OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIs' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

[Garcia Bronco]

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.

According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years - departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.

Even then, the dates mentioned are only "notional," making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history."

Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show "a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues."

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008...50.htm?&page=0

[BroncoBuff]

Don't see this as a problem ... especially in light of how Bushco has so very incompetently screwed up every aspect of the process. It's four months 'til a new administration, so rather than having the current one screw things up even more, let's just stand pat and let the new guy - whichever guy - try to fix things on his own terms.

I wonder how much total they're spending to bribe the Sunni militias to stand down so the Surge works ... I'll bet it's a lot. Reminds me of when Rumsfeld/Bremer loaded pallets stacked with a billion dollars cash on a C-130 and landed in Baghdad .... I don't think I'd trust these guys to run a lemonade stand properly. Things will really really really hit the fan when we finally do leave.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Don't see this as a problem ... especially in light of how Bushco has so very incompetently screwed up every aspect of the process. It's four months 'til a new administration, so rather than having the current one screw things up even more, let's just stand pat and let the new guy - whichever guy - try to fix things on his own terms.

I wonder how much total they're spending to bribe the Sunni militias to stand down so the Surge works ... I'll bet it's a lot. Reminds me of when Rumsfeld/Bremer loaded pallets stacked with a billion dollars cash on a C-130 and landed in Baghdad .... I don't think I'd trust these guys to run a lemonade stand properly. Things will really really really hit the fan when we finally do leave.

It's complete political BS. And while the current adminstration and particularly Rumsfield mismanaged any kind of plan that has results attached to it, this is the same kind of crap. So how exactly is Obama change in Washington, DC? He's not.

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Don't see this as a problem ... especially in light of how Bushco has so very incompetently screwed up every aspect of the process. It's four months 'til a new administration, so rather than having the current one screw things up even more, let's just stand pat and let the new guy - whichever guy - try to fix things on his own terms.

I wonder how much total they're spending to bribe the Sunni militias to stand down so the Surge works ... I'll bet it's a lot. Reminds me of when Rumsfeld/Bremer loaded pallets stacked with a billion dollars cash on a C-130 and landed in Baghdad .... I don't think I'd trust these guys to run a lemonade stand properly. Things will really really really hit the fan when we finally do leave.

Bingo! BushCo has taken the taxpayers hard earned money and used it to skew the real results of the war. I any one in a position of trust were to misappropriate the % of funds Bush and his minions have, they would most likely be looking at the world from the inside of a jail cell.

[Rigs11]

Hmmmm around 50 days till the election and all of a sudden this Iraqi comes out with this claim? sounds fishy. doesn't he know he is supposed to wait till october?

[Drek]

Should've figured this came from a Murdoch owned source.

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

It's complete political BS. And while the current adminstration and particularly Rumsfield mismanaged any kind of plan that has results attached to it, this is the same kind of crap. So how exactly is Obama change in Washington, DC? He's not.

I take this as him not wanting to be saddled with another incompetent relic from the Bush administration.

As it is he'll have to clean up a ton of civil rights infringements, the Afghanistan front, the collapsing housing market and by proxy the banking system. Not to mention the huge debt. Why would he want some lame duck withdrawal plan negotiated by Bush and his cronies as another thing to clean up?

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Drek

Should've figured this came from a Murdoch owned source.


I take this as him not wanting to be saddled with another incompetent relic from the Bush administration.

As it is he'll have to clean up a ton of civil rights infringements, the Afghanistan front, the collapsing housing market and by proxy the banking system. Not to mention the huge debt. Why would he want some lame duck withdrawal plan negotiated by Bush and his cronies as another thing to clean up?

You either want the troops out our you don't. This is pure politics and using our troops to do it. And makes him no different from the current administration which has already be doing this exact BS.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

You either want the troops out our you don't.

You cannot possibly be serious. That's the kind of simpleton thinking that got us in the mess. Err ... messes.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by Drek

As it is he'll have to clean up a ton of civil rights infringements...

In the midst of their wall-to-wall bungling and incompetence, this is the untold scandal: the bureacratic hands-off of regulating business. Civil rights enforcement has been nil ... environmental enforcement has been nil (in fact, oil corporation lackeys staffed most EPA positions) ... financial markets enforcement has been nil (them chicken's are just coming home to roost now) ... in fact, all reasonable regulation tasks that have for decades policed big business have been gutted and have stood down for eight years, deferring to business and the wealthy at every possible turn. This is the untold Bush scandal. Not only have they NOT performed their regulatory functions, often the political appointees have censred scientific findings ... as the the EPA big oil lackeys edited scientists' reports on global warming. It all started with James Watt in 1981 ... it's been mostly downhill from then. I wish Kimba Wood had been confirmed for Clinton - she would've really made a difference.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

You cannot possibly be serious. That's the kind of simpleton thinking that got us in the mess. Err ... messes.

No. The country has stablized to the point that we can leave. So the sooner we can get them out the better. Why would Obama try to hold up the process? Because he's playing politics. Now if your argument is the country is not stable, then we can have no time line to leave.

[Drek]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

You either want the troops out our you don't. This is pure politics and using our troops to do it. And makes him no different from the current administration which has already be doing this exact BS.

I like how quickly you shift your tune depending on the right wing talking points.

Weren't you just saying about a month ago, on this very board, that we couldn't withdraw because, and I quote, "we broke it, we got to fix it".

Well fixing it means a slow withdrawal that doesn't put too much pressure on delicate political ties overnight.

And at the same time does anyone trust the Bush presidency to negotiate a good withdrawal? They haven't conducted a single other military operation without total crap as the result. Why do we want them planning the end result of the Iraq war?

Only a few more months and a competent regime will be stepping in. and FYI, Obama has stated time and time again he is aiming to have his Iraq, economic, and energy strategies ready to go as soon as he's sworn in.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

No. The country has stablized to the point that we can leave. So the sooner we can get them out the better. Why would Obama try to hold up the process? Because he's playing politics. Now if your argument is the country is not stable, then we can have no time line to leave.

Yes, the country has stabilized. But when we leave - whenever that is - there will exist a classic power vacuum. There's sure to be civil unrest and/or more civil war. These militias have not ceased to exist, they've merely agreed to a cease-fire (greatly lubricated by cash payments from you and me and every taxpayer in the USA). The WAY we get out matters a lot, and because there is relative stability now, we should wait four months imo to give the new president - whichever new president - a chance to handle the situation competently.

[TexanBob]

Democrats have never gotten over how Reagan got credit for securing the release of the Iranian hostages which Khomeini did as a final f- you to Jimmy Carter. They think somehow Bush41 bribed Khomeini to wait until after the election was over. Republicans believe Khomeini did it because the media talked fearfully about Reagan's willingness to use nukes whereas they knew Carter didn't have the nerve.

So Obama is now trying to do the same thing. He wants *credit* for getting the U.S. out of Iraq and wants to make sure Bush doesn't beat him to the punch. It's cynical political posturing but not unsurprising.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by TexanBob

Democrats have never gotten over how Reagan got credit for securing the release of the Iranian hostages which Khomeini did as a final f- you to Jimmy Carter. They think somehow Bush41 bribed Khomeini to wait until after the election was over. Republicans believe Khomeini did it because the media talked fearfully about Reagan's willingness to use nukes whereas they knew Carter didn't have the nerve.

So you mean Reagan agreeing to release $80 billion of Iranian assets that
Carter has frozen had nothing to do with the Iranians waiting until Reagan
was sworn in to release the hostages?

Yeah, right, Reagan was going to use nukes on Iran, when he was too gutless
to even do anything in retaliation after the Marines got killed in Lebanon.
Reagan's crowning military achievement was defeating a bunch of Cuban
construction workers on a tiny Caribbean island.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

So you mean Reagan agreeing to release $80 billion of Iranian assets that
Carter has frozen had nothing to do with the Iranians waiting until Reagan
was sworn in to release the hostages?

To say nothing of Saint Ron's sales of stinger missiles to Iran to fund his clandestine war in Central America.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by TexanBob

Democrats have never gotten over how Reagan got credit for securing the release of the Iranian hostages which Khomeini did as a final f- you to Jimmy Carter. They think somehow Bush41 bribed Khomeini to wait until after the election was over. Republicans believe Khomeini did it because the media talked fearfully about Reagan's willingness to use nukes whereas they knew Carter didn't have the nerve.

So Obama is now trying to do the same thing. He wants *credit* for getting the U.S. out of Iraq and wants to make sure Bush doesn't beat him to the punch. It's cynical political posturing but not unsurprising.

Actually, I think it was Rumsfeld delivering the cake that warmed the Ayatollah's heart.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

You either want the troops out our you don't. This is pure politics and using our troops to do it. And makes him no different from the current administration which has already be doing this exact BS.

I am sorry, Garcia, but this is simpleton thinking. Did it occur to you that Obama thinks this particular withdrawl plan is a bad one? There are a multitude of ways to go about the withdrawl, and not all those ways are good ways. Considering the way the Bush administration has conducted the war thus far, it would be a stunning turn of events if they actually constructed a competent plan.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

I am sorry, Garcia, but this is simpleton thinking. Did it occur to you that Obama thinks this particular withdrawl plan is a bad one? There are a multitude of ways to go about the withdrawl, and not all those ways are good ways. Considering the way the Bush administration has conducted the war thus far, it would be a stunning turn of events if they actually constructed a competent plan.

I thought it was his withdrawl plan. that's what various supporters have been saying. So which is it. Either way we need our people out of their yesterday provided the job is done.

[Drek]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

I thought it was his withdrawl plan. that's what various supporters have been saying. So which is it. Either way we need our people out of their yesterday provided the job is done.

Malaki liked Obama's plan. The plan Bush's crew has been proposing is very different and doesn't keep the right kind of checks in place should something go wrong.

Basically Bush wants to be able to say "I won the war!" as he leaves office, the Iraqis just want us out, McCain wants to "win" by staying indefinitely, and Obama wants to plan a troop withdrawal that ultimately ends in a free, stable, democratic Iraq by 2010.

One good plan, three plans full of bias and personal goals.