate Obama, he no longer exists.

This withdrawal is the result of a binding agreement made by GWB. I don't don't say that to give GWB any praise (he deserves scorn), but rather to counter Obama's propaganda that he someone ordered this withdrawal.

I would however give candidate Obama (may he rest in peace) credit for creating pressure that played an important role in GWB making that agreement to withdrawal.

CNN stated in an article yesterday that Wikileaks played a major role in preventing Obama from negotiating a longer occupation in Iraq.

The negotiations were strained following WikiLeaks' release of a diplomatic cable that alleged Iraqi civilians, including children, were killed in a 2006 raid by American troops rather than in an airstrike as the U.S. military initially reported.

CNN doesn't link up the reference by I'm almost certain it was that UN inquiry covered in PD.

neal

CNN stated in an article yesterday that Wikileaks played a major role in preventing Obama from negotiating a longer occupation in Iraq.

Oh please. Like the Iraqis populace needed Wikileaks to tell them that they have suffered enormously in the last 8 years. Not a lot of them actually have the Internet ...But they all have stories about friends neighbors or acquantiances killed or injured or humiliated as a result of action by American troops. Incidents at check points, bombings etc... Some are probably false some are probably true. They have as many or more about the same things occurring by the hand of their countrymen..but the point is that there's sufficient resentment from the last 8 years experience.
But they don't need Wikileaks to tell them anything.
And the fact that Americans couldn't stay without immunity ... is a result of the last 8 years as well.
Someone should explain this to Michelle Bachman and John MCain. (he of the ever lasting occupation and she of the "they should thank us and pay us..."
I have no idea what point you want to make Neal. Obama is signing the order to finalize the exit. Its been a fairly orderly exit. Now, Iraqis will do whatever they want. Since a majority are Shiite kin of Iran - they'll be friendly with Iran.
Go back and look at old discussions on this board and you'll find this state of affairs was accurately predicted... You can't force people to change by invading and occupying them for a few years. Hell, Saddamm essentailly "occupied" Shiite Iraq, but with his departure the very people who left in exile to Iran and Jordan are now in charge...

Glenn Greenwald lays it out in further detail if you wish to see more on the matter. If you don't absolutely love his conclusion you get your money back http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/wikilea ... singleton/

(Note my time stamp is before his)

I think that Glenn Greenwald post could be the subject of your next article...