Author Topic: Iraqi prime minister comments that combat troops should be out of Iraq by 2010  (Read 754 times)

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Now nancy Pelosi is calling for bush to agree to a timeline.


Yet


McCain stands firmly against one... even as everyone else wants us to leave, mainly the Iraqis themselves.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
McCain is odd man out on 'time horizon'
By DAVID PAUL KUHN | 7/21/08 4:53 AM
McCain's position different from Bush, Maliki, Obama

It may not sway many voters, but on Friday, as Barack Obama embarked on an extended trip abroad intended in large part to relieve concerns about his commander in chief bona fides, the terms of debate on Iraq began a dramatic shift that appears to favor his candidacy.

President Bush, who’d been opposed to any timetable for removing American forces from Iraq, reached an agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to set a “general time horizon” for a withdrawal.

“It’s a devastating blow to the McCain campaign — not just that Maliki moved to Obama’s position but that Bush did as well,” said Richard Holbrooke, a former United States ambassador to the United Nations for the Clinton administration.

Saturday, the shift continued when the German magazine Der Spiegel ran an interview with Maliki in which he called for U.S. troops to withdraw “as soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

(While a spokesperson for Maliki later claimed the prime minister’s comments "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately,” Der Spiegel stood by its report and The New York Times late last night verified the translation’s accuracy.)

For the first time in the national security debate, Obama’s advisers believe that McCain has been placed on the defensive, since his reluctance to support a “time horizon” now differs not only with the position of his Democratic opponent but also with those of the White House and the Iraqi prime minister.

Staffers for the McCain campaign emphasized the continued differences between Obama and the president, particularly that the White House has not agreed to a specific time frame.

Maliki’s comments, though, have put McCain in a difficult position, in which his support for the surge and for a continued troop presence seems to defy the wishes of the democratically elected Iraqi government.

Shortly after the prime minister’s interview appeared, Democrats began circulating a 2004 interview with McCain in which he responded to a question asking what he would do if “a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there” by saying, “If it was an elected government of Iraq ... I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.”

In a statement issued several hours after Maliki’s comment was published, McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann, though, said that “timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama."

By Sunday night, the McCain campaign had begun revising its position, telling Politico that it was not necessarily opposed to setting a “time horizon” in the future, so long as that clock was started only after other objectives were met.



Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12407
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
"Time horizon"...how pathetic.  ::) Just come out and admit Obama is right and we need to get the fuck out of Iraq.
!

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22731
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
McCain probably can't remember that we are even in Iraq.

a_joker10

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1922
Seems to me that both McCain and Obama are on the same page and are basing their plans on the successes of the US military.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/25671559.html?location_refer=Movies

Central to Obama's strategy is a plan to remove combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, although he has said he would fine-tune his tactics depending on conditions on the ground and advice he receives from military leaders.

One such leader stepped into the debate Sunday. Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on "Fox News Sunday" that setting a two-year deadline to pull all troops out of Iraq would not be advisable.

"I think the consequences could be very dangerous in that regard," Mullen said. "I'm convinced at this point in time that making reductions based on conditions on the ground are very important."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/22/obama.mideast/

An Iraqi government spokesman said Saturday that the prime minister's comments to the magazine had been "misunderstood," and the White House said al-Maliki has made clear that any withdrawals would be conditioned on "continuing positive developments."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/07/candidates-posi.html

Thanks largely to the troop surge that Obama opposed, violence has lessened to the point that a timetable seems less and less unthinkable to its fiercest opponents, provided that it's linked to success on the ground. President Bush has signed on to a "time horizon" for withdrawing U.S. troops, and McCain said Monday that U.S. troops "could be largely withdrawn" within two years because the war is being won. That's remarkably close to what Obama wants.

Z