Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan: report
Sat Jul 19, 2008 7:38am EDT

BERLIN (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.

In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

"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."

It is the first time he has backed the withdrawal timetable put forward by Obama, who is visiting Afghanistan and us set to go to Iraq as part of a tour of Europe and the Middle East.

Obama has called for a shift away from a "single-minded" focus on Iraq and wants to pull out troops within 16 months, instead adding U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan.

Asked if he supported Obama's ideas more than those of John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for.

"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."

Rest of article (http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSL198009020080719).

"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."


I guess 100 years would be out of the question then.

I have the feeling that Obama is playing to the crowd so to speak.
During the week he said he would commit two more Brigades to Afghanistan
if elected President.
To me this is courting the right-wing electorate.

Maybe thats what ya gotta do to be first past the post.

From what I've heard, the basic plan is to withdraw from Iraq and redeploy forces in Afghanistan.

From what I've heard, the basic plan is to withdraw from Iraq and redeploy forces in Afghanistan.
Yeah, Afghanistan seems to be the next stop on the world tour.

I have the feeling that Obama is playing to the crowd so to speak.
During the week he said he would commit two more Brigades to Afghanistan
if elected President.
To me this is courting the right-wing electorate.

Maybe thats what ya gotta do to be first past the post.
Considering that things are heating up in Afghanistan, that would definitely be the right move, regardless of the politics of it.

I have the feeling that Obama is playing to the crowd so to speak.
During the week he said he would commit two more Brigades to Afghanistan
if elected President.
To me this is courting the right-wing electorate.

Maybe thats what ya gotta do to be first past the post.He's been saying this for some time.

From the Washington Post a year ago:

Much of Obama's speech yesterday focused on steps designed to reinvigorate U.S. diplomatic efforts to combat terrorism, but the most noteworthy proposals dealt with military actions. Obama said he would deploy at least two more brigades -- about 7,000 troops -- to Afghanistan to combat what he said is the growing Taliban influence there while sending the Afghan government an additional $1 billion in nonmilitary aid.

But he said he would tie U.S. military aid to Pakistan to that country's success in closing down terrorist training camps, in blocking the Taliban from using its territory as a staging ground for attacks on Afghanistan and in getting rid of foreign fighters.

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," he said. "They are plotting to strike again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html

From the Spiegel interview:

SPIEGEL: How short-term? Are you hoping for a new agreement before the end of the Bush administration?

Maliki: So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias. The American lead negotiators realize this now, and that's why I expect to see an agreement taking shape even before the end of President Bush's term in office. With these negotiations, we will start the whole thing over again, on a clearer, better basis, because the first proposals were unacceptable to us.

SPIEGEL: Immunity for the US troops is apparently the central issue.

Maliki: It is a fundamental problem for us that it should not be possible, in my country, to prosecute offences or crimes committed by US soldiers against our population. But other issues are no less important: How much longer will these soldiers remain in our country? How much authority do they have? Who controls how many, soldiers enter and leave the country and where they do so?

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. 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.

SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?

Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.

SPIEGEL: In your opinion, which factor has contributed most to bringing calm to the situation in the country?

Maliki: There are many factors, but I see them in the following order. First, there is the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve in central Iraq. This has enabled us, above all, to pull the plug on al-Qaida. Second, there is the progress being made by our security forces. Third, there is the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias. Finally, of course, there is the economic recovery.

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

He's been saying this for some time.

From the Washington Post a year ago:

Much of Obama's speech yesterday focused on steps designed to reinvigorate U.S. diplomatic efforts to combat terrorism, but the most noteworthy proposals dealt with military actions. Obama said he would deploy at least two more brigades -- about 7,000 troops -- to Afghanistan to combat what he said is the growing Taliban influence there while sending the Afghan government an additional $1 billion in nonmilitary aid.

But he said he would tie U.S. military aid to Pakistan to that country's success in closing down terrorist training camps, in blocking the Taliban from using its territory as a staging ground for attacks on Afghanistan and in getting rid of foreign fighters.

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," he said. "They are plotting to strike again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html
***********************************************
Yeah...Likes I can dig it.This new { Junior Senator } Kat is
really sums Kool Hand Juke - is all.Barely finished half his 1st
term in the Senate and he's spoutin off bout this 'n that.
Even weighin-in on Military matters.Probably never even knew about
G.I.Joe { Kiddie Toy }.Butts,he's out there Spoutin and playin his hand.
He ain't got nuthin.
- " Yeah well ... Somtimes Nuthin can be a real cool hand. "
-- Cool Hand Luke --
I dunno.I just don't know.
Says I !

Iraq: PM Not Endorsing Obama Timeframe on Troop Withdrawal (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/20/iraq-pm-not-endorsing-obama-timeframe-on-troop-withdrawal/)

Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has not endorsed any specific timeframe for possible U.S. troops withdrawals, a government spokesman said Sunday.

The statement by Ali al-Dabbagh came after an article was published by Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine which quoted al-Maliki as favoring the 16-month withdrawal window proposed by Barack Obama.

The article quoted al-Maliki as saying “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.”

Al-Dabbagh said al-Maliki’s views were “misunderstood and mistranslated” by Der Spiegel and that the prime minister backs a general vision of pulling out U.S. combat forces based on talks with Washington “and in the light of the continuing positive developments on the ground.”

Al-Dabbagh said statements by al-Maliki or any members of the Iraqi government “should not be understood as support to any U.S. presidential candidates.”

The al-Maliki comments that were published came ahead of Obama’s scheduled meeting with the leader. Obama, who is touring both Afghanistan and Iraq for the first time since becoming a presidential candidate, arrived Saturday in Afghanistan, where he is meeting with U.S. troops.

The report from the magazine gave Obama fuel in his argument that U.S. involvement in Iraq soon must draw to a close.

Al-Maliki had reportedly told the magazine that his comments were “by no means an election endorsement.”

McCain went after Obama in his radio address Saturday for announcing his proposed strategies for Afghanistan and Iraq before even departing.

“Apparently, he’s confident enough that he won’t find any facts that might change his opinion or alter his strategy. Remarkable,” McCain said, criticizing his rival for initially opposing the troop surge in Iraq.

“Today we know that he was wrong,” he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

I don't think anyone here claimed that Maliki gave an endorsement to Obama. We all read the same articles and Maliki likes Obama's plan better than McCains. The reason he won't endorse a candidate was because, "Who the Americans choose is their business, but Iraqis must also look out for what is best for them."

I must give credit to McCain. He's being very sly about this. If Obama alters the plan, he's a flip-flopper. However if he announces anything, he's being hard-headed and out of touch. I wonder if people will see through it. It would make me happy if they did, proving that Americans aren't just a bunch of gullible idiots, but then again, I doubt it. Maybe people just really want to suspend their disbelief.

Politics. The original magic show.

Just my 3 cents.

I must give credit to McCain. He's being very sly about this. If Obama alters the plan, he's a flip-flopper. However if he announces anything, he's being hard-headed and out of touch. I wonder if people will see through it.

I can absolutely guarantee you that around 56 million of them will not see through it.

The liars from the far Right use this same dishonest strategy every four years. It never fails to work on the dimwitted American Public.

I really wish that they'd teach political theory in high school. Understanding the nature of politics should be one of the responsibilities of the voters, regardless of political affiliation. It's perhaps just as important as understanding the nature of the issues involved.

Iraq: PM Not Endorsing Obama Timeframe on Troop Withdrawal (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/20/iraq-pm-not-endorsing-obama-timeframe-on-troop-withdrawal/)

From Spiegel:

A Baghdad government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said in a statement that SPIEGEL had "misunderstood and mistranslated" the Iraqi prime minister, but didn't point to where the misunderstanding or mistranslation might have occurred. Al-Dabbagh said Maliki's comments "should not be understood as support to any US presidential candidates." The statement was sent out by the press desk of the US-led Multinational Force in Iraq.

A number of media outlets likewise professed to being confused by the statement from Maliki's office. The New York Times pointed out that al-Dabbagh's statement "did not address a specific error." CBS likewise expressed disbelief pointing out that Maliki mentions a timeframe for withdrawal three times in the interview and then asks, "how likely is it that SPIEGEL mistranslated three separate comments? Matthew Yglesias, a blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, was astonished by "how little effort was made" to make the Baghdad denial convincing. And the influential blog IraqSlogger also pointed out the lack of specifics in the government statement.

SPIEGEL sticks to its version of the conversation.

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

I really wish that they'd teach political theory in high school. Understanding the nature of politics should be one of the responsibilities of the voters, regardless of political affiliation. It's perhaps just as important as understanding the nature of the issues involved.I would like to learn some political theory.

What is it and where do I get some?

From Spiegel:

A Baghdad government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said in a statement that SPIEGEL had "misunderstood and mistranslated" the Iraqi prime minister, but didn't point to where the misunderstanding or mistranslation might have occurred. Al-Dabbagh said Maliki's comments "should not be understood as support to any US presidential candidates." The statement was sent out by the press desk of the US-led Multinational Force in Iraq.

A number of media outlets likewise professed to being confused by the statement from Maliki's office. The New York Times pointed out that al-Dabbagh's statement "did not address a specific error." CBS likewise expressed disbelief pointing out that Maliki mentions a timeframe for withdrawal three times in the interview and then asks, "how likely is it that SPIEGEL mistranslated three separate comments? Matthew Yglesias, a blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, was astonished by "how little effort was made" to make the Baghdad denial convincing. And the influential blog IraqSlogger also pointed out the lack of specifics in the government statement.

SPIEGEL sticks to its version of the conversation.

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

yeah, who would know better what Maliki meant, his spokesman, acting under orders, or a translator?:rolleyes:

yeah, who would know better what Maliki meant, his spokesman, acting under orders, or a translator?:rolleyes:You don't think Spiegel has a tape of the interview?

If Maliki thought it was important to clarify his position unequivocally he could do so very simply by getting a few reporters together and telling them so. But instead we have a spokesman who sends an email to CENTCOM, which then releases it to the press. And the statement itself is murky -- it does not specify which remarks of Maliki's had been "mistranslated" or "misunderstood".

What should be obvious to everyone is that after the interview became public some phone calls were made between Washington and Baghdad. Someone came up with the idea of doing a walk-back on Maliki's statements and this is how they decided to play it. The White House no doubt wanted a full-scale repudiation of the interview but this was the best they could get.

Meanwhile, none of this changes the fact that the Bush/McCain dream of permanent bases in Iraq is going up in smoke. Maliki has moved to Obama's position that the US should leave Iraq in as short a time as possible. George Bush has moved towards Obama's position by accepting the "withdrawal horizon" terminology. He acceded to direct talks with Iran -- again, Obama's position. Both McCain and Bush have moved towards shifting forces to Afghanistan which has been (you guessed it) Obama's position all along.

Obama is driving (and winning) the debate and he's not even President yet.

You don't think Spiegel has a tape of the interview?

If Maliki thought it was important to clarify his position unequivocally he could do so very simply by getting a few reporters together and telling them so. But instead we have a spokesman who sends an email to CENTCOM, which then releases it to the press. And the statement itself is murky -- it does not specify which remarks of Maliki's had been "mistranslated" or "misunderstood".

What should be obvious to everyone is that after the interview became public some phone calls were made between Washington and Baghdad. Someone came up with the idea of doing a walk-back on Maliki's statements and this is how they decided to play it. The White House no doubt wanted a full-scale repudiation of the interview but this was the best they could get.

Meanwhile, none of this changes the fact that the Bush/McCain dream of permanent bases in Iraq is going up in smoke. Maliki has moved to Obama's position that the US should leave Iraq in as short a time as possible. George Bush has moved towards Obama's position by accepting the "withdrawal horizon" terminology. He acceded to direct talks with Iran -- again, Obama's position. Both McCain and Bush have moved towards shifting forces to Afghanistan which has been (you guessed it) Obama's position all along.

Obama is driving (and winning) the debate and he's not even President yet.
the only think Obama is driving is his elitist attitude that he can come up with a plan then go find the facts.

the only think Obama is driving is his elitist attitude that he can come up with a plan then go find the facts.Somebody better tell Nouri al-Maliki that he needs to get the facts in Iraq as well.

The guy clearly has no idea what's going on there. :eek:

What's this?!?

Did someone pressure the Iraqis to "clarify" Maliki's remarks?

Maliki Aide's Statement Came After U.S. Call

By Dan Eggen
The statement by an aide to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki calling his remarks in Der Spiegel "misinterpreted and mistranslated" followed a call to the prime minister's office from U.S. government officials in Iraq.

Maliki had expressed support for a withdrawal plan similar to that of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama in an interview with Der Speigel. U.S. troops should leave Iraq "As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned," Maliki had said. "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."

But after the Spiegel interview was published and began generating headlines Saturday, officials at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad contacted Maliki's office to express concern and seek clarification on the remarks, according to White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.

Later in the day, a Maliki aide released a statement saying the remarks had been misinterpreted, though without citing specific comments.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/20/maliki_aides_statement_came_af.html

I'm shocked. :eek:

What's this?!?

Did someone pressure the Iraqis to "clarify" Maliki's remarks?

Maliki Aide's Statement Came After U.S. Call

By Dan Eggen
The statement by an aide to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki calling his remarks in Der Spiegel "misinterpreted and mistranslated" followed a call to the prime minister's office from U.S. government officials in Iraq.

Maliki had expressed support for a withdrawal plan similar to that of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama in an interview with Der Speigel. U.S. troops should leave Iraq "As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned," Maliki had said. "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."

But after the Spiegel interview was published and began generating headlines Saturday, officials at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad contacted Maliki's office to express concern and seek clarification on the remarks, according to White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.

Later in the day, a Maliki aide released a statement saying the remarks had been misinterpreted, though without citing specific comments.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/20/maliki_aides_statement_came_af.html

I'm shocked. :eek:
they asked, he answered. why should you be shocked? because you've gotten yourself use to hearing nothing but "hope & change" when you ask for answers?

It seems the Obama lovers in the MSM are like Sedan in that they are so eager to believe Obama is one step below God that they jumped the gun. Maliki didn't endorse any Obama plan.

they asked, he answered. why should you be shocked? because you've gotten yourself use to hearing nothing but "hope & change" when you ask for answers?Are you by any chance drinking today?

Your posts are making even less sense than usual. :)

It seems the Obama lovers in the MSM are like Sedan in that they are so eager to believe Obama is one step below God that they jumped the gun.All Spiegel did is report what he said. Maliki didn't endorse any Obama plan.Maliki has been calling for a timetable for several weeks now:

From The Times
July 8, 2008
Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki demands US withdrawal timetable

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.

Rest of article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4288108.ece).

Here's what he said in the Spiegel interview:

"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."

You can say this isn't an endorsement of Obama's plan if you like -- but you won't sound very rational when you do.

(Not that sounding irrational has ever been a concern for you).

Are you by any chance drinking today?

Your posts are making even less sense than usual. :)
not my fault that you and Der Speigel have your heads so far up Obama's ass that you can't hear Maliki. :)

not my fault that you and Der Speigel have your heads so far up Obama's ass that you can't hear Maliki. :)Like I said, you're making even less sense than usual.

You'd rather listen to the fuzzy statement of a spokesman being pressured by the White House than the actual words that Maliki said.

Not surprising, really.

The audio surfaces:

But in Iraq, controversy continued to reverberate between the United States and Iraqi governments over a weekend news report that Mr. Maliki had expressed support for Mr. Obama’s proposal to withdraw American combat troops within 16 months of January. The reported comments came after Mr. Bush agreed on Friday to a “general time horizon” for pulling out troops from Iraq without a specific timeline.

Diplomats from the United States Embassy in Baghdad spoke to Mr. Maliki’s advisers on Saturday, said an American official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss what he called diplomatic communications. After that, the government’s spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, issued a statement casting doubt on the magazine’s rendering of the interview.

The statement, which was distributed to media organizations by the American military early on Sunday, said Mr. Maliki’s words had been “misunderstood and mistranslated,” but it failed to cite specifics.

“Unfortunately, Der Spiegel was not accurate,” Mr. Dabbagh said Sunday by telephone. “I have the recording of the voice of Mr. Maliki. We even listened to the translation.”

But the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki’s office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki’s interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama’s position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki’s comments by The Times: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”

He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”

Mr. Maliki’s top political adviser, Sadiq al-Rikabi, declined to comment on the remarks, but spoke in general about the Iraqi position on Sunday. Part of that position, he said, comes from domestic political pressure to withdraw.

“Foreign soldiers in the middle of the most populated areas are not without their side effects,” he said. “Shouldn’t we look to an end for this unhealthy situation?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/us/politics/21obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

I win. :)

The audio surfaces:

But in Iraq, controversy continued to reverberate between the United States and Iraqi governments over a weekend news report that Mr. Maliki had expressed support for Mr. Obama’s proposal to withdraw American combat troops within 16 months of January. The reported comments came after Mr. Bush agreed on Friday to a “general time horizon” for pulling out troops from Iraq without a specific timeline.

Diplomats from the United States Embassy in Baghdad spoke to Mr. Maliki’s advisers on Saturday, said an American official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss what he called diplomatic communications. After that, the government’s spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, issued a statement casting doubt on the magazine’s rendering of the interview.

The statement, which was distributed to media organizations by the American military early on Sunday, said Mr. Maliki’s words had been “misunderstood and mistranslated,” but it failed to cite specifics.

“Unfortunately, Der Spiegel was not accurate,” Mr. Dabbagh said Sunday by telephone. “I have the recording of the voice of Mr. Maliki. We even listened to the translation.”

But the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki’s office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki’s interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama’s position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki’s comments by The Times: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”

He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”

Mr. Maliki’s top political adviser, Sadiq al-Rikabi, declined to comment on the remarks, but spoke in general about the Iraqi position on Sunday. Part of that position, he said, comes from domestic political pressure to withdraw.

“Foreign soldiers in the middle of the most populated areas are not without their side effects,” he said. “Shouldn’t we look to an end for this unhealthy situation?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/us/politics/21obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

I win. :)

the NY Times wanting to hear their chosen one's preconceived plan endorsed by all is a win? i'll still go with the opinion of the horse on what he meant.

I love how panicked this story makes the rightwingers because they realize their hero McSame's supposed "strong point" isn't really a very strong point at all.

Obama makes more sense on national security.

Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan: report
Sat Jul 19, 2008 7:38am EDT

BERLIN (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.

In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

"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."

It is the first time he has backed the withdrawal timetable put forward by Obama, who is visiting Afghanistan and us set to go to Iraq as part of a tour of Europe and the Middle East.

Obama has called for a shift away from a "single-minded" focus on Iraq and wants to pull out troops within 16 months, instead adding U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan.

Asked if he supported Obama's ideas more than those of John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for.

"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."

Rest of article (http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSL198009020080719).

First blush is that's good news.

How much stock we can put in it is unclear. We have a politician in the midst of an election cycle. One of his opponents has been a long time adversary of any US presence in iraq. So his comments should be weighed in that context.

What this says about obama's foreign policy 'expertise' is deeply ironic. Maliki's call comes on the basis of the success of everything that obama has opposed about the iraq policy. Over a year ago he was telling us we needed to have the troops out within 14 months, that the surge wouldn't work, that benchmarks were not being achieved, that political reconciliation was not being achieved.....

For him, or his supporters, to now claim the clarity of obama's foresight with regard to iraq is absolutely hilarious.

Sedan,

You're the one who started this thread and you titled it, Maliki Backs Obama Plan.

That simply isn't what Maliki did but both you and the MSM are, as Mikezila so succinctly put it, "So far up Obama's ass", that you couldn't resist posting as you did.

Barack Obama - 2002 speech regarding Iraq.



That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

So far, even in the corrected versions it's Maliki stating that he agrees with Mr. Obama's plan for troop withdrawals as opposed to McCain's idea of creating a long term US presence. It seems pretty clear to me.

So far, even in the corrected versions it's Maliki stating that he agrees with Mr. Obama's plan for troop withdrawals as opposed to McCain's idea of creating a long term US presence. It seems pretty clear to me.
McCain didn't say he wanted Baghdad to be the next Clark AFB, he said he was "ok" with it.

Sedan,

You're the one who started this thread and you titled it, Maliki Backs Obama Plan.

That simply isn't what Maliki did but both you and the MSM are, as Mikezila so succinctly put it, "So far up Obama's ass", that you couldn't resist posting as you did.Have you not been reading the contents of this thread, Frogger?

Spiegel did not translate the Maliki interview. It was translated by Maliki's own translator. CNN and the New York Times have had their own translators verify what he said. Furthermore, the audio is out there -- do you honestly think that if it could be translated in any other way that the McCain camp or Fox News wouldn't be touting that version even as we post?

We know what Maliki said, and there's simply no way to spin it otherwise.

the NY Times wanting to hear their chosen one's preconceived plan endorsed by all is a win? i'll still go with the opinion of the horse on what he meant.The "horse", you might have noticed, hasn't said anything on the subject since the interview.

And we know what he said there.

What this says about obama's foreign policy 'expertise' is deeply ironic. Maliki's call comes on the basis of the success of everything that obama has opposed about the iraq policy. Over a year ago he was telling us we needed to have the troops out within 14 months, that the surge wouldn't work, that benchmarks were not being achieved, that political reconciliation was not being achieved.....

For him, or his supporters, to now claim the clarity of obama's foresight with regard to iraq is absolutely hilarious.Obama's foresight was plainly evident in opposing this foolish and idiotic war before it began.

As for the surge, I call your attention to this exchange:

SPIEGEL: In your opinion, which factor has contributed most to bringing calm to the situation in the country?

Maliki: There are many factors, but I see them in the following order. First, there is the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve in central Iraq. This has enabled us, above all, to pull the plug on al-Qaida. Second, there is the progress being made by our security forces. Third, there is the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias. Finally, of course, there is the economic recovery.

Notice anything missing?

Obama's foresight was plainly evident in opposing this foolish and idiotic war before it began.

That's one opinion out there. Doesn't address any of the history since where he's been on both sides of the issue (depending on which way the wind was blowing at the time) and clearly wrong on the effects of the change in policy in '07.

As for the surge, I call your attention to this exchange:

SPIEGEL: In your opinion, which factor has contributed most to bringing calm to the situation in the country?

Maliki: There are many factors, but I see them in the following order. First, there is the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve in central Iraq. This has enabled us, above all, to pull the plug on al-Qaida. Second, there is the progress being made by our security forces. Third, there is the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias. Finally, of course, there is the economic recovery.

Notice anything missing?

That's a rather weak attempt to suggest that the surge had nothing to do with subsequent events. No one denies those factors were part of the process but to suggest that the iraqi army in the first six months of '07 was anywhere near ready or willing to take on the security issues singlehandedly is being dishonest.

I think the issue is actually whether the Iraqi Army would be ready to take control within the first 16 months of the next president's term.

Somebody better tell Nouri al-Maliki that he needs to get the facts in Iraq as well.
The guy clearly has no idea what's going on there. :eek:
Funny, before this, we didn't have a lot of good things to say or cut and paste about al-Maliki.
But now he has credibility.

Dharmabum 4/13/08: "McCain has stated his belief that ...the Iraqi government and military will handle the ongoing insurgency. Given the current fighting in Iraq and the ineffectiveness of the Al Maliki government's military, this seems highly unrealistic."

Sedan 11/26/06: "With Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki relegated to the sidelines, brazen Sunni-Shiite attacks continue unchecked despite a 24-hour curfew over Baghdad."

Sedan 7/14/07: "Mr. al-Maliki is widely perceived to be a stooge for Moqtada al-Sadr"
"the US presence in Iraq is now becoming more of a liability than an asset for the Shia -- hence the posturing by Mr. al-Maliki."

Imagineer 7/15/07: "I have no illusions about what Mr. al-Maliki has in mind. He has no security concerns about Iran, they are his allies."

Freethinker 3/2/08: "Instead the prime minister Nouri al-Maliki has chosen this moment to have his regular medical check up in London, a visit which his colleagues say is simply an excuse to escape Baghdad. Behind him he has left a country which is visibly falling apart."

Dharmabum 3/30/08: "The decision by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to launch a fresh offensive against the militias has shattered a nine month ceasefire. More than 200 people have been killed and US policy has been thrown into confusion"

I think the issue is actually whether the Iraqi Army would be ready to take control within the first 16 months of the next president's term.
I agree. Apparently Barack has a crystal ball.

Iraq is still a favourite for civil war once the US military leaves.
The Iraqi Army have shown nothing that would suggest they are near in a position to take over security there.

Funny, before this, we didn't have a lot of good things to say or cut and paste about al-Maliki.
But now he has credibility.Maliki has been, for the most part, a dutiful puppet of the Bush administration. Earlier in his tenure this was necessary for his political survival. Now, however, he sees his political future as more dependent upon serving the will of the Iraqi people than it is upon serving the interests of George Bush. I'm not sure this accrues him more "credibility" -- sometimes politicians do the right thing because it's also to their own personal benefit.

1. Maliki has been, for the most part, a dutiful puppet of the Bush administration.
2. Now, however, he sees his political future as more dependent upon serving the will of the Iraqi people than it is upon serving the interests of George Bush.
3. I'm not sure this accrues him more "credibility" --
1. Correct, prior to this that was the left's talking point.

2. That's what I was saying....NOWWWW he should be believed.
That works out nicely.

3. If you look at what "we" were saying about him then, and how "we" value his opinion now, he does seem to have more credibility.

Funny, before this, we didn't have a lot of good things to say or cut and paste about al-Maliki.
But now he has credibility.

None of those things you quoted from me spoke to Maliki's credibility.
His effectiveness? yes.
His credibility? No.

You seem to be the one claiming that he is not credible because he has taken a position that goes against your partisan opinion.

You seem to be the one claiming that he is not credible because he has taken a position that goes against your partisan opinion.Where have I claimed that?

Maliki has been, for the most part, a dutiful puppet of the Bush administration. Earlier in his tenure this was necessary for his political survival. Now, however, he sees his political future as more dependent upon serving the will of the Iraqi people than it is upon serving the interests of George Bush. I'm not sure this accrues him more "credibility" -- sometimes politicians do the right thing because it's also to their own personal benefit.

First rule of holes applies. :)

If you look at what "we" were saying about him then, and how "we" value his opinion now, he does seem to have more credibility.I think you're trying to imply some kind of inconsistency where none exists.

Being critical of someone for being a puppet does not mean you also have to criticize them when they are not.

In fact, it would make no sense at all if one were to do this.

Sadly, it may come to be, that the US will need at least one if not more permanent bases in Iraq.
America needs to get something out of this war, as no one is going to admit it was a mistake to invade in the first place.

Unfortunately the wishes of the Iraqi people are being overlooked, or simply ignored, as once again, Iraq is being played out on the Presidential playing field.

If the elected Premier of Iraq states that troops should be leaving within a time frame, lets be honest, its time for your coat, overstaying your welcome could be disastrous for US interests in the region.

I think you're trying to imply some kind of inconsistency where none exists.

Being critical of someone for being a puppet does not mean you also have to criticize them when they are not.

In fact, it would make no sense at all if one were to do this.

Just to be clear. When maliki says something you agree with he's speaking the truth. And when he says something you disagree with he's a puppet. Gotcha.:thumbs:

I can absolutely guarantee you that around 56 million of them will not see through it.

The liars from the far Right use this same dishonest strategy every four years. It never fails to work on the dimwitted American Public.

You have to be a pretty big idiot to think that lies are only given from one side...

Funny, before this, we didn't have a lot of good things to say or cut and paste about al-Maliki.
But now he has credibility.

Dharmabum 4/13/08: "McCain has stated his belief that ...the Iraqi government and military will handle the ongoing insurgency. Given the current fighting in Iraq and the ineffectiveness of the Al Maliki government's military, this seems highly unrealistic."

Sedan 11/26/06: "With Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki relegated to the sidelines, brazen Sunni-Shiite attacks continue unchecked despite a 24-hour curfew over Baghdad."

Sedan 7/14/07: "Mr. al-Maliki is widely perceived to be a stooge for Moqtada al-Sadr"
"the US presence in Iraq is now becoming more of a liability than an asset for the Shia -- hence the posturing by Mr. al-Maliki."

Imagineer 7/15/07: "I have no illusions about what Mr. al-Maliki has in mind. He has no security concerns about Iran, they are his allies."

Freethinker 3/2/08: "Instead the prime minister Nouri al-Maliki has chosen this moment to have his regular medical check up in London, a visit which his colleagues say is simply an excuse to escape Baghdad. Behind him he has left a country which is visibly falling apart."

Dharmabum 3/30/08: "The decision by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to launch a fresh offensive against the militias has shattered a nine month ceasefire. More than 200 people have been killed and US policy has been thrown into confusion"

Wow, what a post. To go back and dig that up, great job.

So now we have the "condemned" trying to backpeddle away from an actual answer. We even have dharm openly admitting that you don't have to be effective to be credible. Well, I guess you can give Bush all the credibility in the world on all the areas he isn't effective at. Why don't we go ask Ted Kennedy about being sober? Or Bill Clinton about being faithful to your spouse? They haven't been effecitve in those areas, but we have it cleared up that you don't have to be in order to be credible. Just as Al Gore can have the carbon footprint the size of texas and still lecture and condemn those who buy a 4 door sedan instead of a 2 door, mini prius... It appears that Sedan, dharm, and the like.. ON THIS ISSUE.. are giving Obama, and anyone who supports Obama, a free pass. al-Maliki is pretty lamblasted and ridiculed until he supports Obama... NOW he's cool. Once a cheater, always a cheater... not Once a cheater, now not a cheater since they are with me.

Being critical of someone for being a puppet does not mean you also have to criticize them when they are not.

In fact, it would make no sense at all if one were to do this.
Sometimes inconsistency is just an innocent by-product of subjectivity.
As in when one declares specifically when another is acting the puppet.

We even have dharm openly admitting that you don't have to be effective to be credible. Well, I guess you can give Bush all the credibility in the world on all the areas he isn't effective at.
Why don't we go ask Ted Kennedy about being sober? Or Bill Clinton about being faithful to your spouse? They haven't been effecitve in those areas, but we have it cleared up that you don't have to be in order to be credible.
That's a good analogy.

Just to be clear. When maliki says something you agree with he's speaking the truth. And when he says something you disagree with he's a puppet. Gotcha.:thumbs:Just to be clear: when Maliki toes the Bush administration line he is being a puppet. When he bucks the administration he isn't.

Is that distinction really so difficult for you to understand?

Sometimes inconsistency is just an innocent by-product of subjectivity.There is no inconsistency here.As in when one declares specifically when another is acting the puppet.In it's infancy the Maliki government relied completely upon the military and financial support of the Bush administration. He had no choice but to be their puppet. I don't see how you can think otherwise.

Sedan, is it impossible for Maliki to just simply AGREE with the Bush admin? Is that just not plausible?

Sedan, is it impossible for Maliki to just simply AGREE with the Bush admin?Anything is possible, Decka. Is that just not plausible?I think you need to ask yourself if it's plausible that when Maliki had no leverage vis-a-vis the Bush administration he agreed with them about nearly everything but now that he has leverage it's somehow coincidental that he goes his own way.

This strikes me as extremely implausible.

You can have your hunches and instincts.. but that is the first time you have even admitted that it's a POSSIBILITY that Mr. Maliki simply believes what he thinks. Your early words:

Just to be clear: when Maliki toes the Bush administration line he is being a puppet. When he bucks the administration he isn't.


That leaves out NO possibility that Maliki can agree with Bush and still NOT be a puppet.