MyDD :: Maliki walks back?

Maliki walks back?

by Blazers Edge, Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:22:07 PM EST

After ten hours of letting Maliki statements hang in a German newspaper, Centcom released a statement from Maliki's spokesperson claiming that Maliki's statements were not "accurately conveyed."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/1 9/almaliki.obama/

Of course, the statement doesn't indicate what part of his statement was inaccurately conveyed. This guy must be pretty damn unlucky if he keeps on getting transcribed inaccurately (fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice?). It sounds as if Bush got caught off-guard completely and had a little chat with his buddy Maliki.

Let's see if that German paper made a tape recording of this interview; it doesn't change the fact that Maliki is on record, in print, praising Obama's withdrawal plan....unless McCain wants to claim that there is some conspiracy in Europe in favor of Obama getting elected. Let's see what Maliki has to say when Obama himself is in front of him later this week.

Tags: Maliki, Obama, McCain (all tags)

Permalink :: 50 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Maliki walks back? (none / 0)

Well, a little more in the CNN report:

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.

by strongerthandirt on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:31:39 PM EST

Re: Maliki walks back? (none / 0)

Ali Dabbagh doesn't seem to speak for Maliki in the end. His statement came through CentCom, which is very shady. And, unless Der Spiegel seriously screwed around with its tape, Maliki was quite unambiguous in supporting a shorter time frame.

Note also that neither Obama nor Maliki are declaring the 16-month time frame as "fixed." Both allow wiggle room for changes on the ground. But the key is to get moving.

by elrod on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:31:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So no one understands Arabic? (none / 0)

Maliki must just be one unlucky guy for a transcription error to occur twice. The NY Times has linked to the story and noted that the spokesperson did not say what from Maliki's interview was mistranslated.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/ 07/19/maliki-backs-obamas-troop-withdraw al-plan/

by Blazers Edge on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:40:04 PM EST

I dunno (none / 0)

Also what I find odd is that Maliki previously has been a proponent of a timetable, and he has bargained for one in the security agreement. So this is no surprise that's he's concerned about it -- he has domestic political groups to appease as well. Could he have said it to strengthen his bargaining position vis a vis the pending security agreement? Here's an article on that position from yesterday.

Iraqi leaders, including al-Maliki, have previously demanded a set timetable be included as part of a security agreement, which deals with the future of US military deployment in Iraq, being negotiated by the two countries.

According to the White House statement, the troop withdrawals are one of several "aspirational goals" which will be implemented depending on conditions on the ground.

Those goals include "the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of US combat forces from Iraq," Perino said.

Ground rules

Washington says an agreement is needed to lay out the ground rules for US forces in Iraq after the UN mandate for their presence expires at year's end, but negotiations have run into trouble, particularly over whether US troops would be immune from Iraqi prosecution.

However, there appeared to be some confusion over whether the agreement would lead to the US quitting Iraq entirely.

While the White House referred only to reducing troop levels, Ali al-Dabbagh, Iraq's government spokesman, said that the aim of the agreement was "to decrease the number of American forces in Iraq and later withdraw them".

Perino said US forces would move "from a primary combat role" to what Washington calls an "overwatch role" of training and advising Iraqi forces, and carrying out special forces operations.

"This transition and the subsequent reduction in US forces from Iraq is a testament to the improving capacity of Iraq's Security Forces and the success of joint operations" begun in January 2007, she said.

Security transfer

The US military says that violence across Iraq has fallen to a four-year low.

US-led forces have transferred security in 10 of the country's 18 provinces to Iraqi forces, the most recent being in Diwaniya province on Wednesday.

Iraqi leaders believe that they can take over security responsibilities in the remaining eight provinces by the end of this year.

Bush and al-Maliki had aimed to confirm an agreement by July 31, but on Friday the White House spokeswoman said the two leaders had "agreed on a common way forward to conclude these negotiations as soon as possible".

A US embassy official in Baghdad said on Friday that the originally envisaged security pact called the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) had now been "suspended".

"The SOFA as we had in Japan or Germany has been suspended or put aside but not thrown away," he told the AFP news agency.

He also said the two sides are currently negotiating a "security protocol or operational protocol" that contains the key contents of the SOFA but would be for a "certain period of time".

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middle east/2008/07/200871816014336291.html

By the way, I highly recommend regarding foreign papers on occasion. They're much less full of bs than American ones.

by strongerthandirt on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:04:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I dunno (2.00 / 1)

I think the real story here is that Bush tried to strongarm Maliki into a Germany-style permanent SOFA and Maliki - partly based on his own nationalist sentiment and partly based on internal politics - said no way. So the UN clock runs out in December and there is no new plan.

Meanwhile, Maliki endorses a "shorter" timetable - AGAIN.

The end result will likely be something like a 16-month timetable but very flexible and dependent on security issues in still-sketchy areas like Diyala and Mosul.

by elrod on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:35:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So no one understands Arabic? (2.00 / 1)

well, seeing how the DoD fired all of them... LOL sorry cheap-shot. but keep in mind mis-translating tone can be very mis-leading too. that may be his objection.

by zerosumgame on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:26:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This was the Iraq news of the day though (2.00 / 2)

The blowhardosphere was awash with the news of Maliki's statement, whatever it was, but here was the real critical news today -- http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-0 7/19/content_8574473.htm

BAGHDAD, July 19 (Xinhua) -- The Iraqi parliament accepted on Saturday the candidates for ten vacant ministerial posts, including six posts for major Sunni Arab bloc, official Iraqi television reported.

Today's session witnessed the return of the Iraqi Accordance Front (IAF) to the Shiite-led government after the Sunni bloc quit Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's cabinet almost a year ago, the television said.

The parliament voted in six portfolios for the IAF, including deputy prime minister, the channel said.

The parliament also voted in four independent candidates as ministers to replace those from the Sadr movement loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who boycotted Maliki's government since last year, it added.

"The Iraqi parliament accepted today our candidates, which means that our Accordance Front has returned officially to the government," Saleem al-Jubouri told reporters after the vote.

"The move is a real step forward in the Iraqi political process," Jubouri said.

Last August, Hillary and Carl Levin were quite outspoken about Maliki not making enough progress on reconciliation. That was a real key, as was reducing the violence. Kouchner of France, Bush, and now two key Dems were on his ass. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/world/ middleeast/27iraq.html Maliki found himself in a real spot because opposition to his lack of reconciliation efforts was mounting.

There is real hope in Iraq now because of progress on reconciliation (which Levin and Clinton worked on) and because the surge (which I had thought a foolish effort) worked.

by strongerthandirt on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:47:30 PM EST

Re: This was the Iraq news of the day though (none / 0)

Is this a backhanded insult of Obama? I think ALL Democratic candidates believed that reconciliation was the real goal of the surge.

BTW, the Sunni bloc agreed to come back in in April, but they couldn't finalize things until now because of disputes over a few of the ministers.

Also, while this is a welcome step, it isn't much of a sign of reconciliation. The Sunni bloc doesn't actually represent many people considering most Sunnis actually boycotted the election in 2005.

by elrod on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:37:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"the surge.... worked." (none / 0)

Proving again that if a lie gets repeated enough it will become the accepted truth.

by Beren on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:59:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "the surge.... worked." (none / 0)

The surge DID work. It didn't work by itself, it wasn't without assistance from a number of other factors, but that's reality.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:10:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "the surge.... worked." (none / 0)

Prove it with more than regurgitated media spin generated within the Bush Regime.

GAO Report Says Surge is NOT Working

The statement is made in the U.S. media, over and over again, as if it is as factual as the sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening: "The surge is working." But just because the media has parroted the talking points of the Bush administration and John McCain's campaign in making such an assertion, it does not make it true. And a report released by the U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) yesterday does something that McCain and the White House probably wish would not be done: actually evaluating progress in Iraq against the goals the administration laid out in January 2007 when undertaking the surge. Guess what? In many material ways, the surge isn't working. Sorry to rain on the parade of CNN, Fox News, ABC, CBS, etc. with the facts.

by Beren on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:19:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "the surge.... worked." (none / 0)

It worked in reducing violence, that's what I mean. For me, seeing the numbers of dead and injured drop dramatically was enough.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:43:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "the surge.... worked." (none / 0)

What have you seen but what you have carefully been shown?

I ask for proof and get media spin.

Did you read the link I provided?

by Beren on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:30:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "the surge.... worked." (none / 0)

From that document:

Figure 1 shows that the overall levels of violence in Iraq--as measured by enemy-initiated attacks--decreased about 70 percent from June 2007 to February 2008, a significant reduction from the high levels of violence in 2006 and the first half of 2007. Similarly, as depicted in figure 2, the average daily number of enemy-initiated attacks declined from about 180 in June 2007 to about 60 in November 2007 and declined further to about 50 in February 2008. From 2003 through 2007, enemy-initiated attacks had increased around major political and religious events, such as Iraqi elections and Ramadan. In 2007, attacks did not increase during Ramadan.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:03:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's some nice cherry picking. (none / 0)

by Beren on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:16:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's some nice cherry picking. (none / 0)

OK... Show me YOUR stats that show violence and casualties in Iraq not deteriorating.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:20:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's some nice cherry picking. (none / 0)

Look, I got no problems with you. And if you ask me whether I agree that the surge has produced a fully functioning government or fixed the numerous problems still present with infrastructure, I'd say no. I also don't think anything has been solved, the short-term Sadr pushback proved that.

But to say that the surge did not work in reducing violence would be foolish if it isn't followed by a near full-length term paper explaining the multiple factors that went into that reduction of violence that just happened to coincide with the surge's induction.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:28:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "the surge.... worked." (none / 0)

In fairness, the ethnic cleansing is done. There is no one left that needs to be killed to segregate neighborhoods. The violence still happening tends to be general terrorist acts like car bombings and such, not directed raids into Sunni or Shiite areas to kill religious rivals.

Saying the surge worked is like looking at Germany in 1945 and saying "Wow, we've really had a lot fewer pogroms in the last year or so."

by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:58:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "the surge.... worked." (none / 0)

That's specious reasoning, vcalzone. By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away. It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock. But I don't see any tigers around, do you?

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:30:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "the surge.... worked." (none / 0)

On a less snarky note--seriously, the drop in violence was caused by al-Sadr's cease-fire. Violence went right back up in the little span of time where that cease-fire broke down, though US troop deaths didn't increase by the same amount because it was mostly the Iraqi army fighting al-Sadr's militia in that skirmish.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:32:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "the surge.... worked." (none / 0)

Note that I said that there were other factors. And man, were there ever. But here's the problem for Obama and why he cannot agree with that. If he doesn't acknowledge that violence is down, then he looks foolish for dismissing reality. If he acknowledges that violence is down but still maintains that the surge did not work, it would be viewed by most as dismissing the work and abilities of the US military, who have been performing quite well.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:03:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "the surge.... worked." (none / 0)

I agree with you on this. It's a matter of perception. Anyone who thinks the average person in this country thinks the surge didn't work is sadly mistaken. Explaining the reasons for the drop in violence only muddies the water and causes people to think whoever is making that argument is doing so for nefarious reasons.

All the average person knows is that violence is down and that it coincides with the surge. People want things to be improving in Iraq. We have to accept that and work it into our arguments. "Violence is down. It's time to bring the troops home."

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:21:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maliki walks back? (none / 0)

Why is centcom saying this and not Maliki?

Or am I misunderstanding this?

by DawnG on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:56:14 PM EST

Recall the propaganda push (none / 0)

by the Pentagon in the run up to the Iraq War.

This is just more of the same.

overthrow the government~participate

by missliberties on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:16:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maliki walks back? (none / 0)

Centcom should not be speaking for Maliki.

by Spanky on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:10:10 PM EST

Re: Maliki walks back? (none / 0)

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_upd ate/20080713_Worldview__Iraq_a_tricky_is sue_for_Obama.html

This article from the Philly Inquirer talks about how the timeline figures into internal Iraqi politics; the writer seems pretty perceptive.

by strongerthandirt on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:22:04 PM EST

Re: Maliki walks back? (none / 0)

So your suggesting that pressure from Iran is behind Maliki's recent ploy? Wouldn't that be convenient for the Right-wing Obama haters, eh? It isn't that complex. And Shi'ite influence from Iran is something of a given. But the point might be that Makili's potential Shi'ite challengers in the upcoming election are also in favour of a clearly indicated timetable for withdrawal, and sovereignty. This isn't something he's just invented to get out of a jam, this is the star Iraq is steering by at the moment.

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:05:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maliki walks back? (none / 0)

Flashback....2004

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/l ibrary/news/2004/04/mil-040409-afps01.ht m

ya think there was a phone call?

....For this woman, her family and friends..
We should have already been gone.
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/rele ase.aspx?releaseid=12078

Nothing to see here...move along
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk /ANW918882.htm

See ya in Denver..then on MN...

"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"

by nogo postal on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:36:57 PM EST

With Obama on the way (2.00 / 1)

What will be really interesting is what Maliki says to Obama. Al Dabbagh's comment was completely vague and may have been a product of Centcom. Maliki has now called for a short-term withdrawal timetable TWICE. There's no screwing around with this. Will he tell Obama, "I didn't really call for a timetable either time."

McCain is caught in a box here because he envisions a very longterm presence in Iraq. Maliki is saying no to that. The question of withdrawal tactics is one that will require negotiations. 16 months will be based on conditions allowing it to continue. But it will begin soon. That's the real point.

by elrod on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:44:23 PM EST

Re: With Obama on the way (none / 0)

Not just McCain, the people who envisioned this war... the actual benefit of the whole debacle for the US is based entirely around having a democratic ally in Iraq.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:01:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: With Obama on the way (none / 0)

Yes, and McCain's mockery of Maliki's comments as "domestic politics" does little to encourage Iraqi democracy.

by elrod on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:17:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: With Obama on the way (none / 0)

Oh, it's the worst possible thing that we could do! Why would he have said this publicly to media outlets if he didn't mean it and wasn't making any progress with Bush?

Seems like McCain sees a lot of stuff as "just politics". Except when he claims Obama wants us to be defeated by Al Qaeda in Iraq and to capitulate to Iran without getting anything out of it. Or when he drops opposition to a policy on offshore drilling he's proudly held for a long time. No, that's all real. McCain should know better than anyone that "domestic politics" is anything but make-believe.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:33:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: With Obama on the way (none / 0)

And stabilizing/securing oil supplies that come from Saudia Arabia. Let's not forget the major reason we are there. Essentially our points are the same; having a Democratic ally helps ensure the continuation of oil supplies from various Middle Eastern outlets to us.

by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:00:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: With Obama on the way (none / 0)

Well, that's the polluted neocon view. The true, crazy neocons, the ones that are the bastard children of the McCarthyites and the worst aspects of American liberal fascism (as Jonah Goldberg ironically put it), thought that we could spread Democracy through the world if we invaded another country. It was a morality issue.

Cheney had his list of how to divide up the country's oil resources, but I don't think Kristol was that much of a realist.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 03:19:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The whole Der Spiegel interview (2.00 / 1)

I just read the entire Der Spiegel interview. I'm sorry but there is just no way to walk back Maliki's comments. As long as 16 months is understood flexibly, Maliki is absolutely certain and firm that withdrawal must begin soon. Read the whole thing and see how his comments could possibly have been "mistranslated" in light of these clarifications.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl d/0,1518,566852,00.html

One piece not discussed much in the blogosphere is a response to the Germany comparison, which McCain had raised himself many times. Maliki says,

SPIEGEL: Germany, after World War II, was also liberated from a tyrant by a US-led coalition. That was 63 years ago, and today there are still American military bases and soldiers in Germany. How do you feel about this model?

Maliki: Iraq can learn from Germany's experiences, but the situation is not truly comparable. Back then Germany waged a war that changed the world. Today, we in Iraq want to establish a timeframe for the withdrawal of international troops -- and it should be short. At the same time, we would like to see the establishment of a long-term strategic treaty with the United States, which would govern the basic aspects of our economic and cultural relations. However, I wish to re-emphasize that our security agreement should remain in effect in the short term.

Again, the word timeframe. "And it should be short." Yes, they want a long-term treaty for "economic and cultural" issues. But the desire for a timeframe is obvious.

This was no mistranslation or misunderstanding. Unless Maliki doesn't speak for the government, or Der Spiegel made up the transcript, the implication is clear: Maliki wants US troops out soon.

by elrod on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:24:23 AM EST

Re: Maliki walks back? (none / 0)

Centcom? Really?

Bwahahahahaha!

Yeah, have fun believing THAT story.

No way. No how. No McCain!

by spacemanspiff on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:24:36 AM EST

I think it's pretty clear what happened (none / 0)

1) Maliki drops a bomb

2) Bush gets him on the phone and asks him to recant. Maliki says "no way".

3) Bush then suggests a "mistranslation" memo, which will reach mostly Western ears, leaving Maliki's statement unchanged from an Iraqi POV.

4) Maliki, for whatever reason, agrees. Or maybe he didn't agree,who knows. It's weird that the statement came from centcom.

The big question, of course, is at what point this becomes a SECOND Iraq invasion.

by Neef on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:02:49 AM EST

Re: Maliki walks back? (none / 0)

Funny, that. CENTCOM, eh?:

The retraction claimed that Maliki's comments were "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately," which might be plausible if there were only a single sentence in question. However, how likely is it that Spiegel mistranslated three separate comments? Here are the relevant excerpts from the interview:
Today, we in Iraq want to establish a timeframe for the withdrawal of international troops -- and it should be short.

....U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

....Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic....The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.
There's just no way that all three of these passages were mistranslated. Maliki, for whatever reason (Mark Kleiman runs down the possibilities here), wants American troops out, and he wants them out sooner rather than later. There's really no way to spin that away.

Kevin Drum - Obama, the Press, and Iraq... The Washington Monthly 20 Jul 08

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:24:41 AM EST

You know what they say? (none / 0)

Don't bite the hand that feeds you :D

by soyousay on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:39:13 AM EST

Re: Maliki walks back? (none / 0)

Bush (or more likely, Cheney) to Maliki:

"It's not to late for us to put Ahmed Chalabi in charge, after you and your family are "tragically" killed by a series bombings coordinated by Al Qada."

Obama/Biden 08

by W126 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:48:53 AM EST

Which timeline anyway? (none / 0)

The most recent one?

In a speech in Washington on Wednesday, Obama said he would withdraw most US forces from Iraq within 16 months starting in January, 2009.

"We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 -- two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began," he said.

Or the "end of 2009" one that was on his website? Remember this from the Nevada debate?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcbqG_1EI bg

(In that one, by the way, he says the Iraqi minister talked about withdrawal in 2018 -- so much for Maliki's stable thinking)

Or was it this one?

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070130-oba ma_offers_pl_1/index.php

Obama Offers Plan to Stop Escalation of Iraq War, Begin Phased Redeployment of Troops
Tuesday, January 30, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Tommy Vietor or Robert Gibbs, 202-228-5511
Date: January 30, 2007

Obama Offers Plan to Stop Escalation of Iraq War, Begin Phased Redeployment of Troops
Goal to Redeploy All Combat Brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008

by strongerthandirt on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:15:41 AM EST

Re: Which timeline anyway? (none / 0)

Anyone of those timelines is better than McCain's 1,200 month timeline. Don't you think?

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:20:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which timeline anyway? (none / 0)

He's mentioned 16 months for quite a while. And the most important thing is that the 16 month timetable is a goal that can be adjusted based on conditions on the ground. It was never a rigid timetable, but it was a commitment to begin withdrawal right away.

You are descending into troll territory trying to claim that Obama was completely inconsistent on this point. Obama wants a short timetable. McCain wants no timetable. Obama wants to shift resources to Afghanistan. McCain wants a permanent occupation of Iraq.

by elrod on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:50:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Der Spiegel (none / 0)

For what it is worth, Der Spiegel is not going to let the White House and Pentagon dismiss the interview with "mistranslation" claims:

"SPIEGEL sticks to its version of the conversation."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl d/0,1518,566914,00.html

If not for the foreign press we would be in serious trouble.

by Satya on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:49:40 AM EST

Isn't it interesting (none / 0)

that Obama uses a similar timeline (usually about 16 months from the date he speaks) no matter what the military/political situation on the ground is?

by strongerthandirt on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:18:04 PM EST

Re: Isn't it interesting (none / 0)

Isn't it interesting that Obama keeps saying 16 months from when he takes office? Gee, the guy is just too damn consistent on this. You might say he has 'stayed the course' on his proposal for leaving Iraq.

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:44:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.