Free Dating Site    

July 19, 2008, 5:20 pm
White House Tips Press Off to Maliki Interview
By Steven Lee Myers
WACO, Tex. — The White House is quick to distribute its point of view in e-mail messages with headings like “News You Can Use,” “In Case You Missed It,” and “Setting the Record Straight.” So it was a surprise on Saturday morning when the White House distributed an article by Reuters that offered an endorsement of Senator Barack Obama’s Iraq policy by the leader of Iraq.
“Iraq PM backs Obama troop exit plan,” the headline read over a story about an interview of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki in the German magazine Der Spiegel, in which he expressed support for the senator’s plan to withdraw American combat brigades from Iraq over the next 16 months.
“U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months,” Mr. Maliki told Der Spiegel, Reuters reported. “That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”
Turns out it was a mistake by the White House clipping service, which had intended to distribute it internally but instead sent it to thousands signed up to receive the administration’s press releases, transcripts, statements and other documents, drawing attention to an interview that might otherwise have received less.
The timing compounded the mistake. It came a day after the White House announced that President Bush, in a significant shift, had agreed to a “general time horizon” for withdrawing American forces, though not on the strict timetable Mr. Obama favors. Mr. Maliki’s remarks suggested a position not entirely in line with President Bush’s, despite Friday’s announcement.
Scott M. Stanzel, a spokesman accompanying the president on his weekend at his Crawford ranch near here, said that the administration had been in touch with Mr. Maliki’s office and emphasized that Mr. Bush and the Iraqi leader had “the shared view that should the recent security gains continue, we will be able to meet our joint aspirational time horizons.”
In the interview with Der Spiegel, Mr. Maliki was careful not to endorse one candidate over another in the coming American presidential campaign, but he appeared to side with Mr. Obama over his Republican challenger, Senator John McCain, on the question of American forces remaining in Iraq.
“Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic,” he said, according to the magazine. “Artificially prolonging the tenure of U.S. troops in Iraq would cause problems.”

July 19, 2008
Categories: John McCain
More on Maliki
Marc Ambinder has an interesting exchange between the campaigns on the Iraqi prime minister, in which a McCain aide accuses Prime Minister al-Maliki of playing "domestic politics" — which, being a politician, he surely is. It's his job.
But aren't domestic politics just another way of saying "what Iraqis want"? Seems like it's tough for McCain to publicly reject Maliki's stance here, or to attack him for pandering to Iraqi voters.
ALSO: The Democratic Party sends out a 2004 McCain interview in which he appears to acknowledge that:
QUESTION: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it's a hypothetical, but it's at least possible.

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq—and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

How long after the pullout from iraq that the insurgents will sweep in and decimate the population?

The only real danger to the country was the different factions looking to carve up the country. They seemed to have had enough of killing each other by now.

Sweep in from where, Afghanistan? The only real danger to the country was the different factions looking to carve up the country. They seemed to have had enough of killing each other by now.

But in reality...if we leave...we will be back in less than a year.

Why us. Why always us.

Why us. Why always us.

But in reality...if we leave...we will be back in less than a year.


Why us. Why always us.

And what ever gave us the right to stand between two parties and say “you two need to stop” anyway it’s not our job.

Think that the carving up is going to be peaceful? They are not going to join hands and sing Kumbayah.
Ever heard of Cyprus?

1) when we leave, what will we leave behind? Depleted uranium rounds in the soil? Military waste/pollution? How will we move our equipment, since 1 out of 6 Strykers sit idle due to lack of parts? Will we leave much of it for the new Iraqi army? What will it cost for us to replace 'em?

We should all be aware that US leaving Iraq doesn't necessarily mean that the troops will be coming home; there will be a 'strategic re-deployment' out of the area--and into Afghanistan.

These people have been fighting for centuries...I do not think they ever get tired of killing. Out in 16 months sounds great and I would love it to happen. But in reality...if we leave...we will be back in less than a year.

What road will we use to head for Saudi bases?

These people have been fighting for centuries...I do not think they ever get tired of killing.