Iraq Prime Minister demands US withdrawal timetable

[HuskyCaucasian]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle4288108.ece

 

Iraq said for the first time yesterday that it wanted to set a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from its territory.

 

President Bush has long resisted a schedule for pulling his 145,000 soldiers out, arguing that it would play into the hands of insurgents. Nouri al-Maliki, the Shia Prime Minister, who boasted last week that he had crushed terrorism in the country, suggested that it was time to start setting time-lines.

 

“The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to put a timetable on their withdrawal,” Mr al-Maliki said during a visit to the United Arab Emirates. He rejected efforts by Mr Bush to hurry through an agreement on vital issues such as the immunity of US troops in Iraq and use of the country’s airspace. Mr Bush had hoped to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by the end of July to establish the basis for a long-term presence of US troops in the country.

 

The Iraqi parliament has bridled at pushing through such a binding deal with the outgoing and unpopular Bush Administration, saying that the negotiations have been secretive and could undermine Iraq’s sovereignty. “I don’t know anything about this agreement and neither does parliament,” said Ezzedine Dawla, a Sunni MP. “We’re going to pass something we don’t know anything about.”

 

FLASHBACK:

We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.

 

Time to go folks!

Edited July 8, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

The White House sure likes bury it's head-

Asked about the prime minister’s comments today, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman hedged on whether the administration would follow the Iraqi government’s request, criticizing timelines as “artificial“:

WHITMAN:

t i

s

dependent on condition

s

on the ground.

…

But timeline

s

tend to be artificial in nature.

In a

s

ituation where thing

s

are a

s

dynamic a

s

they are in Iraq, I would ju

s

t tell you, it

’

s

u

s

ually be

s

t to loo

k

at the

s

e thing

s

ba

s

ed on condition

s

on the ground.

The State Department also hedged on whether the Bush administration would listen to Maliki. In a briefing today, spokesperson Sean McCormack said the remark may have been a transcription error:

McCORMAC

K

: Well, that

’

s

really the part

—

the point at which

I would

s

ee

k

greater clarification in term

s

of remar

k

s

. I

’

ve

s

een the

s

ame pre

s

s

report

s

that you have, but I haven

’

t yet had an opportunity to get greater clarify a

s

to exactly to what Mr. Mali

k

i wa

s

referring or if, in fact, that

’

s

an accurate reporting of what he

s

aid.

The synopses:

"well... umm..... politically, we dont want them to say that, so obviously they didnt... you made it up. We reserve the right to scrub his comments from the record"

 

Let me clarify for the white house what he said:

“The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to put a timetable on their withdrawal,”

 

That's pretty clear to me.

Edited July 8, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[southsider2k5]

The White House sure likes bury it's head-

The synopses:

"well... umm..... politically, we dont want them to say that, so obviously they didnt... you made it up. We reserve the right to scrub his comments from the record"

 

Let me clarify for the white house what he said:

“The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to put a timetable on their withdrawal,”

 

That's pretty clear to me.

 

Sure it is, after someone else has translated it into English...

[HuskyCaucasian]

Pay attention to how this plays out:

Is McCain Poised To 'Refine His Position' On Iraq?

 

Don't look now, national political media, but it looks like Senator John McCain is about to flip-flop "refine his position" on Iraq troop withdrawal!

 

...at the Council of Foreign Relations, the John McCain of 2004 gave us a pretty clear answer:

Que

s

tion: "What would or

s

hould we do if, in the po

s

t-June 30th period, a

s

o-called

s

overeign Iraqi government a

s

k

s

u

s

to leave, even if we are unhappy about the

s

ecurity

s

ituation there?"

 

McCain'

s

An

s

wer: "Well, if that

s

cenario evolve

s

than

I thin

k

it'

s

obviou

s

that we would have to leave

becau

s

e -- if it wa

s

an elected government of Iraq, and we've been a

s

k

ed to leave other place

s

in the world. If it were an extremi

s

t government then I thin

k

we would have other challenge

s

,

but I don't

s

ee how we could

s

tay when our whole empha

s

i

s

and policy ha

s

been ba

s

ed on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people

."

 

So, if McCain says we must stay... hmmm...

[NorthSideSox72]

Pay attention to how this plays out:

Is McCain Poised To 'Refine His Position' On Iraq?

 

 

 

So, if McCain says we must stay... hmmm...

Again, you are really stretching here. Where is the flip-flop?

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Again, you are really stretching here. Where is the flip-flop?

It's not that he has flip-flopped, it's to pay attention to if he WILL. Sorry, i should have made that more clear. He said he should go if asked. They asked us to go. So, by McCain's words, we should leave. BUT, if he says we need to stay longer and not have a time table for withdrawal, he's flipped.

 

Update: I also got to thinking... if he now says we SHOULD set a timetable to withdrawal in the next 2 years, wouldn't that be a flip as well? He continues to push that our presence in Iraq = national security. If he now says we must leave, wouldn't that mean America is less safe by his definition?

Edited July 8, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[bmags]

I thought you were just joking on whether he'd 'flip flop' after the media played up a non-existent flip flop by Obama.

[EvilMonkey]

So, 'refining your position' is now a flip-flop? That should make Obama the master! He has 'refined his position' so much this campaign, I wonder if he remembers what it was to start with.

[kapkomet]

So, 'refining your position' is now a flip-flop? That should make Obama the master! He has 'refined his position' so much this campaign, I wonder if he remembers what it was to start with.

It's allowed if a Democrat and a flip-flop if a Republican, or vice versa, depending on your favorite party of choice.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

So, 'refining your position' is now a flip-flop? That should make Obama the master! He has 'refined his position' so much this campaign, I wonder if he remembers what it was to start with.

did you read what was written? I'm not getting into the Obama "refining" debate. that was the largest load of horse **** that i've seen in a long time.

 

In this case, it would be a DIRECT flip if McCain says we must stay even if asked to leave.

And if he now says we should leave, like he promised in 2004, wouldnt that make America less safe by his own definition?

[HuskyCaucasian]

McCain Responds to Maliki's Call for an Iraq Withdrawal Timetable

 

today, his top foreign policy adviser declined to criticize Maliki or distance McCain from him. And they sought to portray Maliki's comments as consistent with the Republican nominee's long-standing position.

 

"Senator McCain has always said that conditions on the ground -- including the security threats posed by extremists and terrorists, and the ability of Iraqi forces to meet those threats -- would be key determinants in U.S. force levels"

.

.

.

On Tuesday, McCain's campaign declined to respond directly to the question of whether he now supports the idea of setting a date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country.

 

Speaking on MSNBC Tuesday morning, McCain said that "The fact is that we and the Iraqis will deal in what is in the national security interests of both countries. And there is no reason to assume that the Iraqis aren't going to act in what they perceive as their national interest. I believe we will enact ours and I believe we will all come home."

 

OOPS! Looks like a shift in position to me. They asked us to leave... his response: "well... umm... conditions on the ground are what matter most, not what they ask"

[NorthSideSox72]

McCain Responds to Maliki's Call for an Iraq Withdrawal Timetable

 

 

 

OOPS! Looks like a shift in position to me. They asked us to leave... his response: "well... umm... conditions on the ground are what matter most, not what they ask"

I just don't see a flip-flop here. He's said we'd stay as long as necessary, given the conditions on the ground. He has said that consistently. But, and here is the key, I think he'd be stupid to not take the Iraqi's desires into account. Its good policy for all sorts of reasons. So, that should be a mitigating factor in his decision. And that's what he's seeming to do.

 

We've had 7 years now of a failed Presidency, in part because this President doesn't understand the concepts of compromise and adjustment. This is a key example where both these candidates are more willing to adjust to changing conditions in making their decisions. If the Iraqis suddenly stand up and say "we're ready, time to start getting you guys out of here", then any President with half a brain cell should take that heavily into account.

 

Look, I'm still probably voting for Obama, for a number of reasons. And both these guys have shown some recent flip-flops (Obama on telecom immunity, McCain on some energy stuff, as examples) that bother me. But in this case, I think McCain's camp is handling it pretty well.

 

[Rex Kickass]

A candidate willing to change his mind on an issue that reflects real-time events is not a concern for me.

[HuskyCaucasian]

This is a great debate:

[lostfan]

I just don't see a flip-flop here. He's said we'd stay as long as necessary, given the conditions on the ground. He has said that consistently. But, and here is the key, I think he'd be stupid to not take the Iraqi's desires into account. Its good policy for all sorts of reasons. So, that should be a mitigating factor in his decision. And that's what he's seeming to do.

 

We've had 7 years now of a failed Presidency, in part because this President doesn't understand the concepts of compromise and adjustment. This is a key example where both these candidates are more willing to adjust to changing conditions in making their decisions. If the Iraqis suddenly stand up and say "we're ready, time to start getting you guys out of here", then any President with half a brain cell should take that heavily into account.

 

Look, I'm still probably voting for Obama, for a number of reasons. And both these guys have shown some recent flip-flops (Obama on telecom immunity, McCain on some energy stuff, as examples) that bother me. But in this case, I think McCain's camp is handling it pretty well.

To add to what you said, and chime in with my 2 cents - Obama's position on Iraq is based on the same exact principle McCain is using here. And God knows I've criticized McCain's position(s) and knowledge on Iraq before.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Why is everybody trying so hard to obscure a very simple fact?

 

Bush and McCain were both talking out of their asses when they gave lip service to the notion that they would heed the wishes of a freely and fairly elected Iraq if the US was asked to leave.

 

When initially asked the question, W did not say it would depend on the situation on the ground. He said, “If they were to say, leave, we would leave.”

 

When McCain was asked the same question and had an opportunity to say that W spoke out of turn and we would only leave when we decided it was time, No, he said, ""Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it's obvious that we would have to leave.”

 

These are very direct responses to a situation that is very likely to arise, it's not some outlandish hypothetical. The only outlandish part is that anybody would take the president at his word when he pretends like he cares about the will of the fairly elected Iraqi government or its people.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Why is everybody trying so hard to obscure a very simple fact?

 

Bush and McCain were both talking out of their asses when they gave lip service to the notion that they would heed the wishes of a freely and fairly elected Iraq if the US was asked to leave.

 

When initially asked the question, W did not say it would depend on the situation on the ground. He said, “If they were to say, leave, we would leave.”

 

When McCain was asked the same question and had an opportunity to say that W spoke out of turn and we would only leave when we decided it was time, No, he said, ""Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it's obvious that we would have to leave.”

 

These are very direct responses to a situation that is very likely to arise, it's not some outlandish hypothetical. The only outlandish part is that anybody would take the president at his word when he pretends like he cares about the will of the fairly elected Iraqi government or its people.

:notworthy