By Glenn Kessler October 6
Two debates in a row, participants have argued over an obscure document known as the status of forces agreement (SOFA), which addresses whether a country has criminal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel. The United States has signed more than 100 such agreements, but a lapsed one in Iraq has loomed in importance.
Republicans charge that the Obama administration’s failure to obtain one after 2011 led to the departure of U.S. troops. Democrats assert the timetable was set by George W. Bush, and so, in effect, the administration’s hands were tied.
The Pinocchio Test
Clinton and Kaine are doing some fancy tap-dancing here. They emphasize the role of Bush and the Iraqi government in determining the pace of the troop departure, without mentioning the Obama administration had tried to reach an agreement for keeping additional troops in Iraq, with many top officials (including Clinton) believing a troop extension was essential.
When that deal fell through, in part because the White House did not press hard enough, Obama eagerly touted it as campaign promise that was kept — until the rise of the Islamic State forced the administration to send troops back to Iraq. Then suddenly it was the Iraqi government’s fault that the troops were no longer in Iraq. Moreover, the reason for rejecting a deal with Iraq in 2011 — the lack of an immunity agreement endorsed by parliament — was quietly forgotten.
We realize that an exhaustive history is difficult in a debate setting. But Clinton and Kaine earn Two Pinocchios for airbrushing out too many inconvenient details.
Two Pinocchios
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/06/clinton-kaine-airbrush-out-inconvenient-details-about-u-s-troop-departure-from-iraq/?postshare=7801475762997042&tid=ss_tw
