Of course it is no less incumbent on the president on whose watch all of this transpired and who bears the responsibility for the failure to make an agreement. So far Obama has failed to show a good faith effort, quite the contrary, he is on record beginning in 2008 and continuing past the pullout by Americans that it was his full intention to exit. As I recall, he proclaimed, or had his vice president proclaim, that it was a signal achievement of his administration to get the troops out of Iraq.
There is so much evidence of Obama's fixed intention to skedaddle that they would be very difficult for him now, short of producing documents, to convince a fair jury that he was frustrated in an honest attempt to negotiate a status of forces agreement.
On balance, I would argue that the burden of proof is on Obama the come forward with evidence of the administration for a number of reasons including the very practical one that he is in possession of the facts and the documents while Cheney is at best in possession of hearsay or secondhand information.
Even if Obama can somehow convince us that he was actually frustrated in an honest attempt to negotiate such an agreement, there remains the question whether a scant 3000 troops would have made the difference when Isis came over the Syrian border and were steadfastly ignored by Obama ignored despite repeated intelligence briefings. Obama's in the anomalous position of having declared that the war in Iraq was won go to sleep him him him him him him him him him him him him him him as he pulled the troops out and his subsequent history of ignoring not only the incursions by Isis but the suppression of the Shiite by Malaki
All of this is publicly known but not generally known as we face the same friction in the media we face in opposing any Democrat regime.
Sorry for mistaking your name. Although party animal wouldn't be bad either.
