Iraqi PM backs Obama's plan for withdrawal

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Text

Of particular interest to me is Maliki's repeated references to shorter periods of time for US troops to be there. Now sure both candidates say that circumstances will dictate their actions, but McCain's plan certainly called for a longer commitment then this, and a more substantial one. It's going to be very hard for McCain to trash Obama's plan for Iraq now, as Obama can simply point to the Iraqi PM and say 'he seems to think I have a good idea'.

Since so much of McCain's candidacy is built upon foreign policy, it must really sting to have the Prime Minister of the country at the center of your foreign policy endorse your opponent's plan... one that you have ridiculed.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Maliki's chances of getting re-anointed just got a whole lot dimmer.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
al-Maliki takes his dick out and promptly proceeds to bitch slap both Bush and McSame in their faces with it
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Maliki really has been getting rowdy lately with Bush. I think what he's actually trying to do right now is use these endorsements of Obama, etc. to push Bush for the best possible deal he can get on this new authorization of occupation agreement or whateverthehell it's called.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Gotta love the spin from the Whitehouse- "a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals"... anybody care to translate that into something other than doublespeak?

I seriously doubt that Bush will get much of anything from the Iraqis- about the best he can hope for is an interim agreement allowing American troops to stay thru may or june of 2010... From an Iraqi perspective, agreeing to any more than that atm would be foolish...

They want us gone, entirely, make no mistake about that. That's the people and the govt, meaning Maliki's electoral star is rising, not falling...
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Gotta love the spin from the Whitehouse- "a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals"... anybody care to translate that into something other than doublespeak?

I seriously doubt that Bush will get much of anything from the Iraqis- about the best he can hope for is an interim agreement allowing American troops to stay thru may or june of 2010... From an Iraqi perspective, agreeing to any more than that atm would be foolish...

They want us gone, entirely, make no mistake about that. That's the people and the govt, meaning Maliki's electoral star is rising, not falling...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I somewhat agree with Jhhnn, I doubt GWB&co will even get an interim agreement lasting until May 2010. Its sort of a triple witching hour, there are Iraqi agreements and UN agreements that somewhat legitimize the continuing US occupation and they basically all expire in early 2009.

And what GWB is pushing for is some sort of immediate permanent agreements to allow for permanent US bases in Iraq. Even less likely to happen now after the Maliki statement.

Nor can GWB speak for the USA in such a treaty, it requires Senate approval while GWB pretends it does not. Nor can Maliki speak for Iraq, it requires the Iraqi legislature to agree.

If anything, there will be nothing legitimizing the US occupation of Iraq after 1/2009. And since GWB will be a non factor after 1/20/2009, any continuation will more likely be a very short term agreement forged between the US President elect, Iraq, and the UN. And before that expires, some agreement in principle to formalize a longer term agreement. I very much doubt such an interim agreement would last until 2010.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
al-Maliki takes his dick out and promptly proceeds to bitch slap both Bush and McSame in their faces with it

What's sad is that he's been saying this for two years now but it was something Bush didn't want to hear so he kept his fingers in his ears.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
McSame will simply assert that he was right about the surge and Obama was wrong about it. Rinse. Lather. Repeat.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
To add insult to injury, some staffer in the White House press office forwarded the Reuters article to the U.S. news media.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?
Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we?re concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.

This is "backing"? Does Obama's 16month pull out include the "Assuming that positive developments continue," ? Not according to most of the positions he's taken on Iraq.

meh... lap it up if you wish lefties...

Also, it seems the Maliki gov't is backing away from the "translation"...
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I based the may-june 2010 withdrawal projection on Obama's 16 month timeline beginning from the date of his inauguration, LL...

And, uhh, in case you haven't noticed, CSG, neither of the primary goals of the Bushista adventure will likely ever happen, those being sweetheart oil deals for american companies and permanent US bases...
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Iraq's PM is not shy of wanting US forces out ASAP. I sure would like to see the evidence of him "backing away" from his comments presented too us.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/...tml?section=cnn_latest

Meh

lol. Aside from the overt support in the German article, how is what they said in the CNN article different from the Der Spiegal article? Looks the same to me, except he probably didn't want to embarrass Bush. However, we all know he's been saying something like this for years now.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Iraq's PM is not shy of wanting US forces out ASAP. I sure would like to see the evidence of him "backing away" from his comments presented too us.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/...tml?section=cnn_latest

Meh

lol. Aside from the overt support in the German article, how is what they said in the CNN article different from the Der Spiegal article? Looks the same to me, except he probably didn't want to embarrass Bush. However, we all know he's been saying something like this for years now.


The Spiegal article had "Assuming that positive developments continue" and then suddenly didn't..or something like that. But either way, none of this is surprising since the policy has been to withdraw troops based on progress. It just seems the PM is hoping that it'll be around that time based on current progress.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Iraq's PM is not shy of wanting US forces out ASAP. I sure would like to see the evidence of him "backing away" from his comments presented too us.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/...tml?section=cnn_latest

Meh

lol. Aside from the overt support in the German article, how is what they said in the CNN article different from the Der Spiegal article? Looks the same to me, except he probably didn't want to embarrass Bush. However, we all know he's been saying something like this for years now.


The Spiegal article had "Assuming that positive developments continue" and then suddenly didn't..or something like that. But either way, none of this is surprising since the policy has been to withdraw troops based on progress. It just seems the PM is hoping that it'll be around that time based on current progress.

No. Al Maliki has always wanted a firm committment to withdrawal. Obama has as well. Al Maliki believes in something called "sovereignty" while Senator believes in personal responsibility. Of course, if shit should ever hit the fan, neither man would want a withdrawal, so the continuation of the depression of violence has always been an assumption. The difference with McCain is that he has had a nebulous committment to troop withdrawal, a la Bush. Those are serious differences. As far as McCain is concerned, America can stay in Iraq forever with bases throughout the country. Neither Al Maliki nor Obama care for that, or they don't see it as a priority. Neither do Americans.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Iraq's PM is not shy of wanting US forces out ASAP. I sure would like to see the evidence of him "backing away" from his comments presented too us.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/...tml?section=cnn_latest

Meh

lol. Aside from the overt support in the German article, how is what they said in the CNN article different from the Der Spiegal article? Looks the same to me, except he probably didn't want to embarrass Bush. However, we all know he's been saying something like this for years now.


The Spiegal article had "Assuming that positive developments continue" and then suddenly didn't..or something like that. But either way, none of this is surprising since the policy has been to withdraw troops based on progress. It just seems the PM is hoping that it'll be around that time based on current progress.

It has? Because every time Republicans field the question, their response seems to indicate that they'd like to keep troops there as long as humanly possible. And anyone who suggests getting out as soon as it's practical (which would seem to line up with "assuming positive development continues") is branded a defeatist and a traitor. Don't try to co-opt a (somewhat) lefty position just because yours has lost its appeal.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Iraq's PM is not shy of wanting US forces out ASAP. I sure would like to see the evidence of him "backing away" from his comments presented too us.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/...tml?section=cnn_latest

Meh

lol. Aside from the overt support in the German article, how is what they said in the CNN article different from the Der Spiegal article? Looks the same to me, except he probably didn't want to embarrass Bush. However, we all know he's been saying something like this for years now.


The Spiegal article had "Assuming that positive developments continue" and then suddenly didn't..or something like that. But either way, none of this is surprising since the policy has been to withdraw troops based on progress. It just seems the PM is hoping that it'll be around that time based on current progress.

It has? Because every time Republicans field the question, their response seems to indicate that they'd like to keep troops there as long as humanly possible. And anyone who suggests getting out as soon as it's practical (which would seem to line up with "assuming positive development continues") is branded a defeatist and a traitor. Don't try to co-opt a (somewhat) lefty position just because yours has lost its appeal.

:roll: You'd have to be a partisan hack to believe what you posted.... oh wait...

The position has ALWAYS been that we'll stand down as they stand up. Sheesh. For you and others to claim otherwise is nothing but dishonest hackery.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Iraq's PM is not shy of wanting US forces out ASAP. I sure would like to see the evidence of him "backing away" from his comments presented too us.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/...tml?section=cnn_latest

Meh

lol. Aside from the overt support in the German article, how is what they said in the CNN article different from the Der Spiegal article? Looks the same to me, except he probably didn't want to embarrass Bush. However, we all know he's been saying something like this for years now.


The Spiegal article had "Assuming that positive developments continue" and then suddenly didn't..or something like that. But either way, none of this is surprising since the policy has been to withdraw troops based on progress. It just seems the PM is hoping that it'll be around that time based on current progress.

No. Al Maliki has always wanted a firm committment to withdrawal. Obama has as well. Al Maliki believes in something called "sovereignty" while Senator believes in personal responsibility. Of course, if shit should ever hit the fan, neither man would want a withdrawal, so the continuation of the depression of violence has always been an assumption. The difference with McCain is that he has had a nebulous committment to troop withdrawal, a la Bush. Those are serious differences. As far as McCain is concerned, America can stay in Iraq forever with bases throughout the country. Neither Al Maliki nor Obama care for that, or they don't see it as a priority. Neither do Americans.

Uhhh... So he wants a timetable. So? It doesn't change the fact that he knows the situation on the ground will dictate when we withdraw. As I pointed out before - most of BHO's positions on the troop withdraw are not based on the situation on the ground.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Iraq's PM is not shy of wanting US forces out ASAP. I sure would like to see the evidence of him "backing away" from his comments presented too us.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/...tml?section=cnn_latest

Meh

lol. Aside from the overt support in the German article, how is what they said in the CNN article different from the Der Spiegal article? Looks the same to me, except he probably didn't want to embarrass Bush. However, we all know he's been saying something like this for years now.


The Spiegal article had "Assuming that positive developments continue" and then suddenly didn't..or something like that. But either way, none of this is surprising since the policy has been to withdraw troops based on progress. It just seems the PM is hoping that it'll be around that time based on current progress.

It has? Because every time Republicans field the question, their response seems to indicate that they'd like to keep troops there as long as humanly possible. And anyone who suggests getting out as soon as it's practical (which would seem to line up with "assuming positive development continues") is branded a defeatist and a traitor. Don't try to co-opt a (somewhat) lefty position just because yours has lost its appeal.

:roll: You'd have to be a partisan hack to believe what you posted.... oh wait...

The position has ALWAYS been that we'll stand down as they stand up. Sheesh. For you and others to claim otherwise is nothing but dishonest hackery.

Call me all the names you want, the fact is that since the war started it has been impossible for anyone to suggest we need to expedite our exit from Iraq without people like you assuming they mean leave without doing all we can do to stabilize the country. Sure, you guys always use that "stand down as they stand up" line, but trying to get you on board with making them "stand up" faster is an exercise in futility. Sticking around until the job is done is an admirable decision, but only if it goes along with a desire to actually do the job...and that's where Republicans seem to come up a little short.

But while we're on the topic of partisanship, I have an equally large problem with Democrats who want to leave before doing all we can to fix the mess we made. If we're going to invade a country and demolish their government and infrastructure, I think it's our responsibility to put things back together as much as we can before getting out of Dodge because the war isn't playing so well on the news anymore.

Really, the only thing that makes sense is sticking around until the job is finished...but making that day as soon as humanly possible. And you can't tell me with a straight face that Republicans have had that position from day 1. Some of them may have it NOW, but only because of political expediency.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
...

:roll: You'd have to be a partisan hack to believe what you posted.... oh wait...

...

What can I say, you bring out my inner partisan hack. I know I'm but a student before the master, but maybe...with time...I can walk in your footsteps on the long road to truly dedicated partisan punditry.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Iraq's PM is not shy of wanting US forces out ASAP. I sure would like to see the evidence of him "backing away" from his comments presented too us.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/...tml?section=cnn_latest

Meh

lol. Aside from the overt support in the German article, how is what they said in the CNN article different from the Der Spiegal article? Looks the same to me, except he probably didn't want to embarrass Bush. However, we all know he's been saying something like this for years now.


The Spiegal article had "Assuming that positive developments continue" and then suddenly didn't..or something like that. But either way, none of this is surprising since the policy has been to withdraw troops based on progress. It just seems the PM is hoping that it'll be around that time based on current progress.

It has? Because every time Republicans field the question, their response seems to indicate that they'd like to keep troops there as long as humanly possible. And anyone who suggests getting out as soon as it's practical (which would seem to line up with "assuming positive development continues") is branded a defeatist and a traitor. Don't try to co-opt a (somewhat) lefty position just because yours has lost its appeal.

:roll: You'd have to be a partisan hack to believe what you posted.... oh wait...

The position has ALWAYS been that we'll stand down as they stand up. Sheesh. For you and others to claim otherwise is nothing but dishonest hackery.

Call me all the names you want, the fact is that since the war started it has been impossible for anyone to suggest we need to expedite our exit from Iraq without people like you assuming they mean leave without doing all we can do to stabilize the country. Sure, you guys always use that "stand down as they stand up" line, but trying to get you on board with making them "stand up" faster is an exercise in futility. Sticking around until the job is done is an admirable decision, but only if it goes along with a desire to actually do the job...and that's where Republicans seem to come up a little short.

But while we're on the topic of partisanship, I have an equally large problem with Democrats who want to leave before doing all we can to fix the mess we made. If we're going to invade a country and demolish their government and infrastructure, I think it's our responsibility to put things back together as much as we can before getting out of Dodge because the war isn't playing so well on the news anymore.

Really, the only thing that makes sense is sticking around until the job is finished...but making that day as soon as humanly possible. And you can't tell me with a straight face that Republicans have had that position from day 1. Some of them may have it NOW, but only because of political expediency.

:roll: I seem to recall that many of you(BHO especially) were not supportive of the "surge" - which has in fact helped to expedited them being able to stand up. But... we probably agree on one thing- we should have been pushing harder from the beginning. If we would have been more aggressive - we would probably be gone by now. I and many others were pushing for more aggressiveness but it seems the plan was to play whack-a-mole.