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

[Gunny]

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.

Sticking to the topic, the fact is, you left-wingnuts have been chanting for 5 years about "stay the course" as if it was some sort of retarded idea. We stayed the course, it's come to a natural conclusion, and now you want to twist it into something bad anyway.

"Someone set a limit." Please, DO try and downplay it some more, huh?

What's for me to feel good about? And no, I DON'T know better. For someone who can't even see straight when the name Bush gets mentioned, you got a lot of gall calling ANYONE a wingnut.

Or have you forgotten one of the main selling points with Obama? Getting the troops out of Iraq? Looks like THAT thunder got stolen.

Y'all got served.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

That and the fact that the libs never did understand what "staying the course" even meant. Does Obama intend to simply stop fighting terrorism.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Never intended to stay eh..

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

Very limited ehh? Ya that sounds like we planned to stay and fight for ever. You are aware we have PERMANENT bases all over Germany, Korea, Japan?

You turds are like a broken fucking record that someone marred with a scratch, liars and dumb shits to boot. Your lies are not even very good. You are so desperate that you will claim ANYTHING hoping someone will believe your garbage.

 

[editec]

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

Did he, really?

What I've read suggests that while he says he needs one, thus far he has no timeline in place.

I'll be pleased if he ever does, of course, but I think he'll go out of office never having created anything real timeline-wise.

 

[Charles_Main]

Never intended to stay eh..

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

How is maintaining some permanent bases in Iraq a bad thing? Care to elaborate for us?

Could it be we would like to maintain a presence in Iraq so that we can make sure we do not have to return to fight another war in Iraq, or to deter Iran from trying to roll over the border and fully cease Iraq and it's oil? Could it be nothing more than what we did in Germany, and Japan, and Korea? Could this be just what McCain meant when he made his 100 years presence in Iraq comment? I know you lefties will never admit it, but I believe this is the case.

Maintaining permanent bases in Iraq is not the same as being at war in Iraq, no matter how many times you people on the left try to say it is. In fact I would say Maintaining Permanent bases in Iraq is a very wise thing to do indeed. My son is 3 years old, and I do not want to have to see him go over to the middle east to fight yet another war over there. If maintaining some permanent bases in Iraq can help assure that, then by all means let us maintain some. Maintaining bases in a country is hardly the same as occupying a country, or would you claim we occupy Japan, and S Korea simply by being there yet not enforcing our will on the people there.

The way you on the left would twist this into what it is not, just like you have twisted McCain's 100 year comment into something it is not. Repeating over and over a lie you all the while knew was a lie, is just one more reason I can't stand the left in the country.

 

[stivex]

We have bases in Korea, Germany, Japan, Kosovo, and Bosnia. Hell, we still got bases in England. When is the last time we went to war with them? Bases does not mean war. Does every time the UN send troops some where it is a dictation of war?

 

[Annie]

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

Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan: report | Reuters

Seems that's not quite right:

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq faces dilemma over US troops

The prime minister was widely quoted as saying that in the negotiations with the Americans on a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate the US troop presence from next year, "the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal".

That was the version of Mr Maliki's remarks put out in writing by his office in Baghdad.

It was widely circulated by the news media, and caught much attention, including that of Mr Obama.

There is only one problem. It is not what Mr Maliki actually said.

Mixed messages

In an audio recording of his remarks, heard by the BBC, the prime minister did not use the word "withdrawal".

What he actually said was: "The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence."

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
Mr Maliki is under pressure to reject any infringement on Iraqi sovereignty

Mr Maliki's own office had inserted the word "withdrawal" in the written version, replacing the word "presence".

Contacted by the BBC, the prime minister's office had no explanation for the apparent contradiction. An official suggested the written version remained the authoritative one, although it is not what Mr Maliki said.

The impression of a hardening Iraqi government line was reinforced the following day by comments from the National Security Adviser, Muwaffaq al-Rubaie.

He was quoted as saying that Iraq would not accept any agreement which did not specify a deadline for a full withdrawal of US troops.

Significantly, Mr Rubaie was speaking immediately after a meeting with the senior Shiite clerical eminence, Ayatollah Ali Sistani.

But in subsequent remarks, Mr Rubaie rode back from a straightforward demand for a withdrawal deadline.

He said the talks were focused on agreeing on "timeline horizons, not specific dates", and said that withdrawal timings would depend on the readiness of the Iraqi security forces....

 

[Article 15]

No matter what the real motive may be behind the Bush Administration's decision to pursue this "time horizon," I've got to say this pleases me (for a few reasons) and I think it's the right thing to do.

"Time horizon" is merely Bush Admin newspeak for "time table," make no mistake about it, folks.

But they've gotten themselves so deeply invested in the time table=surrender=terrorist's win mantra that the had to brand it as a horse of a different color.

And they are going to get pounded for it and IMO rightfully so ...

If they had really meant what they had been saying about "time tables" all these years then this wouldn't have gone down this way. They would have instead kept the whole plan all secret squirrel like and then just announced one day that we were officially withdrawing combat troops starting now so as to not give the enemy a chance to plan parallel with the withdrawal.

Pffft ...

We are now telling the enemy, "hey guys, we're leaving sometime around _____."

Admittedly, this isn't a mirror image of a strict etched in stone date but it is essentially the same damn thing.

The funny thing is observing people on the Interwebs actually try to find a way to spin this whole thing otherwise. As if it's something different.

What has really happened is Bush just grabbed a hold of McCain and jumped under the bus with him.

This is what happens when you have blatant dishonesty in a policy ...

It's hilarious ...

And it's about damn time ...

Now let's get working on bringing the boys home ...

 

[Ravi]

Seems that's not quite right:

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq faces dilemma over US troops

Seems that it was after all.

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.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/us/politics/21obama.html?pagewanted=2&hp

 

[Jeepers]

Did he, really?

What I've read suggests that while he says he needs one, thus far he has no timeline in place.

I'll be pleased if he ever does, of course, but I think he'll go out of office never having created anything real timeline-wise.

Its a conceptual thing..

 

[Jeepers]

Sticking to the topic, the fact is, you left-wingnuts have been chanting for 5 years about "stay the course" as if it was some sort of retarded idea. We stayed the course, it's come to a natural conclusion, and now you want to twist it into something bad anyway.

"Someone set a limit." Please, DO try and downplay it some more, huh?

What's for me to feel good about? And no, I DON'T know better. For someone who can't even see straight when the name Bush gets mentioned, you got a lot of gall calling ANYONE a wingnut.

Or have you forgotten one of the main selling points with Obama? Getting the troops out of Iraq? Looks like THAT thunder got stolen.

Y'all got served.

Umm.. really.. you cats stayed the course? if that was the case then Mac has no surge case to stand on... natural conclusion for staying the course...lol. What a load of crap... the surge forces should have been on the ground from day friggin one.. you right fucks where AOK for five years with a failing policy including attack and retreat... The surge my friend is what brought a greater sense of stability.. That coupled with a dramatic change in the way we deal with regional ruling forces... This is not stay the course.. This is about god damned time something was done... yet, on the other hand... we dont have the manpower to A) keep this up. B) handle the uptick in Afghan violence. C) use military power as a legitmate threat against Iran. D) Vigorously defend ourselves in any other part of the world.

 

[Ravi]

the surge forces should have been on the ground from day friggin one..

Yep. McCain supported about what, five years of inadequate ground forces and he thinks this makes him presidential material?

 

[JimH52]

Yep. McCain supported about what, five years of inadequate ground forces and he thinks this makes him presidential material?

That did not happen because bush and Dumsfeld wanted to win the war "on the cheap."

Some cheap! Over 4,000 American lives.

 

[Ravi]

That did not happen because bush and Dumsfeld wanted to win the war "on the cheap."

Some cheap! Over 4,000 American lives.

Yes. And McCain supported it.

 

[editec]

The surge helped decrease the violence, I think.

Bush finally acknowldged that a time line for withdrawl is in the works (or at least within the realm of possibility or something)

I am having difficulty seeing why any of us are arguing about these developments.

I would have LOVED to have seen this invasion and occupation go as Bush and co. thought it would.

Had it happened that way, I would have been completely wrong about what I thought would happen, but that would have been just fine with me.

Sooner or later the Iraqi have to run their own damned nation and they have to do it without us there.

If we can stabilize that government to make that happen, and it takes us 24 months, okay.

If that government and nation are never going to be stable enough that we have to be there for a long long time?

Not okay.