US and Iraqis close to withdrawal date

[Lemon law]

This just in from Yahoo news. After saying no timetables, its possible GWB now wants one.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...WTUernQ5tIuHQBUQ2s0NUE

My reaction, maybe a deal which could be solid as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green,
Maliki lasts, GWB is Pres, but will fall apart as soon as anyone says no.

Angelic as the US is, the main sticking point is legal immunity for American miscreants.

And Condi is begging for forgiveness from the Iraqis. And of course the other question, how can GWB speak for the US a second after 1/20/2009 when the agreement only starts to take force 10/2010?

But GWB flip flops again.

 

[Moonbeam]

If Bush ends the war it will be good in my opinion. I will be glad if he does and give him all the credit. Bush will be a genius if he gets out. A fool eating crow is a gift from God and you don't need to rub it in.

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If Bush ends the war it will be good in my opinion. I will be glad if he does and give him all the credit. Bush will be a genius if he gets out. A fool eating crow is a gift from God and you don't need to rub it in.

I think this is the first time I've agreed with moonbeam! Or at least understood what was being said!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A fool eating crow is a gift from God and you don't need to rub it in.

Tell that to to the families of those who lost their lives over this folly of a war.

 

[Moonbeam]

Threaten more crow and watch more die, no?

 

[JSt0rm]

It's funny how obama mentions something as his policy and bush does it.

 

[Dari]

Bush must be a defeatist. Bush certainly doesn't like McCain. Then again, this is probably all Condi Rice's doing seeing that she's the last sane person in that Administration.

Seriously, how can McCain spin this? I want to know.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: GenHoth

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If Bush ends the war it will be good in my opinion. I will be glad if he does and give him all the credit. Bush will be a genius if he gets out. A fool eating crow is a gift from God and you don't need to rub it in.

I think this is the first time I've agreed with moonbeam! Or at least understood what was being said!

He lost me on the crow thing, I'm afraid, and that's bad because it wasn't a long posting from him, either.

Seriously, how can McCain spin this? I want to know.

He's "for the troops". That's all you need to know. Check next to McCain in November.

 

[Carmen813]

Everyone knows the withdrawal method doesn't work. We'll have new terrorists popping up in no-time!

/sarcasm

 

[shira]

Look. Once we come up with a potential withdrawal date, you just know that we'll be falling all over ourselves reinforcing how wonderful everything in Iraq is.

What was that phrase about Iraq? Oh yeah, "An oasis of democracy in the Middle East." I'm sold. Happy days are here again.

 

[Fern]

But differences over immunity could scuttle the whole deal, the Iraqis said. One of the officials described immunity as a "minefield" and said each side was sticking by its position.

One official said U.S. negotiator David Satterfield told him that immunity for soldiers was a "red line" for the United States. The official said he replied that issue was "a red line for us too."

The official said the Iraqis were willing to grant immunity for actions committed on American bases and during combat operations ? but not a blanket exemption from Iraqi law.

I'm not quite sure what's going on with the immunity issue, but I really do NOT see the US leaving any of it's military personnel behind in Iraqi prison's etc.

Fern

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Everyone knows the withdrawal method doesn't work. We'll have new terrorists popping up in no-time!

/sarcasm

funny!

and yeah, this kind of sucks for McCain. When McCain said "100 years" he must not have been in the know in terms of what GWB's administration was going to be doing.

It makes him look a bit out of touch.

BHO was never in danger of that....with respect to this issue.

As for GWB - the sooner there is an agreement the sooner everyone can move beyond this debacle. Although nothing will overshadow the mistakes he made in getting us into this mess in the first place. Despite his rabid followers best hopes.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Fern

But differences over immunity could scuttle the whole deal, the Iraqis said. One of the officials described immunity as a "minefield" and said each side was sticking by its position.

One official said U.S. negotiator David Satterfield told him that immunity for soldiers was a "red line" for the United States. The official said he replied that issue was "a red line for us too."

The official said the Iraqis were willing to grant immunity for actions committed on American bases and during combat operations ? but not a blanket exemption from Iraqi law.

I'm not quite sure what's going on with the immunity issue, but I really do NOT see the US leaving any of it's military personnel behind in Iraqi prison's etc.

Fern

I'm curious what type of precedence there is in order to help negotiate this point. I agree, military personnel can/should answer to US law and maybe international law that governs wartime actions, but not new Iraqi law.

 

[conehead433]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A fool eating crow is a gift from God and you don't need to rub it in.

Tell that to to the families of those who lost their lives over this folly of a war.

QFT!

 

[Vette73]

Bush wants to "cut and run" from Iraq!!!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
It's funny how obama mentions something as his policy and bush does it.

Yeah, I was amazed when Bush came out for UHC and direct talks with Achmanedijad etc.

Oh wait, that didn't happen.

I suppose someone not paying attention all this time could get the idea that Bush is copying Obama on the Iraq withdrawal. Of course they'd have to NOT be paying attention to all developments, and hold the erroneous opinion that the US President can do as he pleases with regard to remaining in Iraq.

A couple of things you may wish to cnsider:

1. The UN mandate for our presence in Iraq expires at year-end.

2. The UN will NOT extend it unless Iraq requests it (right there the power is put in Iraq's hands)

3. The Iraqi parliment passed a law requiring that any such request from Iraq to the UN be approved by them (Power out of al Maliki's hands and in parliment's, weakening the US President's role even further. While the US Prsident can hold direct talks with Maliki and apply pressure, he can't do that with a Parlimentary body.)

4. Troops have been over-extended for sometime, some level of substantial withdrawal has been seen as necessary by the military for a while now.

5. Conditions are greatly improved, and appear to be continuing so. The general election draws near. When, if, one weighs the (lack) of necessity of remaing in large numbers vs the politics of the situation is there political pressure to not linger?

6. Afganistan is viewed as an increasing threat, if not the greater threat now. This applies pressure to reduce troop presence in Iraq for later deployment to Afganistan etc.

The decision to remain or withdrawal will not decided soley by the US President, there are many parties and concerns involved, and for some of the reasons I list above, I doubt if the US President has as much power in the matter as many here seem to think.

Fern

 

[Lemon law]

We are ignoring what its going to do to the McCain stay 100 year position.

McCain has been beating up Obama on a time table, and now GWB undercuts McCain.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
We are ignoring what its going to do to the McCain stay 100 year position.

It does nothing. McCain's 100 year comment was in regards to us having forces in Iraq similar to how we currently have forces in Japan, S Korea, and Germany. We would be there because of our friendship and mutual interests with that government.

McCain has been beating up Obama on a time table, and now GWB undercuts McCain.

Maybe. This Iraq/USA agreement is still conditioned based. Which is McCain's platform as well. Plus, per this agreement, residual forces would be in Iraq through 2013.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
We are ignoring what its going to do to the McCain stay 100 year position.

McCain has been beating up Obama on a time table, and now GWB undercuts McCain.

His reflexes aren't as quick as he used to be, so maybe he just couldn't see it coming.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
It's funny how obama mentions something as his policy and bush does it.

If you think that's funny...

 

[Harvey]

BAGHDAD - Iraq and the U.S. are near an agreement on all American combat troops leaving Iraq by October 2010, with the last soldiers out three years after that, two Iraqi officials told The Associated Press on Thursday.
.
.
U.S. acceptance ? even tentatively ? of a specific timeline would represent a dramatic reversal of American policy in place since the war began in March 2003.

Nice of the Bushwhackos to agree with Obama. For them, the sticking point may have insisting on not using the word, "timetable."

< /sarcasm >

Paris's "wrinkled old white haired guy" is going to have a shit fit trying to spin this one.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
It's funny how obama mentions something as his policy and bush does it.

Yeah, I was amazed when Bush came out for UHC and direct talks with Achmanedijad etc.

Oh wait, that didn't happen.

I suppose someone not paying attention all this time could get the idea that Bush is copying Obama on the Iraq withdrawal. Of course they'd have to NOT be paying attention to all developments, and hold the erroneous opinion that the US President can do as he pleases with regard to remaining in Iraq.

A couple of things you may wish to cnsider:

1. The UN mandate for our presence in Iraq expires at year-end.

2. The UN will NOT extend it unless Iraq requests it (right there the power is put in Iraq's hands)

3. The Iraqi parliment passed a law requiring that any such request from Iraq to the UN be approved by them (Power out of al Maliki's hands and in parliment's, weakening the US President's role even further. While the US Prsident can hold direct talks with Maliki and apply pressure, he can't do that with a Parlimentary body.)

4. Troops have been over-extended for sometime, some level of substantial withdrawal has been seen as necessary by the military for a while now.

5. Conditions are greatly improved, and appear to be continuing so. The general election draws near. When, if, one weighs the (lack) of necessity of remaing in large numbers vs the politics of the situation is there political pressure to not linger?

6. Afganistan is viewed as an increasing threat, if not the greater threat now. This applies pressure to reduce troop presence in Iraq for later deployment to Afganistan etc.

The decision to remain or withdrawal will not decided soley by the US President, there are many parties and concerns involved, and for some of the reasons I list above, I doubt if the US President has as much power in the matter as many here seem to think.

Fern

Not directly, but they are talking-seriously talking.

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: Fern

6. Afganistan is viewed as an increasing threat, if not the greater threat now. This applies pressure to reduce troop presence in Iraq for later deployment to Afganistan etc.

Corrected:

Afghanistan was always the greatest threat. Iraq was never a threat.

 

[Dari]

wow. This thread seems to be lacking a certain group of people...

 

[Infohawk]

The sooner we can stop wasting money on his war, the better. (I'll believe it when I see it though.)

Neocons insist on declaring victory no matter what, so if they do it in response to a troop withdrawal it's better than the alternatives. Can you see it coming though? Troops withdraw, Obama is president, Iraq turns back to violence and the Dems get blamed.