TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Iraq gov't backs Obama's troop withdrawal pledge - by 2010
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Iraq gov't backs Obama's troop withdrawal pledge - by 2010
Barack Obama's trip is so far turning out to be the greatest success any presidential candidate could ever hope for. We were told we needed the surge to control the violence. Now that the violence is largely under control, we are told we need to stay so violence does not come back. There is no victory with McCain or Bush. Staying in Iraq is victory.
| quote: |
| Iraq government backs Barack Obama's troop withdrawal pledge Barack Obama's campaign for the US presidency received another boost today when the Iraqi government welcomed him to Baghdad by again appearing to back his timetable for withdrawing troops from the country. The Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh expressed hopes that combat forces could leave by 2010 � in line with Obama's pledge to withdraw troops within 16 months of the US election. "We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq," Dabbagh told reporters, noting that any withdrawal plan was subject to change if the level of violence rises again. The statement comes after talks between Obama and the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, and a weekend when the Iraqi government unconvincingly tried to clarify its position on troop withdrawals. In an interview published on Saturday with the German paper Der Spiegel, Maliki backed Obama's timetable. "Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal," he was quoted as saying. Maliki's aides claimed his comments were "misunderstood" but did not issue the full retraction it is understood the White House had sought. The Bush administration has repeatedly rejected a timetable for withdrawing troops, agreeing only to a more vague "time frame". The US military took the unusual step of translating and distributing the Iraqi government reaction to the Der Spiegel article. Today, Der Spiegel today stood by its story and published a full transcript of the interview. Dabbagh, speaking after Obama and Maliki's meeting, said the government did not endorse a fixed date, but was hopeful that US combat units could be out of Iraq sometime in 2010. Obama made no public statements following the talks. The Iraqi government's apparent support for Obama's timetable has wrong-footed the Republican candidate John McCain and his attempt to portray his opponent's foreign policy as naive. McCain supports the war and has been critical of some aspects of its handling. He was also a vocal supporter of the decision to send in more troops. McCain's foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, said in statement that Obama "is stubbornly adhering to an unconditional withdrawal that places politics above the advice of our military commanders, the success of our troops, and the security of the American people. "Barack Obama is wrong to advocate withdrawal at any cost just as he was wrong to oppose the surge that has put victory within reach." US commanders have begun withdrawing some of those additional troops and Obama has argued that they should be sent to Afghanistan, which he says is the "central front" in the fight against terrorism. McCain also supports sending troop reinforcements to Afghanistan. "There's starting to be a growing consensus that it's time for us to withdraw some of our combat troops out of Iraq, deploy them here in Afghanistan, and I think we have to seize that opportunity. Now is the time for us to do it," Obama said in a CBS News interview broadcast yesterday after his two-hour meeting with the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai. "I think it's important for us to begin planning for those brigades now. If we wait until the next administration, it could be a year before we get those additional troops on the ground here in Afghanistan, and I think that would be a mistake," Obama said in the interview. "I think the situation is getting urgent enough that we have got to start doing something now." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/200...ed=networkfront |
...wow nice spin....
As if this was all Obama's idea 
Everyone has said that they'd pull out when they felt Iraq was ready to stand on their own two feet and they are getting there despite putting a deadline on it.
It's a wonder Obama's head doesn't spin off with all his 300 foreign policy advisers...yes, 300.
/ you need that many when you keep kicking them off the bus you see...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r ...wow nice spin.... As if this was all Obama's idea Everyone has said that they'd pull out when they felt Iraq was ready to stand on their own two feet and they are getting there despite putting a deadline on it. It's a wonder Obama's head doesn't spin off with all his 300 foreign policy advisers...yes, 300. / you need that many when you keep kicking them off the bus you see... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r and they are getting there despite putting a deadline on it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton LOL, spin.. Obama's idea was to withdraw. Now that the Iraqi government chooses to EXPLICITLY state they want an American withdrawal during Obama's trip, where's the spin?! Now that Iraq says it can stand on its "own two feet", McCain and Bush want NO TIMETABLE. Do you agree with this? They wanted to stay when there was violence, they want to stay when there isn't violence...Spin...LOL... |
| quote: |
| According to senior Iraqi officials, the decision to play U.S. politics emerged last month after Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari�s trip to Washington for meetings with Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Obama and Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee� With the talks [on a long-term security partnership] bogged down, the Iraqis sensed desperation by the Americans to wrap up a deal quickly before the presidential campaign was in full swing. �Let�s squeeze them,� al-Maliki told his advisers, who related the conversation to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. The squeeze came July 7, when al-Maliki announced in Abu Dhabi that Iraq wanted the base deal to include some kind of timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops. BREAK TRANSCRIPT I don�t mind that he�s using Obama for his own ends; if anything, it increases my confidence in him, that he�s a shrewd operator and not just some stooge we�re propping up. But note this, tucked away towards the bottom of the AP piece: �Military commanders are wondering whether all the political bargaining about withdrawal timetables could create its own unstoppable momentum, leaving Iraqi security forces increasingly in charge when they may not be ready for the task.� Indeed. Occupation is sufficiently unpopular with Iraqis, I�m sure, that if Maliki starts to make a big deal about withdrawal, none of his rivals are going to oppose him on it. It�s politically irresistible but, per Mullen, also quite possibly irresponsible. The question at this point, I guess, is whether Maliki sincerely believes 16 months is enough or whether that�s just a rhetorical bludgeon he�ll lay down once the rest of the security deal hammered out. His problem is, if Iraqis start to get excited about it � notwithstanding the advice of some of their own generals � he�ll be trapped into having to follow through on the timeline lest one of the other Shiite parties coopt the issue and use it to oust him. That�s what�s meant, I take it, by �unstoppable momentum.� Keep an eye on whether and how his statements change after the deal is signed. |
Read another article saying that during his and Maliki's discussion, Maliki spoke about the need for a time frame for withdrawal,
| quote: |
| �but his view is he wants some flexibility in terms of how that�s carried out.� |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss the process that has lead to the current success. |
| quote: |
| By Bush's Own Standard, Surge Has Failed Those who today stridently insist that the surge has succeeded also say they are especially supportive of the president, Petraeus and the military generally. But at the beginning of the surge, both Petraeus and the president defined success in a way that took the achievement of success out of America's hands. The purpose of the surge, they said, is to buy time -- "breathing space," the president says -- for Iraqi political reconciliation. Because progress toward that has been negligible, there is no satisfactory answer to this question: What is the U.S. military mission in Iraq? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton LOL, spin.. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo ALL OF IT is spin. all of it. from Democrat to Republican, left to right up and down every which way is spin spin and more spin. none of the spin will stop until November...then prepare for more spin. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo ALL OF IT is spin. all of it. from Democrat to Republican, left to right up and down every which way is spin spin and more spin. none of the spin will stop until November...then prepare for more spin. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss Obama's idea to withdraw was a long time ago when he did everything he could to stop the process that has lead to the current success. Now that it's been achieved, he wants to scurry in there and take credit? Please note that if his idea was followed to begin with, he wouldn't be there walking around without kevlar on pimping his withdrawel plan. Don't you see what's going on with the politics? Provincial elections are around the corner in Iraq. Here is some analysis of Maliki's deliberate exploitation of the U.S. election to gain leverage: |
| quote: |
| So now Obama is over there trying to take credit as though his words and presence has moved the Iraqis. As Joe Lieberman said on television this weekend, if Obama's policy in Iraq had ever seen the light of day, there would be no reason for Obama to go there. We wouldn't be there, and it would be a whole different situation. He brags about how he opposed the mission in Iraq, even when he was an unknown state senator. In the few days that he spent actually working in the US Senate, the guy voted against reinforcement for our troops and supported timetables that would endanger them by laying out for the enemy his surrender strategy. If I were to ask you today exactly what Obama's position on Iraq is, you'd have three or four to choose from. The point being, he wants to be able to claim whatever position works in the moment. Now that we've turned the corner in Iraq, Obama wants us to get out and fast. Let's not forget he wanted us to get out immediately in the darkest days of Iraq. He contributed not a single thing to our success there, which in fact occurred despite his efforts to thwart it and those of his party. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r Your vote is going to be decided by a foreign policy and whomever can say Iraq the most |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Now that Iraq says it can stand on its "own two feet", McCain and Bush want NO TIMETABLE. Do you agree with this? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton the surge wouldn't have done jack sh*t without the Sunni Awakening Councils or the stand down of the Sadr Militia. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yes, i agree with this. there should never be a timetable. withdrawing from iraq should be done when it is ready to be done. governments cant organise the precise date for cleaning the coffee machine. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo again you've been spoon feeding yourself (or someone has) the wrong information. you're not being nearsighted this time, you actually have it backwards the Sunni Awakening started in Al Anbar somewhere around the begining of 2006. at that time we were paying and arming local militias loyal to and commanded by local sheiks. we recognized that, one they needed more than just pay-offs and guns because the jihadist they were fighting were ruthless and more organized. two, we saw a real oppurtunity to establish positive relationships with these Sheiks and gain trust. it was this awakening we recognized we saw that we needed more boots on the ground in Al Anbar. coupled with the fact that Baghdad and the Mahdi militia needed to be dealt with before anything helped shape what we wanted with the surge at the end of 2006. that and the Iraq Study Group Report. the 20,000 extra troops in Baghdad forced Sadr's hand. the surge was not just 30,000 more swinging dicks in theater. there was a lot of shuffling of personel. guys were fired and replaced. Petraus changed and remobilized the entire Joint task forces, not just the surge personel. it was really the 4000 Marines and their toys we sent into Al Anbar that made a marked difference. send 4000 Marines anywhere in this world and someone will get their asses stomped one way or another. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Without the Anbar Awakening and Sadr stand down, the surge would be just a dream. |
) i'm letting you in on is that your history is backwards.
completely stole this from a blog but Obama supporters need to see this more than peopel on the right.
| quote: |
He'd Rather Lose A War Than An Election Tonight Barack Obama told ABC News that, knowing what we know now--that the surge in Iraq has been a success, that it has drastically reduced violence and given Iraq a shot at a bright future--he would still oppose it: This was, I think, a moment of candor. To explain his seemingly-shocking response, Obama immediately referred to political considerations. Opposing the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, even if that opposition turned out to be wrong, was a necessary ingredient in Obama's securing the Democratic Presidential nomination. That being the case, how can Obama, a purely political animal, regret a decision that advanced his own career? |
I like this article... agreed, Obama is making a mistake in this fashion. Talk about the "audacity of ego"<----(article headline from the Boston Globe yesterday).
| quote: |
| Gergen: WE ONLY HAVE ONE PRESIDENT AT A TIME: CNN political analyst David Gergen believes that Barack Obama made a political mistake in engaging Nouri al-Maliki on the question of the American presence in Iraq. He stepped over the line in explicitly admitting what amounts to negotiations with an American ally during wartime, a role that rightly belongs to the executive under all circumstances. Gergen calls this the first real political mistake of Obama�s trip � but will anyone notice? "David Gergen: �I think it was the first � Barack Obama made the first mistake of his trip, in my judgment, in releasing a statement in which he said exactly what Maliki had said in those conversations. We have a long tradition in this country that we only have one president at a time. He�s the commander in chief and the negotiator in chief. I cannot remember a campaign which a rival seeking the presidency has been in a position negotiating a war that�s under way with another party outside the country. I think he leaves himself open to the charge tonight that he�s meddling, that this is not his role, that he can be the critic, but he�s not the negotiator. We have a president who does that. So, I think the underlying facts support him, but I think it would be a real mistake � and I think it was a mistake � to get into these conversations and let it be used politically.� CNN�s Anderson Cooper: �That�s interesting. Gloria, do you think this is the first mistake he made on this trip?� Gloria Borger: �You know, it�s very interesting, I do agree with David. And Candy, in her earlier piece, talked about walking the fine line between being this candidate and being presumptuous. And I think that he may just have crossed that, because, you know, it is a tradition. You don�t talk about these private conversations. And it�s not up to Barack Obama right now to negotiate troop withdrawals. It�s up to Barack Obama to be on a fact-finding mission, which is indeed what he has said he was on.� On the face of it, Gergen is correct. In fact, Obama�s intervention violates two principles of American politics. First, presidential candidates do not conduct foreign policy. They can, as Gergen notes, criticize it all they want, but they have no standing to enter negotiations. Neither do Senators or Congressmen, either, as the Constitution explicitly leaves that to the executive branch. Obama had no standing to discuss troop withdrawals, trade policy, or even the exchange rate with Maliki. That being said, the latter restriction has been breached repeatedly by both sides over the last few years. Both Republicans and Democrats have gone on �fact-finding missions� to Iraq in order to bolster their own policies. What makes this look worse than usual was Obama�s insistence that he didn�t need a fact-finding mission to arrive at his conclusions before going to Iraq, and that nothing he saw would change his mind on his policy. That makes his effort appear to be a transparent effort to negotiate on behalf of his own policy � and his statement look as though he succeeded at it. Further, most people expected Obama to do just what he did. His trip was certainly no secret, nor was his insistence that he was there to dictate solutions, not gather suggestions. Perhaps this objection would have been more effectively raised before he left, but now I doubt most people will notice the overreach. |
Am I the only one seeing a terrible problem with Bush/McCain refusing to make a withdrawal if the "conditions on the ground" isn't good enough (in their opinion)? Obviously, if the democratically elected government of the sovereign country Iraq wants US forces out, they should leave no matter "conditions on the ground".
FYI, I also strongly disagree with a timetable, but if Iraqis wants it, give it to them!!!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew Am I the only one seeing a terrible problem with Bush/McCain refusing to make a withdrawal if the "conditions on the ground" isn't good enough (in their opinion)? Obviously, if the democratically elected government of the sovereign country Iraq wants US forces out, they should leave no matter "conditions on the ground". FYI, I also strongly disagree with a timetable, but if Iraqis wants it, give it to them!!! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew Am I the only one seeing a terrible problem with Bush/McCain refusing to make a withdrawal if the "conditions on the ground" isn't good enough (in their opinion)? Obviously, if the democratically elected government of the sovereign country Iraq wants US forces out, they should leave no matter "conditions on the ground". FYI, I also strongly disagree with a timetable, but if Iraqis wants it, give it to them!!! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r I agree. I think the big problem is what to do if, say, the Americans do leave and Iraq goes all to hell again - what justification could they possibly give to go back in? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by hardcore trancer I like how you make it sound as if Iraq is a wonderful place now after the occupation and if Americans leave now things will go bad. Iraq is nothing but a shithole and thing could always turn bad with or without the occupation. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 When they get their way and things go bad its the fault of al Qaeda or the terrorists. More troops, more years, more money, more ridiculousness. When they don't get their way and things go bad its those damned liberal democrats. |
| quote: |
| So the surge has produced some results but whos to say how long it will last. The Taliban is resurfacing in Afghanistan and things appeared to be going well there for a long time. |
| quote: |
| The Iraqi's are being given control, they don't want us there, and if after we're gone everything goes to shit its no ones fault but the people that started this clusterfuck, against World opinion, in the first place. |
| quote: |
| Personally, I'd make everyone who ever voted for Bush serve in Iraq. That'd solve a lot of problems. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.