http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566841,00.html So what to make of that ? Like most people, I've considered Obama's timetable to be impossible - at least, barring serious military reversals for which Obama would be blamed. The face-saving would be too difficult, and the US too wedded to its need for military bases. But this adds a wrinkle.
Don't forget that for decades Iran was trying to take over Iraq and was infiltrating Iraq daily with weapons as well as people sympathetic to Iran's cause. Iran, now with a bigger military will once again be ready to try and take over Iraq when the Americans leave either through insiders or a direct attack maybe both. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It could be political. The Maliki government is asserting itself rather nicely in many parts of the country. Being seen as standing up to the American bully would be extremely advantageous for them. Being able to do so while also remaining supportive of a possible future policy of the US is a double victory. What matters is whether the Iraqis make a firm demand for a withdrawal and tie timelines explicitly to it. Right now we are still negotiating so it is understandable that the government of Iraq will want to score points with their domestic audience.
"Right now we are still negotiating so it is understandable that the government of Iraq will want to score points with their domestic audience." ...who overwhelmingly want the USA out of their lives. The invasion and occupation have completely lost legitimacy, and anyone who does not acknowledge that is not dealing in reality.
Yes: You have been dismissive of Iraqi public opinion, which is overwhelmingly against the occupation. Now Maliki has bet his survival on the departure of US forces within the next 2 years, and Washington has no leverage remaining for the installation of an Iraqi leader who will defend the US protectorate. This is far beyond lip-service now- Maliki is playing for keeps, and his invitation for us to leave underlines the reality that there is no viable political base remaining in Iraq for further restructuring under US auspices.
Maliki backtracking for the second time on the possiblity of timetables? http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/maliki-backs-obamas-troop-withdrawal-plan/ What stood out to me was the use of the word horizon, as Bush recently used the same. While politically this is great for Obama, let's not forget that both Bush and McCain have emphasized condition based withdrawal instead of an arbitrary one, and this seems to fit the bill. As I've pointed out before, and as did Andrew Sullivan just yesterday, we're going to see both candidates and the President essentially having the same position on Iraq.
I suspect that this is in response to a call from the Bush Admin, through Dept. of State, about not interfering in the US election- With the usual irony-deficiency (we wouldn't ever do that to them, would we?). Maliki can't backpedal much on this particular tightrope-unicycle, without falling down.
ashura: "What stood out to me was the use of the word horizon" That's such a work of art, Rove must be insanely jealous: The "Horizon": Always ahead, like the pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow. If we hadn't already been swindled so mercilessly, people might even buy it.
"we're going to see both candidates and the President essentially having the same position on Iraq." Obama knows he can't win by being McSame- he'll follow the center of opinion. McCain is a dinosaur who can't keep up with public opinion; can't win without an appalling new crisis to regress it.
So you really aren't disagreeing with anything I said, merely having a snit because you're holding some kind of e-grudge? How delightfully productive.
No snit, no grudge, but we're not on the same page. Maliki is not making double-talk: If he doesn't follow through with independence (showing US troops the door) he's toast. Maliki didn't go public with the eviction notice on an idle whim. For the Prime Minister, Iraqi dissatisfaction is considerably more dangerous than US ire; he's between the sharp horns of the very same dilemma that was Saddam's undoing. Iraq cannot be led by a perceived quisling.
I agree with everything said here. In order to ensure that his government holds together as the US begins to leave, Maliki needs to walk a several different tightropes at once. The first few being fair treatment of each of the major cultural sects, and another being maximum cooperation with the coalition as can be afforded without damaging the former priorities. This war in its current incarnation has a sell-by date of January 2009, whereas the Shiite militias are in it for the long haul.
Unless he was "CassassInAted" by Bin Laden/GWBJr Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Actually Maliki it was a misquote from a German magazine. Heard it on the radio today, as much as i would prefer to avoid this aspect of discussion and remain neutral but just to set the record straight. http://themoderatevoice.com/media/m...bout-supporting-obama-iraq-pullout-timetable/
What are you trying to say ? Your link says that Spiegel's version was probably accurate, and not a misquote.
I dont know what Maliki said because i dont follow what these people say much. Just reporting what i heard on the radio that Maliki was misquoted afa supporting Obama's plan for pullout. Who knows?
Here is something a little easier to decipher: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/20/1210759.aspx
You know that no other quote has been proposed, that Maliki has not provided a "correct" quote that differs from Spiegel's full transcript in which the quote appears normal in context, and that only the Western press has been provided with the handout from Centcom that disputes the quote - the Iraqi and regional press are not being "corrected". And you know, if you read the Spiegel transcript, that Maliki was quoted to that effect in three separate places in the interview. That's an unusual number of identical "misquotes". So sure, you can pretend to be harboring serious doubts, but the pretense depends on your not looking too closely at the circumstances, and on maintaining a certain level of inattention. At that level, why are you asserting a reasonable possibility that Maliki was misquoted ? - since, as you observe, you haven't checked. btw: Maliki himself, last I heard, was not claiming to have been misquoted, but rather a spokesman for the Iraqi government (speaking through Centcom) claimed that Maliki was "misunderstood". http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566914,00.html Interesting tangent: - the main reason this hit the US press so fast, rather than being buried in the foreign press outside the US propaganda umbrella as so many similar stories have been, is that a White House staffer made a mistake with the "send" command, and handed it out as a White House news alert to all the loyal US media rather than confining it to internal administration flakcatchers. Had it not come from the White House, this might never have seen US media daylight.
