Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

Like I said, Iraq isn't the issue, it's pocketbook as always.

Would you argue that either "pocketbook" or "Iraq" are a plus for McCain?

bedstuy wrote:

Der Spiegel releases the transcript and it says what was originally reported.  There really is no other way to read this other than a statement that al-Maliki's views are in line with Obama's.

al-Maliki is also insistent that having a timetable (*cough* "horizon") is not "defeat", and must be part of the current on-going agreement negotiations.

edit:  oh, here's a big *giggle*.  Seems al-Maliki's non-denial denial arrived in the US press via CENTCOM.

There are now three translations floating around that all say somewhat different things. I'll note thought this little bit from, pick whatever translation you want to use "Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.".
Now what brought about said positive developments? The surge, which of course Obama was against, and who suggested 16 month withdrawal in the place of the surge.

Also as Mickey Kaus points out the Der Spiegel quote and the NYT qoute are not quite on the same page as to a definitive endorsement of the 16 months:
Der Spiegel:

As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. 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. [E.A.]

versus
New York 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." [E.A.]

Or it could not. Depending of course on whether positive developments continue.

As stated by Bush and Mccain even, "As they stand up we'll stand down" the need for the number of troops on the ground is dependent on situations on the ground. If situations on the ground are so stable that soldiers are no longer required (and we've turned over various areas already to Iraqi control as they've stepped up) then we begin removing troops. Its the difference of doing something based on situation on the ground versus simply removing troops because you are fixated on a date of 16 months. Obama has yet to even visit any general who says that 16 months is at all realistic, because his 16 months is not based on any reality whatsoever. Why doesn't Obama listen to the generals?

I'm sure that many Iraqis would love us to leave. It has to be done in a manner that provides for stabliity when we leave, which again calls for stability on the ground and because we no longer need to have the troops theres (because the Iraqis can do it themselves).

bratboy wrote:

What a convoluted rationalization....

Which part? Elaborate please.

Mr. Maliki's interview prompted immediate concern from the Bush administration, which called to seek clarification from Mr. Maliki’s office, American officials said.

Scott M. Stanzel, a White House spokesman with President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., said that embassy officials explained to the Iraqis how the interview in Der Spiegel was being interpreted, given that it came just a day after the two governments announced an agreement over American troops.

“The Iraqis were not aware and wanted to correct it,” he said.

Come on, what a smurfing joke.

bratboy wrote:

Do you believe that the Bush administration leaned on Maliki's office to 'clarify' his statement because they were unhappy with it?

Simple question.

I disagree with the characterization that they were leaned on, which you automatically take as a given. So your question is in fact biased from the outset.

bratboy wrote:

Mr. Maliki's interview prompted immediate concern from the Bush administration, which called to seek clarification from Mr. Maliki’s office, American officials said.

Scott M. Stanzel, a White House spokesman with President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., said that embassy officials explained to the Iraqis how the interview in Der Spiegel was being interpreted, given that it came just a day after the two governments announced an agreement over American troops.

“The Iraqis were not aware and wanted to correct it,” he said.

Come on, what a smurfing joke.

Note the part above that says "given that it came just a day after the two governments announced an agreement over american troops". It's (his purported statements) at odds with the agreement just announced, hence the confusion and request for a clarification, and the need for a correction

jerwin wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

Or it could not. Depending of course on whether positive developments continue.

As stated by Bush and Mccain even, "As they stand up we'll stand down" the need for the number of troops on the ground is dependent on situations on the ground. If situations on the ground are so stable that soldiers are no longer required (and we've turned over various areas already to Iraqi control as they've stepped up) then we begin removing troops. Its the difference of doing something based on situation on the ground versus simply removing troops because you are fixated on a date of 16 months. Obama has yet to even visit any general who says that 16 months is at all realistic, because his 16 months is not based on any reality whatsoever. Why doesn't Obama listen to the generals?

I'm sure that many Iraqis would love us to leave. It has to be done in a manner that provides for stabliity when we leave, which again calls for stability on the ground and because we no longer need to have the troops theres (because the Iraqis can do it themselves).

So you're saying that if positive developments continue, McCain will pull the troops out in 16 months too?

If the situation on the ground warrants it, then Mcain and Bush will remove troops. Not all troops (and note Obama still will maintain special forces and trainers there after combat troops are removed according to his plan), but troops will be drawn now as they are no longer needed. Where is this 16 month number being pulled from, certaliny not from situations on the ground. Obama consulted with his advisors to find out the quickest way timeframe in which to remove all combat troops that wouldn't cause problems for our trooops trying to leave, not when the situation on the ground will be sufficient so that we can draw down troops. It should be a distinction that shouldn't have to be explained OVER AND OVER.

If positive developments continue, more and more troops will be removed as they are no longer needed because thats what the fact on the ground would dictate. I would think it would take a lot longer than 16 months, which is an artificial timetable. I'd like Obama to discuss with the various military leaders whether they think 16 months to remove all combat troops is even remotely realistic,even if the situation on the ground warranted the change (ie the Iraqis met all benchmarks, little to no violence was occurring for an extended period of time, terrorism was a non issue etc etc.).

Damn these translation errors!

bratboy wrote:

Damn these translation errors!

The Iraqis are HOPEFUL to have troops out by 2010. That may or may not be a realistic assessment. However, why are they hopeful? Because so much positive stuff has been achieved in Iraq, while the dems were caterwauiling about how the sky was falling and the war was already lost we and the Iraqis were fighting and winning the war. As I stated earlier, we've largely won this war already.No thanks to Obama and the democrats (save Lieberman).

IF SITUATIONS ON THE GROUND ALLOW FOR TROOPS TO BE REMOVED BY 2010, THEN THAT IS THE DATE THAT THEY SHOULD BE REMOVED. IF SITUATIONS ON THE GROUND DO NOT DICTATE THAT THEY SHOULD BE REMOVED THEN THEY SHOULD STAY THERE UNTIL SITUATIONS ON THE GROUND DICTATE THAT THEY SHOULD BE REMOVED. Maybe it will be 2011. or 2012. See why Obama should consult with the generals to find out if that's an accurate assessment?

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-07-21 9:40 am)

everlong205 wrote:

See why Obama should consult with the generals to find out if that's an accurate assessment?

Why don't you take a look at jerwin's post on page 9 and then answer whether Obama has consulted the generals about his "arbitrary" date?

But I suppose it's easier to ignore that.

everlong205 wrote:

If we only need more months to fully pacify Iraq and complete our mission, then that would be great. A major victory for the Bush administration. However, its plain common sense that troop reductions should be tied to situations on the ground and not a withdrawal timeline based on an arbitrary number.

Do the Iraqis believe a timeline is necessary?

jerwin wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

IF SITUATIONS ON THE GROUND ALLOW FOR TROOPS TO BE REMOVED BY 2010, THEN THAT IS THE DATE THAT THEY SHOULD BE REMOVED. IF SITUATIONS ON THE GROUND DO NOT DICTATE THAT THEY SHOULD BE REMOVED THEN THEY SHOULD STAY THERE UNTIL SITUATIONS ON THE GROUND DICTATE THAT THEY SHOULD BE REMOVED. Maybe it will be 2011. or 2012. See why Obama should consult with the generals to find out if that's an accurate assessment?

And what of situations at home, or situations overseas? Why should Iraq control our military doctrine?

Exactly. What if the situation never improves? Also, where is the dividing line that suggests when the situation has improved enough? I'm not so sure we can rely on Bush and his general's judgement to make that call. It will continually be a drain on the economy and our resources. We can't fix our own problems until we withdraw and focus on them.

I ask you to respond to this quote, everlong:

"PETERSON: ...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."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/6973/

niggs0026 wrote:

I ask you to respond to this quote, everlong:

"PETERSON: ...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."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/6973/

That's obviously the result of a bad translation of what McCain actually said (who coincidentally was talking about his concerns regarding the "Iraq/Pakistan" border on Good Morning America today).