Not only does the Iraqi parliament support a timetable, but so does the Prime Minister.

Here's the raw translation, because the Bush administration is wanting to obfuscate things by claiming he was misinterpreted:

Quote :

"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. Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq."

--al-Maliki

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/us/politics/21obama.html?pagewanted=1&ref=politics


I think one can assume that there's an implied "[he] who wants to exit in a quicker way..."

Obama's destroying McCain on his strongest issue. Epic.

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 10:06 AM. Reason : .]

7/21/2008 10:04:33 AM

McCain is going to have to flip flop over to the side of a withdrawal timetable sooner or later, the Iraqi people, and government both want it, the US people want it, the only people left are people like McCain who are still suffering from 'nam syndrome.

7/21/2008 10:09:32 AM

Boone,

You moron already posted this in the McCain v. Obama thread. As I pointed out there, 62% of Iraqis don't want us to leave now as Obama suggests (though they obviously want us to leave eventually) according to the latest BBC poll.

But who cares about them? One Iraqi politician likes Obama and that works better on video than a poll of regular Iraqis. That's why Obama is gonna win this thing. The election isn't about the issues or the actual people involved. It's about Celebreality--what looks better on a tv-set. *shigh*

PS* Did you hear that Bama and ScaJo-hanson are BFFs? E! said they are trading e-mails every night!@!

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 10:20 AM. Reason : ``]

7/21/2008 10:14:15 AM

Quote :

"As I pointed out there, 62% of Iraqis don't want us to leave now as Obama suggests"

I really wish you'd accept that a 16-month timetable effective 2009 isn't "immediately."

I sort of understand, though-- it's the only thing you have



[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 10:23 AM. Reason : ]

7/21/2008 10:19:30 AM

^^don't forget about Gordon Brown

7/21/2008 10:20:05 AM

There is no way Obama is going to get us completely out anytime 'soon'.

I know he has said this. It still won't happen.

7/21/2008 10:22:01 AM

Quote :

"PS* Did you hear that Bama and ScaJo-hanson are BFFs? E! said they are trading e-mails every night!@! "

I did! And between you and me, whenever he talks about his support for "Israel," it's code for "Natalie Portman."

7/21/2008 10:23:49 AM

^ Boone, And I forgot that you keep asserting that anytime anyone says we should leave now or leave immediately that they are suggesting we have Scotty teleport our troops out of the country.


Barack Obama says we should begin leaving immediatley and be out in 16 months. Unless the Iraqi's have stumbled on a new matter-moving device, I'm betting that when they were asked if we should "leave now" they realized it would take time to pull our troops out. Kinda like if you asked me to leave your house now, you would realize it would take me time to reach the door.

But I guess some people are more interested in spinning than they are talking about what we should actually do in Iraq.

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 10:25 AM. Reason : ``]

7/21/2008 10:24:33 AM

Leave now and start leaving now are different. A phased withdrawal is not immediate and unconditional withdrawal. Socks, I know you're smart, now try to use your brains in this instance.

7/21/2008 10:26:34 AM

It took a month to enter Iraq, and there were people actively trying to keep them out.

You're saying it would take until April-ish of 2010 for us to remove them immediately?

Do you honestly think the average Iraqi, when asked if we should leave "immediately," thinks of April of 2010?


^I doubt he disagrees. It's the only thing keeping McCain from looking dumb, though.

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 10:31 AM. Reason : .]

7/21/2008 10:30:28 AM

SkankinMonky,

1) So, again, what do you suggest they meant? That the Iraqis being polled thought we could teleport our troops out of Iraq, Start-Trek style? That doesn't sound right to me. Look, if you asked me to leave your house "now" do you think I would vanish into a puff of smoke? Or would you realize that it may take time for me to reach the door and step outside?

2) The question did not simply ask if we should leave now. The next option was whether the US should leave after security has been restored.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_03_08iraqpollmarch2008.pdf

The poll was only conducted in February, which means it takes into account the gains achieved by the Surge last year. And despite progress since last January, violence indicators has only been reduced between 40 and 80% of pre-surge levels. That would indicate to me that we have made up ground but that the Iraqis don't want us to leave them holding the bag.

But hey, maybe in the past few months things have gotten so good that Iraqis would flip on their previous answers and say we can leave. As opposed to last year, when things were so bad that we had to leave. I guess the conclusion is always the same no matter what argument one has to use.

*sigh* Dealing with spin on this level exhausts my emotional capacities. Must be my old age.

7/21/2008 10:41:33 AM

man damn i need to start making more threads here...saw this shit yesterday but didnt think it was that big of a deal

7/21/2008 10:45:38 AM

Boone,

We did not magically add all those troops and equipment into Iraqi over night! This war has been going on for 5 years! ABC News ran a story recently on how difficult it would be to live up to Obama's plan.

Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult
U.S. Commanders in Iraq Warn of Security Dangers, See Logistical Nightmare

Quote :

"Success on the battlefield is not the only complication with Obama's plan. Physically removing the combat brigades within that kind of time frame would be difficult, as well. The military has been redeploying troops for years, and Maj. Gen. Charles Anderson, who would help with the withdrawal, told us as we toured Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, "We have the capacity to do a minimum of two-and-a-half brigade combat teams a month -- can we expand that capacity? Sure. Can we accelerate? It depends. It depends on the amount of equipment that we bring back. And it's going to depend on how fast we bring them out." It is the equipment that is the real problem. In the kind of redeployment that Anderson is talking about, the troops head home, but much of their equipment stays behind. Two combat brigades means up to 1,200 humvees in addition to thousands of other pieces of equipment, like trucks, fuelers, tankers and helicopters. And 90 percent of the equipment would have to be moved by ground through the Iraqi war zone, to the port in Kuwait, where it must all be cleaned and inspected and prepared for shipment. This is a place with frequent dust storms, limited port facilities and limited numbers of wash racks. While Anderson and his troops have a positive attitude, several commanders who looked at the Obama plan told ABC News, on background, that there was "no way" it could work logistically."

http://abcnews.go.com/story?id=5351864

IOW: Assuming that things go smoothly in Iraq and sectarian violence doesn't errupt to pre-surge levels as we withdraw, the logistics of moving out the majority of our troops and equipment in 16 months will be a nightmare. 16 months is a best case scenario. This is what Obama's former foreign policy adviser Samantha Powers said in an interview with BBC a few months ago. Of course, it got near zero coverage in the States outside a few internet articles.

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 10:53 AM. Reason : ``]

7/21/2008 10:48:35 AM

Quote :

"That the Iraqis being polled thought we could teleport our troops out of Iraq, Start-Trek style?"

It could easily be argued that they were thinking, "Yes, I want the troops out of my city tomorrow, take their shit and leave, I want no interaction with them on a daily basis starting now." The semantics of the actual time to leave aren't important to your average person, they just want the daily interaction cut, leave the details for the politicians. Is this view hard to comprehend?

Quote :

"The question did not simply ask if we should leave now. The next option was whether the US should leave after security has been restored."

Yes, and? It said when should US troops leave. #1 was now, #2 was ASAP.

7/21/2008 10:50:56 AM

^ what's your point? How do we know that security will be restored in January of 2009, when Obama says we will begin withdrawal? The poll STILL doesn't support Obama's plan even at its most spun.

And why set these time-based deadlines, at all? If we have to set up a withdrawal strategy, it should be event-based. Set up benchmarks for withdrawal based on violence indicators and political progress. That would make actual sense and would be consistent with Iraqi sentiments. If Obama advocated a plan like that I would be totally behind it.

But...of course...he hasn't.

7/21/2008 10:57:59 AM

Quote :

"Q22 How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq? Should they leave now, remain until security is restored, remain until the Iraqi government is stronger, remain until Iraqi security forces can operate independently, remain longer but leave eventually, or never leave? Leave now: 38 Remain until security is restored: 35 Q23 Overall, do you think the presence of US forces in Iraq is making security in our country better, worse, or having no effect on the security situation? Better: 27 Worse: 61 Q33 If the American forces left the country entirely, do you think the security situation in Iraq overall would become better, become worse, or remain the same? Better: 46 Worse: 29"

I'm not sure how that report bolsters your argument.

Quote :

"Boone, We did not magically add all those troops and equipment into Iraqi over night!"

And no one's suggesting it could be done over night. Rolling our equipment back into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will not take until April '10, though.



[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 11:08 AM. Reason : ,]

7/21/2008 10:59:44 AM

Quote :

"The poll STILL doesn't support Obama's plan even at its most spun."

No one ever claimed that it did. It was you who claimed quite the opposite. Please don't try to change the argument to save face, you were the one that made the following accusation:

Quote :

"As I pointed out there, 62% of Iraqis don't want us to leave now as Obama suggests"

Your argument relies on a black and white factor, over half of your quoted 62% want us out ASAP. No one ever claimed that the study you linked in another thread backs Obama's Iraqi plan, that was you all the way buddy.

7/21/2008 11:07:16 AM

^ But they did not say ASAP. You are putting words in their mouths. I am taking the poll at face value and not reading things into it that are not there. "Well they could have meant that they wanted our troops to be teleported out and Obama doesn't believe in using teleporters".

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM. Reason : ``]

7/21/2008 11:18:25 AM

Quote :

"Well they could have meant that they wanted our troops to be teleported out"

Would you please engage in honest debate and acknowledge that there's some daylight between instantly and April of 2010?

7/21/2008 11:22:46 AM

^ would you acknowledge that no one ever suggested or would reasonable expect that we could withdraw our troops instantly? Doing so would require magic and neither the Iraqis or Barack Obama are fans of the dark arts.

7/21/2008 11:25:11 AM

Quote :

"there's some daylight between instantly and April of 2010"

7/21/2008 11:26:47 AM

Quote :

"there's some daylight between instantly and April of 2010"

7/21/2008 11:29:45 AM

Quote :

"^ would you acknowledge that no one ever suggested or would reasonable expect that we could withdraw our troops instantly? Doing so would require magic and neither the Iraqis or Barack Obama are fans of the dark arts."

PS* As US Military Commanders pointed out to ABC, a 16 month time table may be faster than physically possible. So I'm not sure what "daylight" you're talking about. If it is just as impossible to move all combat troops out in 16 months as it is to move them out tomorrow, it doesn't seem like there is much wiggle room.

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 11:35 AM. Reason : ``]

7/21/2008 11:31:58 AM

Regardless of who comes into office in 2009, I think we're going to see a draw down of American forces. I'm a bit skeptical of Obama's 16 month plan not because I don't think he'll go through with it but because I think it'll drag out much longer. As its been pointed out before, we've been moving personnel and equipment into Iraq for over five years now, and it'll take time to remove everything in an orderly fashion. Also, I think it's going to take more time than anticipated to transition provincial security and control of bases and facilities to Iraqi forces. I suppose we could try and do a Lebanon-style withdrawal, pulling out our forces ASAP without any coordination with our Iraqi allies, but we saw the results of that. No, if you want to do this right, I think it'll take longer than 16 months.

That being said, I don't think we can stay there much longer even if someone like McCain wanted to. The Iraqi government, as dysfunctional as they are, is up and running, and their military and security forces have been making significant gains. Their morale is up and their training and equipment are finally getting to more acceptable levels; that's why I think you're seeing the shift in Iraqi opinions. Given the current, unsustainable costs of maintaining our current level of forces and with the changes on the ground, the next administration will be strongly pressured from all sides to begin some sort of draw down.

7/21/2008 11:33:46 AM

I wondered why you'd even bother citing this since, in the general's own words:

Quote :

""I'd have to see the entire plan. I'd have to understand the strategic objectives of the leadership, and based on those strategic objectives, come up with operational objectives. It's very difficult to comment on one way or the other, whether one plan would work or one plan wouldn't work."

Then I got to this quote from another general, which basically contradicts the summary you gave:

Quote :

""We have the capacity to do a minimum of two-and-a-half brigade combat teams a month -- can we expand that capacity? Sure. Can we accelerate? It depends."

You'll recall that Obama's plan calls for two brigades a month.


hen there's the part you did quote:

Quote :

""In the kind of redeployment that Anderson is talking about, the troops head home, but much of their equipment stays behind. Two combat brigades means up to 1,200 humvees in addition to thousands of other pieces of equipment, like trucks, fuelers, tankers and helicopters. And 90 percent of the equipment would have to be moved by ground through the Iraqi war zone, to the port in Kuwait, where it must all be cleaned and inspected and prepared for shipment. This is a place with frequent dust storms, limited port facilities and limited numbers of wash racks."

So basically, the equipment isn't "withdrawn," according to this guy, until it's on a boat heading for America.

7/21/2008 11:45:27 AM

^
You did not read the article very carefully it seems. As I said, 16 months is a BEST CASE estimate that focuses ONLY on moving troops and not equipment (Anderson is the same person you quote approvingly in one instance and mock the next when he disagrees with you)--this scenerio also ignores the possibility of problems with the withdrawal (assumes that sectarian violence doesn't erupt etc). This is what leads ABC News to conclude that Obama's plan may be "problematic" and a "logistics nightmare" in their headline.

It's also why several military commanders, quoted on background, said there is "no way" to get Obama's plan to work logistically. But you seem to ignore their comments. I wonder why?

Nothing you quoted contradicts anything I said. Please step outside of the spin zone.


[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 12:12 PM. Reason : ``]

7/21/2008 12:01:55 PM

Quote :

"Please step outside of the spin zone. "

Says the guy who has ignored Obama saying that he will work with the generals on the ground to set actual policy.

Quote :

"Responding to comments made by a former advisor who said Obama might shelve withdrawal plans after getting elected, Obama said he would listen to his generals but, "I will not equivocate in my strategic belief that we need to withdraw ... one to two brigades per month -- that will be the operating pace that I come into those conversations with.""

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/839220,obamaweb031208.article

7/21/2008 1:09:59 PM

^ Obama has said a lot of things, as I have noted before. Before winning the primary, his campaign has said that the troops will be home in 16 months after inauguration, period (their phrasing not mine). Now that we're in general election mode, Obama is talking about "refining" his policy and all that.

Surely you've seen my collection of Obama's 6 positions on Iraq. With enough time and Google you can find Obama supporting almost any post-invasion policy you wish. Yet he'll say with a straight face that he's had a consistant position the entire time. It's kinda funny really.

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 1:19 PM. Reason : ``]

7/21/2008 1:18:15 PM

Ok, so you won't address my quote, instead you'll try to refocus your argument.

7/21/2008 1:28:40 PM

^ What do you want me to say? A few months ago, Obama's campaign said that there should be no confusion that we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. When asked about this statement during the debate, Obama said that he would work with Generals to set TACTICS, but as President he would set the strategy (being to get troops home in 16 months at the most).

What am I spinning? Here are the quotes and links.

Quote :

""MR. GIBSON: And Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, when he is -- this is talking about you -- when he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most; there should be no confusion about that. So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order: Bring them home. SENATOR OBAMA: Because the commander in chief sets the mission, Charlie...Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16text-debate.html?pagewanted=print

7/21/2008 1:33:27 PM

Socks, are you intentionally trying to change the topic of conversation by discussing the feasibility of Obama's plan, or do you not even see that you are discussing something different? The topic at hand is that the Iraqi parliament, prime minister, and the british prime minister have all reaffirmed their favor of some kind of time table at a time when Obama is visiting the middle east. Even if Obama's plan does not allow enough time and will likely need to be revised, at least its something. We all know that you will nip at Obama's nuts anytime you get the chance, but try to pay attention to what exactly is going on and why this is news.

7/21/2008 2:31:58 PM

Quote :

"Anderson is the same person you quote approvingly in one instance and mock the next when he disagrees with you"

I'm not mocking him. I'm pointing out that his view of withdrawal differs with everyone else's in the entire world (save for you, of course).

Quote :

"that focuses ONLY on moving troops and not equipment"

...out of Kuwait.

Jeez, do you think our military is so immobile that it would take over 16 months to move from one base of operation to another 500 miles south if we were in a hurry? When this guy is talking about preparing them for shipment out of Kuwait, he's gone far beyond any reasonable definition of "withdrawal."

Plus, was leaving behind some equipment in Iraq never within the realm of possibilities? If we'd left Murtha-style you'd better believe we would've left some stuff behind. Soviets in Afghanistan style. That's immediate.


I'm sorry that you've decided to hang your entire Iraq argument on this interpretation of immediate, but it's a mind-numbingly retarded exercise in nit-picking.

7/21/2008 2:47:42 PM

Quote :

"I'm sorry that you've decided to hang your entire Iraq argument on this interpretation of immediate, but it's a mind-numbingly retarded exercise in nit-picking."

and completely ignores why this is in the news

7/21/2008 2:48:47 PM

pooljobs, You apparently misunderstand the line of conversation. The only reason we got off onto a discussion of the feasibility of Obama's plan is because Boone wants to reconcile his conception of "leave now" with what Iraqis were asked in the most recent BBC poll.

According to the BBC poll, 62% of Iraqis do not want the US "leave now". I say that this is in opposition to the plan that Obama puts forth and the one Maliki endorses (as stated previously, Obama wants to begin withdrawal immediately and be out of Iraq in 16 months). Boone and SkankinMonky say that by "leave now" the Iraqi respondents were only considering the possibility of US troops vanishing from Iraq in an instant and that Obama has never proposed such an idea (therefore the poll is neither in favor or opposition of the Obama plan).

This is a very important question since Obama supporters argue that Maliki's endorsement is evidence of the Iraqi people wanting us gone. This poll much more directly asks that question so how one interprets its results is important to interpreting the wishes of the Iraqi people.

I personally think that Boone's sentiment is pretty silly at best and transparent spin at worst. But, hey, if you want to pretend he's right that's your business. I'm starting to give up on any hope of honest discussion on this topic.

PS* Boone, As I keep pointing out, even if you want to take that interpretation of Anderson's comments (whom ABC News describes as "optimistic") you're ignoring the comments of several military commanders who quoted on background as saying there was no way Obama's plan would work logistically. You might as well start saying "they'll wave good-bye to us as liberators", because you're assuming withdrawal will be the same cakewalk that the Bushies assumed the invasion would be. Good grief!! The parallels between Republicans 3 years ago and Democrats today are almost spooky.

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 3:09 PM. Reason : ``]

7/21/2008 2:57:59 PM

If you asked the Iraqi man on the street what "leave now" meant, and gave him the following options:

A) by six o'clock this afternoon
B) in one month
C) in six months
D) April of 2010 (21 months from now)

Only Socks dot dot would argue that they'd choose D. I mean, I'm sure they're all up-to-date on our logistics.

It flies in the face of what seemingly the entire Iraqi gov't wants, and what the other parts of the poll state:

Quote :

"Q23 Overall, do you think the presence of US forces in Iraq is making security in our country better, worse, or having no effect on the security situation? Better: 27 Worse: 61 Q33 If the American forces left the country entirely, do you think the security situation in Iraq overall would become better, become worse, or remain the same? Better: 46 Worse: 29""

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 3:07 PM. Reason : .]

7/21/2008 3:06:19 PM

^ hypothetical polls of which I am the only respondent don't count friend. But hey, maybe the Iraqi's really do imagine that we can disappear in a cloud of smoke. Didn't that dude on X-Men do it? *sigh*

And as I have noted, those poll results are entirely consistent with my interpretation that they want us gone eventually but not now. Please don't re-post things as if I had not responded to them earlier. It only indicates you're not interested in having a conversation (salisburyboy did the same type of stunts and its why everyone lost interest...that and he was crazy). So look, if you want to have a conversation with me, you will have to clean up your act. That means stop pretending you're on cross-fire.

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 3:21 PM. Reason : ``]

7/21/2008 3:10:51 PM

Quote :

"But hey, maybe the Iraqi's really do imagine that we can disappear in a cloud of smoke."

And again, you're insisting that in the average Iraqi's mind, there's no daylight between *poof* and two years.

I'm absolutely positive that the average Iraqi thought to himself,

"Hmmm... well I assume they don't mean under the current administration, since Bush is too set in his ways, so let's start the beginning of "immediate" at January of 2009, then let's factor in the time the generals are telling me they'll need for logistics... yeah, 22 months sounds pretty immediate to me"

7/21/2008 3:26:28 PM

^ my guess is that they didn't establish a time line in their head at all. My bet is that they were considering the DECISION to leave and not how long it would take. Isn't that much simpler than guessing what they meant by "now"? It's also how I personally would have considered the question.

It also means the poll is directly relevant for Obama's plan. If he had his way, we would have started withdrawing troops last year (at least if his legislation had passed). So he has already decided he wants to leave now and that making it happen would take 16 months (kinda like I decide to leave my house and it will take 16 steps). The majority of Iraqi's would seem to disagree with his decision.

But I'm tired of playing "mind reader". If you really really want to play that game, I can't stop you. I only hope the campaign season ends soon so people come back to their senses. bbl



[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 3:40 PM. Reason : ``]

7/21/2008 3:38:29 PM