Iraq says may agree timetable for U.S. withdrawal

[JoeChalupa]

Iraq says they may agree to timetable US withdrawal (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0353522920080707?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

raq says may agree timetable for U.S. withdrawal
Mon Jul 7, 2008 10:54am EDT

By Dean Yates and Ahmed Rasheed

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki raised the prospect on Monday of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington.

It was the first time the U.S.-backed Shi'ite-led government has floated the idea of a timetable for the removal of American forces from Iraq. The Bush administration has always opposed such a move, saying it would give militant groups an advantage.

The security deal under negotiation will replace a U.N. mandate for the presence of U.S. troops that expires on December 31.

"Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty," Maliki told Arab ambassadors in blunt remarks during an official visit to Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates.

"One of the two basic topics is either to have a memorandum of understanding for the departure of forces or a memorandum of understanding to set a timetable for the presence of the forces, so that we know (their presence) will end in a specific time."

Maliki was responding to questions from the ambassadors about the security negotiations with the United States. The exchange was shown on Iraqiya state television.


This could be a great move forward to bringing our troops home.

[boutons_]

"terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty,"

won't EVER happen, and dubya's puppet/protege Maliki is making such noise as lies for domestic consumpstion only.

The US military will remain in Iraq for decades until US oilcos are finished stealing Iraqi oil under predatory production sharing agreements, rather than dealing with Iraq National Oilco and nationlized oil fields, as is the case in other Gulf countries. "It's Their Oil"

Watch the Iraqi October elections for disenfranchising, with US military support, the Sadr City/Sadrist block, to keep puppet Maliki in power.

[101A]

Iraq says they may agree to timetable US withdrawal (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0353522920080707?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

raq says may agree timetable for U.S. withdrawal
Mon Jul 7, 2008 10:54am EDT

By Dean Yates and Ahmed Rasheed

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki raised the prospect on Monday of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington.

It was the first time the U.S.-backed Shi'ite-led government has floated the idea of a timetable for the removal of American forces from Iraq. The Bush administration has always opposed such a move, saying it would give militant groups an advantage.

The security deal under negotiation will replace a U.N. mandate for the presence of U.S. troops that expires on December 31.

"Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty," Maliki told Arab ambassadors in blunt remarks during an official visit to Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates.

"One of the two basic topics is either to have a memorandum of understanding for the departure of forces or a memorandum of understanding to set a timetable for the presence of the forces, so that we know (their presence) will end in a specific time."

Maliki was responding to questions from the ambassadors about the security negotiations with the United States. The exchange was shown on Iraqiya state television.


This could be a great move forward to bringing our troops home.

Iraq setting a timetable is a very different prospect than an artificial one conceived in Washington. This is good news. Iraq govt. BEHAVING like one = victory.

[101A]

"terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty,"

won't EVER happen, and dubya's puppet/protege Maliki is making such noise as lies for domestic consumpstion only.

The US military will remain in Iraq for decades until US oilcos are finished stealing Iraqi oil under predatory production sharing agreements, rather than dealing with Iraq National Oilco and nationlized oil fields, as is the case in other Gulf countries. "It's Their Oil"

Watch the Iraqi October elections for disenfranchising, with US military support, the Sadr City/Sadrist block, to keep puppet Maliki in power.

A U.S. base in Iraq is not, technically, "Iraq Land". Troops can remain stationed there - , without Maliki lying in this statement. U.S. presence pretty much being a necessity with Iran next door

[boutons_]

So US occupying Iraq land makes it "US land"?

So the US invasion was just an old-fashioned 19th century, imperialistic land grab?

So US occupation of "US LAND" surrounded by Iraq is not occupation?

As always with the Alice-in-Wonderland right wing, black is white, up is down, bad is good.

Deterrance by USA of Iran is possible from the Gulf Fleet, and from US-occupied SA and Kuweit. Iran can be struck for anywhere.

[JoeChalupa]

I feel that some troops will remain in Iraq for many years to come.

[peewee's lovechild]

I feel that some troops will remain in Iraq for many years to come.

They need to come home, all of them.

We should just abandon Iraq and let them all blow each other up straight to hell.

[RandomGuy]

They need to come home, all of them.

We should just abandon Iraq and let them all blow each other up straight to hell.

If you think gas prices are high now, let an Iraq slide into a full civil war that will become a proxy fight for its neighbors:

Iran
Syria
Turkey (oh, did we mentiont Turkey is part of NATO?)
Saudi Arabia

Oops. Remove Iranian and the Saudi production of oil from the global market, and see what happens to the global price of oil.

We're stuck. :^/

[ChumpDumper]

Mission accomplished!

Again!

[101A]

So US occupying Iraq land makes it "US land"?

So the US invastion was just an old-fashioned 19th century, imperialistic land grab?

So US occupation of "US LAND" surrounded by Iraq is not occupation?

As always with the Alice-in-Wonderland right wing, black is white, up is down, bad is good.

Deterrance by USA of Iran is possible from the Gulf Fleet, and from US-occupied SA and Kuweit. Iran can be struck for anywhere.

U.S. bases are U.S. soil. That's all; just pointing out possible semantic, political speach.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Things are looking up, I'm going to bitch about stupid shit that makes no sense.

[lefty]

So basically the U.S governement has decided when to leave

[peewee's lovechild]

If you think gas prices are high now, let an Iraq slide into a full civil war that will become a proxy fight for its neighbors:

Iran
Syria
Turkey (oh, did we mentiont Turkey is part of NATO?)
Saudi Arabia

Oops. Remove Iranian and the Saudi production of oil from the global market, and see what happens to the global price of oil.

We're stuck. :^/

Dude, we're fucked anyway.

Who gives a shit about the Middle East?
Really, if it wasn't for their precious oil, do you think anyone besides those living there would give a shit about that area?

Oil prices will skyrocket . . . so what? We're reaching that point anyway. I'd rather do away with a slow death and deal with it head on.

We'll find an alternative when our feet are put to the fire. Necessity is the mother of invention, and we have brilliant minds in this country that can make it happen.

[Clandestino]

We're still in germany, japan, korea, bosnia, etc... if it makes sense for the u.s. to be there, we'll stay there. why weaken ourselves bc of bitches like boutons

[JoeChalupa]

They need to come home, all of them.

We should just abandon Iraq and let them all blow each other up straight to hell.

I don't see that happening where they are ALL home. A U.S. military presence will need to remain for quite awhile.

[Anti.Hero]

"terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty,"

won't EVER happen, and dubya's puppet/protege Maliki is making such noise as lies for domestic consumpstion only.

The US military will remain in Iraq for decades until US oilcos are finished stealing Iraqi oil under predatory production sharing agreements, rather than dealing with Iraq National Oilco and nationlized oil fields, as is the case in other Gulf countries. "It's Their Oil"

Watch the Iraqi October elections for disenfranchising, with US military support, the Sadr City/Sadrist block, to keep puppet Maliki in power.

http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215456183&sr=8-1

[peewee's lovechild]

We're still in germany, japan, korea, bosnia, etc... if it makes sense for the u.s. to be there, we'll stay there. why weaken ourselves bc of bitches like boutons

We're weakening ourselves by stretching ourselves out.

Why do we still need to be in Germany, Japan, or Bosnia?

South Korea I can understand to a certain point, but why the hell do we "need" to be anywhere else?

[peewee's lovechild]

I don't see that happening where they are ALL home. A U.S. military presence will need to remain for quite awhile.

There's no reason to stay there.

Just get the fuck out and let them kill themselves.

[Anti.Hero]

Whether we leave tomorrow or leave in 20 years..it is the middle east.

They will go back to the same tired shit no matter what. We all know this.

What's the point in staying to just piss away more resources and more lives. To set up a bogus democracy in a fragile pathetic country while having to pump trillions and hold their hand knowing it will just fall apart once we leave? Fuck that.

[JoeChalupa]

There's no reason to stay there.

Just get the fuck out and let them kill themselves.

That is exactly what we CANNOT do.

[peewee's lovechild]

That is exactly what we CANNOT do.

Why not?

Didn't your boy Obama run on the platform of an "immediate withdrawal"?
Didn't he blast McCain for saying that the U.S. would have a presence there for years to come?

We can let them all go to hell and we should.

It makes no sense to stay there.

[JoeChalupa]

Why not?

Didn't your boy Obama run on the platform of an "immediate withdrawal"?
Didn't he blast McCain for saying that the U.S. would have a presence there for years to come?

We can let them all go to hell and we should.

It makes no sense to stay there.

He also said that some troops would need to stay to protect us citizens. What makes no sense is to leave the job undone. Bush knew it too.

[peewee's lovechild]

He also said that some troops would need to stay to protect us citizens.

The only citizens that need to be protected are the ones working at the embassy. Embassies have troops to protect them. To say that troops will be needed to protect U.S. citizens at the emabssy is redundant.

As for any other U.S. citizen in Iraq, they know the risks of being there. It's not the government's job to protect them. If that were the case, the government would have to have a prominent presence in Africa, Latin America, and many Asian hotspots.

Don't protect his recent backtracking. He ran on a platform of an "immediate withdrawal" and now he's reconsidering it.

So much for new politics.

[ElNono]

This Maliki must be on drugs or he just wants to start the sectarian massacre ASAP.
As soon as we pull out 5 brigades from there, the place goes to shit again. And it's not just the terrorists. Shiites and Sunnis are going to bout again sooner or later, the Mahdi will come out again as soon as we step out, and the kurds out north are already signing their own oil contracts basically sidestepping Maliki's government.
If we want to keep the peace, we're gonna be there for a while. I wouldn't be surprised if we need another 'surge' down the road. These guys are wackos, they don't like each other, and they can wait an eternity to do what they want to do.

[JoeChalupa]

The only citizens that need to be protected are the ones working at the embassy. Embassies have troops to protect them. To say that troops will be needed to protect U.S. citizens at the emabssy is redundant.

As for any other U.S. citizen in Iraq, they know the risks of being there. It's not the government's job to protect them. If that were the case, the government would have to have a prominent presence in Africa, Latin America, and many Asian hotspots.

Don't protect his recent backtracking. He ran on a platform of an "immediate withdrawal" and now he's reconsidering it.

So much for new politics.

I'm not protecting any backtracking. You are just pissed off that Hillary got beat. That is plain for all to see. Vote for McCain if that is how you feel. No sweat off my back.

[peewee's lovechild]

This Maliki must be on drugs or he just wants to start the sectarian massacre ASAP.
As soon as we pull out 5 brigades from there, the place goes to shit again. And it's not just the terrorists. Shiites and Sunnis are going to bout again sooner or later, the Mahdi will come out again as soon as we step out, and the kurds out north are already signing their own oil contracts basically sidestepping Maliki's government.


So?



If we want to keep the peace, we're gonna be there for a while. I wouldn't be surprised if we need another 'surge' down the road. These guys are wackos, they don't like each other, and they can wait an eternity to do what they want to do.


Again, so?

[peewee's lovechild]

I'm not protecting any backtracking. You are just pissed off that Hillary got beat. That is plain for all to see. Vote for McCain if that is how you feel. No sweat off my back.

You're not proctecting any backtracking?

He ran on a platform of an "IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL". Now, he's changing it. What's not to understand??

[Nbadan]

In the latest Iraqi flip-flop, the Dubya administration drops any pretense that it cares about leaving al-Maliki in power....


WASHINGTON (AFP) — In a rebuff to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, the Pentagon said Monday that any timetable for a US withdrawal from Iraq would depend on conditions on the ground there.

Maliki told Arab ambassadors on Monday he was pressing for such a timetable in negotiations with Washington on an agreement on the status of US forces in Iraq beyond 2008.

Asked about the prime minister's comments, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters: "With respect to timetables I would say the same thing I would say as respects to the security situation -- it is dependent on conditions on the ground."

Whitman said the United States had made clear "that we have no long term desires to have forces permanently stationed in Iraq."

"But timelines tend to be artificial in nature," he said. "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."

Maliki's comments to Arab ambassadors to the United Arab Emirates marked the first time he has specifically demanded a timetable for a US withdrawal.

"The direction we are taking is to have a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to have a timetable for their withdrawal," a statement from Maliki's office quoted him as saying.

"The negotiations are still continuing with the American side, but in any case the basis for the agreement will be respect for the sovereignty of Iraq," he added.

A UN mandate that provides the legal basis for the US military presence in Iraq expires at end of the year, and the two countries are negotiating a bilateral agreement to replace it.

The two sides have agreed in principle to sign a Status of Forces Agreement by July.

But both Shiite and Sunni politicians have raised objections, and Democrats in the US Congress have expressed fears it would tie the hands of the next president.

Link (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5igSiA7iUJ8sGnwX9v0uYpJryNgQw)

So the Iraqis want us to leave, the Iraqi government wants us to leave, the UN mandate that provides legal mandate for our military precense expires at the end of the year........so we're gone right? Wrong!

[Sherlock Holmes]

Whether we leave tomorrow or leave in 20 years..it is the middle east.

They will go back to the same tired shit no matter what. We all know this.

What's the point in staying to just piss away more resources and more lives. To set up a bogus democracy in a fragile pathetic country while having to pump trillions and hold their hand knowing it will just fall apart once we leave? Fuck that.

That's the whole point. Iraq, Afghanistan, the whole middle east does not want Americans anywhere on their land in the 1st place, so if they want to be left alone, then leave them alone. It's the U.S that takes the initiative to whether or not they should invade if they deem a particular country is a threat and they've failed on which ones to invade. They should have invaded Afghanistan, which they did, and completely eliminate the Taliban, which they didn't. And they should have invaded Pakistan as well, well not as much as invade, but track down terrorists there with the help of the current Pakistani govt. So if you want to blame somebody blame the Govt. As far as invading Iraq, I guess taking Saddam down was the highlight and everything else not much really.

[ElNono]

So?
Again, so?

Just expressing my opinion. Just like your 'flee right now' one (which I actually agree with). I think if Maliki thinks the US can leave right now and he can take care of things, he's high on drugs.

[JoeChalupa]

You're not proctecting any backtracking?

He ran on a platform of an "IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL". Now, he's changing it. What's not to understand??

Immediate withdrawal doesn't mean in one day. And if any Commander in Chief is not wise enough to change their strategerie when the circumstances change then that is not the kind of Commander in Chief I want.

I was Bush's refusal and should I say determination to "Stay the Course" when others were telling him otherwise is why the Iraq war has carried on for so long.

[jochhejaam]

For the first time in my adult life, I'm proud of the fact that we went into Iraq, and now al-Maliki wants us to withdraw? :ihit

Flip-flopper.

[peewee's lovechild]

Immediate withdrawal doesn't mean in one day. And if any Commander in Chief is not wise enough to change their strategerie when the circumstances change then that is not the kind of Commander in Chief I want.

I was Bush's refusal and should I say determination to "Stay the Course" when others were telling him otherwise is why the Iraq war has carried on for so long.

Wait a second here . . . you mean like voting for the Iraq War due to the information that was given and then wanting to get out because of the mess it created and because the pretense to invade was based on lies?

Is that what you mean?

Because I remember Obama shitting on Hillary for that.

Now it's okay for him to do a 180 because you have a crush on him?

[peewee's lovechild]

Just expressing my opinion. Just like your 'flee right now' one (which I actually agree with). I think if Maliki thinks the US can leave right now and he can take care of things, he's high on drugs.

Expressing your opinion is just fine.
I've got no problem with that.

But, us worring about what might happen in that region if we leave is just ridiculous. Really, who gives a shit what these people do to each other?

I don't want to lose another single soldier for the sake of that worthless region. We get absolutely nothing out of it.

[ElNono]

Expressing your opinion is just fine.
I've got no problem with that.

But, us worring about what might happen in that region if we leave is just ridiculous. Really, who gives a shit what these people do to each other?

I don't want to lose another single soldier for the sake of that worthless region. We get absolutely nothing out of it.

Exactly my sentiment when people talk about an 'ordered withdrawal'. They've been fighting each other and foreigners for centuries, and they'll keep fighting when we leave.

[Nbadan]

Wait a second here . . . you mean like voting for the Iraq War due to the information that was given and then wanting to get out because of the mess it created and because the pretense to invade was based on lies?

Hillary voted to authorize military action in Iraq, Obama did not....besides, Obama hasn't changed his policy to get troops out of Iraq, he has said before that he intends to let the Generals on the ground make the call as to when and how many troops can withdrawal from Iraq without leaving the place a complete cluster-f@ck..

[peewee's lovechild]

Hillary voted to authorize military action in Iraq, Obama did not....besides, Obama hasn't changed his policy to get troops out of Iraq, he has said before that he intends to let the Generals on the ground make the call as to when and how many troops can withdrawal from Iraq without leaving the place a complete cluster-f@ck..

Wrong.

He called for an "immediate withdrawal".

[101A]

Hillary voted to authorize military action in Iraq, Obama did not....

I don't know of any state legislator that voted to authorize military action in Iraq.

[xrayzebra]

I don't know of any state legislator that voted to authorize military action in Iraq.

Yeah, but he thought about it. Before he didn't!:lol

[RandomGuy]

You're not proctecting any backtracking?

He ran on a platform of an "IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL". Now, he's changing it. What's not to understand??

Not hard to understand, and also very predictable.

It is very easy for people to say "get out of Iraq now, damn the consequences" when you don't know the consequences.

The more one learns about Iraq, one finds it is a VERY complex problem that the Bush administration only now is getting handle on, 4 years too late.

My guess is that he has had some rather in depth briefings on the subject, and has changed his mind somewhat as he has learned how unrealistic a total immediate withdrawal is.

That and he probably was undoubtedly saying something in part to appeal to the portion of the Democratic party that is virulently anti-war.

It was probably a mixture of both, although whether it was more of the former or more of the latter will depend on your point of view, of course.

[RandomGuy]

Dude, we're fucked anyway.

Who gives a shit about the Middle East?
Really, if it wasn't for their precious oil, do you think anyone besides those living there would give a shit about that area?

Oil prices will skyrocket . . . so what? We're reaching that point anyway. I'd rather do away with a slow death and deal with it head on.

We'll find an alternative when our feet are put to the fire. Necessity is the mother of invention, and we have brilliant minds in this country that can make it happen.

Well at least you know what will happen to the price of oil. As long as you are cool with that, there is still a few more things to consider:

What happens when Turkey gets in a shooting match with Iran, and we are forced, through NATO, to help them?

What happens when the Saudis who control literally hundreds of billions of dollars of US-denominated investment assets ask us for help?
"Oh by the way, help us with Iran, otherwise we just *might* have to sell off the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of US-dollar based investment assets to pay for the war..."[note: that would be bad for us. very, very bad]

The risks of leaving before a fairly stable Iraqi regime is in place far outweigh the risks of staying a while longer.

[boutons_]

No Iraqi govt will be credible AND stable until the US "liberators" end their imperialistic occupation.

Maliki isn't credible with most Iraqis because he's a weak US puppet.

Watch the bullshit Maliki pulls (like invading Sadr City a couple months ago and got his butt kicked) against both the Sunnis and other Shiite factions in the runup to the October elections, supported of course by US military as his personal goons.

My guess is that Iraqi elections will be postponed until after the US election.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq," al-Rubaie said.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91PNNM81&show_article=1

Language is getting amped up by Iraq

[RandomGuy]

No Iraqi govt will be credible AND stable until the US "liberators" end their imperialistic occupation.

More than a grain of truth there. Kind of a damned if you do, and damned if you don't thing.

A phased withdrawal over time would do wonders to sharpen the Iraqi government's motivation.



Maliki isn't credible with most Iraqis because he's a weak US puppet.

Watch the bullshit Maliki pulls (like invading Sadr City a couple months ago and got his butt kicked) against both the Sunnis and other Shiite factions in the runup to the October elections, supported of course by US military as his personal goons.

My guess is that Iraqi elections will be postponed until after the US election.

Again, a central core of truth, if a bit vitriolic.

Maliki has gained some consolidation and strength from this though. He appears to be eager for the US to leave, and seems to be preparing for it.

[Marcus Bryant]

So Captain Sunshine is backtracking already? Surprise, surprise.

[Wild Cobra]

Much ado about nothing.

Here's my prediction...

They will make an agreement.

It will be secret.

An announcement without details will be met.

Now the conditions in politics are set, everybody's happy.

Except libtards, demonrats, and demoncraps.

[ChumpDumper]

Why does it have to be secret?

[Wild Cobra]

Why does it have to be secret?

If you don't know, then you don't get a balanced blend of news. If you have heard it and disregard it, why should I repeat it?

[ChumpDumper]

If you don't know, then you don't get a balanced blend of news. If you have heard it and disregard it, why should I repeat it?No I haven't really heard it.

If the US forces stay, it won't be a secret.

So how can the agreement be a secret?

Please explain how tens of thousands of American troops can stay in Iraq secretly.

[Nbadan]

So Captain Sunshine is backtracking already? Surprise, surprise.

Are you referring to McCain?


ABC News’s Bret Hovell reports: Sen. John McCain responded late Tuesday to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s call for a drawdown in foreign troops from Iraq as a prerequisite for a security agreement with the United States.

McCain said he was not concerned about the call for a "timetable" for withdrawal, a concept McCain has consistently criticized.

"I know for a fact that will be dictated by the situation on the ground, as it always has been," McCain said Tuesday evening at a stop for dinner in Pittsburgh, Pa.

"Since we are succeeding, then I am convinced, as I have said before, we can withdraw and withdraw with honor, not according to a set timetable," he said..........

Sounds like he has flopped from 2004

In 2004, McCain Admitted We'd Leave Iraq if the Iraqi's Wanted Us To



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.”

ABC News (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/mccain-responds.html)

[Wild Cobra]

No I haven't really heard it.

If the US forces stay, it won't be a secret.

So how can the agreement be a secret?

Please explain how tens of thousands of American troops can stay in Iraq secretly.

That's not what I said.

If they actually discuss a real timeline, then the timeline will remain secret. Not the troops.

The simple answer is we don't openly discuss troop movements until there is an actual plan. It would be giving the enemy information to act on. It gets more complicated, and I don't have the time to explain the nuances.

[ChumpDumper]

But the troops will move.

That will not be a secret.

If the Iraqis are indeed ready to stand on their own, why would secrecy be an issue?

"Bring 'em on."

[Wild Cobra]

But the troops will move.

That will not be a secret.

If the Iraqis are indeed ready to stand on their own, why would secrecy be an issue?

"Bring 'em on."
If we are that close, then it will be announced. I really don' know, I heard things are going pretty good, but I don't think we are close to a real pullout.

[whottt]

It's political suicide for the Republican Party if they refuse to agree to a timetable...and Bush's legacy will be monstrous.

They better figure out if feeding their SI is more important than the party survival...


And they won't win the election if that is their stance.



I'll say it right now...if the leader of Iraq is asking for that timetable and McCain(if asked) and the Republicans aren't willing to agree or support that...I'll be voting for Obama.

[whottt]

pee wee's lovechild is a bigot...so is El Nono...

I'll bet they both voted for Kerry in the last election, are against the war, and consider themselves Liberals...


I'll add them to exstatic, boutons, nbadan and all the other bigots masquerading as anti-war libs that consider the people of the ME to be savages, who just don't get Western Ideals...


The ME is a warlike humanitarian shithole because of Europe and the UN...not because it's full of savages..


It wasn't that long ago(in terms of human history) they were more sophisticated than the West. And more at peace...

Europe is the place that's always been at war..........the past 60 years is the aberration...