Oh My... Bush, in a Shift, Accepts Concept of Iraq Timeline

[Jeepers]

Just when things couldnt get any worse for Mac, Bush goes and screws him again with another monster flip flop...

"HOUSTON — President Bush agreed to “a general time horizon” for withdrawing American troops in Iraq, the White House announced Friday, in a concession that reflected both progress in stabilizing Iraq and the depth of political opposition to an open-ended military presence in Iraq and at home."

Tomato, tomata /Time line for withdrawl, time horizon for withdrawl... (time horizon.. wtf)... eh.. Bush once again shows his mastery of the english language..

Mr. Bush, who has long derided timetables for troop withdrawals as dangerous, agreed to at least a notional one as part of the administration’s efforts to negotiate the terms for an American military presence in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.

The agreement, announced in coordinated statements released Friday by the White House and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government, reflected a significant shift in the war in Iraq. More than five years after the conflict began with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the American military presence now depends significantly, if not completely, on Iraqi acquiescence....The announcement could alter the American political debate over the war in Iraq and how best to end it now that even Mr. Bush is willing to speak of an end to the American presence. It came on the eve of a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama, who has vowed to pursue a strict phased timetable for withdrawing most combat troops from Iraq over 16 months beginning next year. He has cited Iraq’s eagerness for a timetable as support for his strategy.

A spokesman for Mr. Obama, Bill Burton, called the announcement “a step in the right direction,” but derided what he called the vagueness of the White House commitment. Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, praised the agreement as evidence that Mr. Bush’s strategy of sending additional forces last year had worked and he sought to use it as a cudgel against Mr. Obama.

“An artificial timetable based on political expediency would have led to disaster and could still turn success into defeat,” Mr. McCain said.

MY God, this has to be the mother of all Flops... and I am talking about his position as well. Not just his presidency..

 

[Jeepers]

Thousand pardons.. theres more here.. just follow the link..

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

 

[Jeepers]

Who was it that was bringing the term Milqutoast to the debates here.. cause I think we have a good candidate for whom that word describes....

The administration dropped a promise in that initial agreement to provide long-term security for Iraq, something that would require a treaty and Congressional approval. It has also backed off other demands for sweeping powers to continue military operations there indefinitely.

 

[Annie]

No one ever claimed there wasn't a 'general time horizon' for withdrawing troops. The problem was in setting numbers and dates. In fact, they've slowly been reducing the numbers since the surge began having successes.

 

[Ravi]

Jeepers, the general time horizon covers McCain's wish to be there for 100 years. I think old Dubya is actually helping McCain out here by agreeing with him.

 

[Ravi]

Oh, and al-Malaki supports a 16 month timeline for withdrawal.

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."

Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan: report | Reuters

 

[Paulie]

Oh, and al-Malaki supports a 16 month timeline for withdrawal.

Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan: report | Reuters

Sounds good to me. It's funny though, that Bush's buddy Al-Maliki cited Obama in agreement.

 

[Gunny]

Just when things couldnt get any worse for Mac, Bush goes and screws him again with another monster flip flop...



Tomato, tomata /Time line for withdrawl, time horizon for withdrawl... (time horizon.. wtf)... eh.. Bush once again shows his mastery of the english language..



MY God, this has to be the mother of all Flops... and I am talking about his position as well. Not just his presidency..

GMAFB. All you're proving here is that no matter what Bush does, he's wrong in your eyes and going to be ridiculed. If he says no, it's the "bring our boys home/we don't want to be there forever" chant. If he agrees to a timeline for for withdrawal he's a "flip-flopper".

Explain again why Obama altering HIS stance on Iraq due to circumstances is just too cool while Bush doing so is a flip-flop ....

Nevermind. You're just a partisan hack and a hypocrite. No explanation necessary for the obvious.

 

[JimH52]

The Iraqis are calling bush's hand. They don't want US troops ther open ended. It sounds like al-Maliki may have cooked it up with Obama cause 16 month is what he has been saying.

Now will McCain adjust his "100 year" stance? And if he does will the Democrats ridicule him for flip flopping like the GOP slammed Obama recently?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Simply amazing you leftbots are as stupid as shit. Bush has always said we would stay till the job was done. Iraq runs Iraq, which is also what Bush wanted. Iraq wants to negotiate. And you TARDS claim Bush has back tracked. I guess that is because your claim he was gonna ignore the wishes of said Government can not be run any more. Right.

Unbelieveable. I know you are NOT this stupid, well rather I hope you are not. Your little game of make believe is crumbling before your very eyes. We haven't lost in Iraq as you have insisted we will and we have not created a puppet government that you claimed we did. Bush is doing JUST what he promised to do, but you losers can not win if he does that, so this charade he is back tracking.

Give me a break. Go peddle your lies to some one else. I am sure there are enough dumb shits out there to buy your bullshit.

 

[Charles_Main]

Jeepers, the general time horizon covers McCain's wish to be there for 100 years.

Keep repeating the 100 year war lie, keep saying McCain said he "wished to be there 100 years" I know it will work for you, but it will not change the fact that you are a liar.


I provided the entire conversation from which you guys have twisted his words into this lie, but don't stop to actually read it.

 

[Ravi]

heh, I posted that just for you Charles.

 

[Jeepers]

GMAFB. All you're proving here is that no matter what Bush does, he's wrong in your eyes and going to be ridiculed. If he says no, it's the "bring our boys home/we don't want to be there forever" chant. If he agrees to a timeline for for withdrawal he's a "flip-flopper".

Explain again why Obama altering HIS stance on Iraq due to circumstances is just too cool while Bush doing so is a flip-flop ....

Nevermind. You're just a partisan hack and a hypocrite. No explanation necessary for the obvious.

Altered his stance eh... um nope..

 

[Epsilon Delta]

It would've been hard to be adamantly opposed to American public opinion and Iraqi public opinion in this issue for much longer.

 

[Charles_Main]

Jeepers, the general time horizon covers McCain's wish to be there for 100 years. I think old Dubya is actually helping McCain out here by agreeing with him.

Yeah because he actually said he "wished" us to be there 100 years.

Still with the same old Lies, and then you whine when someone calls you a Democrat Partisan.

 

[stivex]

How is this a Bush flip-flop? We never intended to stay indefinitely. You just don't discuss withdrawing our forces in the heat of fighting. You wait until things are stable enough to do so. Does anyone else know that we have drawn down our troops since the surge? Yet, security remains. Guess it was a horrible failure, eh?

 

[Jeepers]

Never intended to stay eh..

The supplemental funding bill for the war in Iraq signed by President Bush in early May 2005 provides money for the construction of bases for U.S. forces that are described as "in some very limited cases, permanent facilities." Several recent press reports have suggested the U.S. is planning up to 14 permanent bases in Iraq— a country that is only twice the size of the state of Idaho. Why is the U.S. building permanent bases in Iraq?

If the U.S. is ultimately leaving Iraq, why is the military building 'permanent' bases?

 

[jillian]

No one ever claimed there wasn't a 'general time horizon' for withdrawing troops. The problem was in setting numbers and dates. In fact, they've slowly been reducing the numbers since the surge began having successes.

I love revisionism, Kathiannne. Really.

Bush said NOTHING besides "stay the course" for all this time. Obama goes to Iraq, says he'd like to go with an 18 month timeline; the Iraqis like this... and suddenly Bush says "oh yeah, me too".

He is really messing up McCain...but then again, McCain never should have sucked up to the guy who bush polled by asking about his "illegitimate black daughter".

 

[Gunny]

I love revisionism, Kathiannne. Really.

Bush said NOTHING besides "stay the course" for all this time. Obama goes to Iraq, says he'd like to go with an 18 month timeline; the Iraqis like this... and suddenly Bush says "oh yeah, me too".

He is really messing up McCain...but then again, McCain never should have sucked up to the guy who bush polled by asking about his "illegitimate black daughter".

There's no revisionism, just some disengenuous posting. Our leaving has ALWAYS been contingent on the Government of Iraq assuming the role of providing for its own and the country's security. A timeline and date couldn't be set until that happened, and until now, the Iraqi government has vacillated about it.

You lefties just can't tolerate the fact that something worked that you've been proclaiming doom and gloom about for 5 years. One can only wonder how long some left wingnut sat around thinking up a way to spin it negatively. Probably not too long with "racist" and "flip-flopper" being the only two arguments y'all have been capable of making for awhile.

Meanwhile, let's just completely forget this is a GOOD thing. Let the Iraqi's have Iraq and good riddance. And don't fret too much, y'all till got plenty of bullshit accusations against Bush to fall back on.

 

[jillian]

There's no revisionism, just some disengenuous posting. Our leaving has ALWAYS been contingent on the Government of Iraq assuming the role of providing for its own and the country's security. A timeline and date couldn't be set until that happened, and until now, the Iraqi government has vacillated about it.

You lefties just can't tolerate the fact that something worked that you've been proclaiming doom and gloom about for 5 years. One can only wonder how long some left wingnut sat around thinking up a way to spin it negatively. Probably not too long with "racist" and "flip-flopper" being the only two arguments y'all have been capable of making for awhile.

Meanwhile, let's just completely forget this is a GOOD thing. Let the Iraqi's have Iraq and good riddance. And don't fret too much, y'all till got plenty of bullshit accusations against Bush to fall back on.

You can say that if it makes you feel better. I suppose after the incompetence of the last seven years, the right wingnuts need something to hold on to. But all that happened was that finally, someone set a limit. And everyone went "oh...ok".

Do I need to dredge up every statement made by the admin and by its apologists?

As for wanting to lose... you know better.