| Tuesday, July 08, 2008 |
| What part of 'timetable' don't you understand? |
Don't know if you caught Family Research Council fellow Pete Hegseth of the GOP/McCain surrogate organization Vets for Freedom talk-o-babbling his way through a 'Hardball' interview today opposite John Soltz of VoteVets.org, but he apparently cannot accept the rather plain fact that the prime minister of the supposedly sovereign country of Iraq wants a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign forces -- that means us -- from their country. Chris Matthews repeatedly tried, and repeatedly failed, to get the V4F guy to explain how we can propose to stay in Iraq for 100 years if they want us out, like, now. To review:
BAGHDAD, July 8 -- Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday that his government would not sign an agreement governing the future role of U.S. troops in Iraq unless it includes a timetable for their withdrawal.
The statement was the strongest yet by an Iraqi official regarding the politically controversial negotiations between Iraq and the United States over the U.S. military role in Iraq. A United Nations mandate that sanctions the presence of U.S. troops in the country expires in December.
Speaking to reporters in the holy Shiite city of Najaf, national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie declined to provide specific dates, but said his government is "impatiently waiting" for the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops.
"There should not be any permanent bases in Iraq unless these bases are under Iraqi control," Rubaie said. "We would not accept any memorandum of understanding with [the U.S.] side that has no obvious and specific dates for the foreign troops' withdrawal from Iraq."
On Monday Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a statement saying his government was inclined to sign a memorandum of understanding with the United States that included a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Rubaie spoke to reporters after briefing Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's top Shiite religious leader. That last bit is important, because Iraq is now a Shiite-dominated country, much like ... um ... Iran. And Sistani is it's Ayatollah. Sistani is also the guy who has basically kept Shiites from an all-out uprising against American troops, even staying the hand of young firebrand cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. I think his "briefing" with Maliki pretty much makes it a done deal. They want us to go.
Meanwhile, in Washington, President Bush and the neocons are pretending they didn't hear a thing:
Asked about the prime minister’s comments today, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman hedged on whether the administration would follow the Iraqi government’s request, criticizing timelines as “artificial“: WHITMAN: [I]t is dependent on conditions on the ground. … But timelines tend to be artificial in nature. In a situation where things are as dynamic as they are in Iraq, I would just tell you, it’s usually best to look at these things based on conditions on the ground.
The State Department also hedged on whether the Bush administration would listen to Maliki. In a briefing today, spokesperson Sean McCormack said the remark may have been a transcription error: McCORMACK: Well, that’s really the part — the point at which I would seek greater clarification in terms of remarks. I’ve seen the same press reports that you have, but I haven’t yet had an opportunity to get greater clarify as to exactly to what Mr. Maliki was referring or if, in fact, that’s an accurate reporting of what he said.
Apparently, it all depends on what the meaning of "withdrawal" is.
True to his strategy of distancing himself from President Bush, John McCain today ... said exactly what the administration is saying:
McCain was silent on the comments Monday. But today, his top foreign policy adviser declined to criticize Maliki or distance McCain from him. And they sought to portray Maliki's comments as consistent with the Republican nominee's long-standing position.
"Senator McCain has always said that conditions on the ground -- including the security threats posed by extremists and terrorists, and the ability of Iraqi forces to meet those threats -- would be key determinants in U.S. force levels," said adviser Randy Scheunemann, who criticized Sen. Barack Obama's "constantly shifting positions" on Iraq. WaPo's The Swamp and other analysts have pointed out that McCain has had many, many positions on a timetable for withdrawal, and on whether the Iraqi government has some say in the matter. He has been against timetables, slamming Mitt Romney during the campaign and calling even the notion of a timeline "the ultimate act of betrayal" of our troops. But he has also said that he would have all the troops home by the very timetable-esque 2013, and that they would remain in Iraq for 100 years. Poor McCain is becoming the Sybill of foreign policy:
... In speeches, town hall meetings, interviews and campaign commercials, McCain has said a timetable would provide terrorists the knowledge of how long they have to wait until American troops are gone. He has repeatedly said that setting a date for withdrawal would lead to "chaos, genocide and we will be back with greater sacrifice." His rhetoric has been withering and aimed at both Democrats and Republicans. During the waning days of the GOP primary, he eviscerated former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for a comment that McCain said amounted to support for a timetable.
Romney disputed that, but the damage to his candidacy was unmistakable. Later, McCain turned his fire on Democrats, including Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton, accusing them of endangering Americans by advocating a specific timetable for withdrawal.
"It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing and possibly genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible and premature withdrawal," he said in a California speech.
In that speech, McCain offered his "vision" for 2013, by which time he said most of the troops would be gone from Iraq. That was quickly seen by many observers as a timetable for withdrawal by that date.
But immediately after the speech, McCain disputed the idea that he was setting a firm date for withdrawal of troops from Iraq, telling reporters that he is "promising that we will succeed in Iraq" but not promising that troops will come home if that success has not materialized.
"I'm not putting a date on it. It could be next month. It could be next year," he told reporters on the Straight Talk Express bus. "I said by the end of my first term we will have succeeded in Iraq.... This is what I want to achieve. This is what I believe is achievable."
Four years ago, McCain even said that if the Iraqis asked us to leave, we ought to do just that (during an interview at the Council on Foreign Relations)....
Question: "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?" McCain's Answer: "Well, if that scenario evolves than 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."
Is your head spinning yet?
By the way, a quick check of the winger blogs finds no appetite on that side of the aisle to address the issue of the Iraq government's desire for timelines. Their fingers are firmly in their ears, and they've dissolved into an echo-chamber about last week's pretend story about Obama changing his tune on Iraq. I literally could not find a single post on the subject, including on the neocon sites like NRO. Interesting...
| Labels: Bush administration, Iraq war |
posted by JReid @ 8:06 PM   |
|
|
|
|
