White House Announces ‘General Time Horizon’ For Iraq Withdrawal; Is It ‘Conceding Too Much To The Enemy?’
White House Announces ‘General Time Horizon’ For Iraq Withdrawal; Is It ‘Conceding Too Much To The Enemy?’
When Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki first requested a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, the Bush administration swiftly shot down his proposal. “Timelines tend to be artificial in nature,” a Pentagon spokesperson remarked. “[W]e’re looking at conditions, not calendars here,” the State Department remarked.
But today, the White House has seemingly embraced a “general time horizon” for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq. The AP reports:
Iraqi officials, in a sign of growing confidence as violence decreases, have been pressuring the United States to agree to a specific timeline to withdraw U.S. forces. President Bush has adamantly opposed a timeline, and the White House said Friday that the timeframe being discussed would not be ”an arbitrary date for withdrawal.” […]
The White House says the two leaders, in a conversation on Thursday, agreed that the accord should include ”a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals, such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq.”
The White House’s concession today comes after years of resistance to even considering the prospect of a timetable for withdrawing troops, particularly when it came from Congress. Some lowlights of the administration’s stubborn rhetoric:
“Why would you say to the enemy, you know, here’s a timetable, just go ahead and wait us out? It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.” [Bush, 6/24/05]
“Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq.” [Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman, 7/16/07]
“I believe artificial timetables of withdrawal would be a mistake. … I will strongly reject an artificial timetable withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job.” [Bush, 4/23/07]
“The…attempt to micromanage our commanders is an unwise and perilous endeavor. It is impossible to argue that an unconditional timetable for retreat could serve the security interests of the United States or our friends in the region.” [Vice President Cheney, 4/13/07]
The White House maintains that agreement “doesn’t reflect a shift in the U.S. position.” An Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, reiterated that an agreement should have the goal of “decreas[ing] the number of American forces in Iraq and later withdraw them.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I guess Dubya will just wait for Obama or a Dem in COngress to say something and then do it.
Why TF didn’t this work for the past 8 years??????
Anyway, it is ALL ABOUT THE OIL!
July 18th, 2008 at 3:54 pmTrippleKick:
July 18th, 2008 at 3:56 pmI thought you were a libertarian who didn’t carry water for the GOP. Why do you always only disparage one of the two parties you claim not to support? Just wondering…
TripleKick 2 Says:
Glad to hear that we’ve got this about wrapped up.
Yeah, the bodybags. Near one million bodybags wrapped up.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:59 pmTripplekick 2 shows the real purpose of the shift in position. It is a shift that could have been predicted well in advance of the election. Violence is down as any would have projected from increasing troop levels and managing violence while ethnic cleansing took place throughout the neighborhoods of the city. Now as the election comes around, Bush will declacre victory. Now that less than half of the public agrees with staying in Iraq, Bush will talk about withdrawing troops. Now that Obama has taken the lead in suggesting the transfer of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, we see McCain doing the same.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:59 pmBush started the war for political reasons, and now he is making a feint to end the war for political reasons. Somehow the ethically challenged troll sees some good in this.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:00 pmThis is obviously good news. Iraq is relatively depopulated and the production-sharing agreements with BP, Total, Shell,a dn ExxonMobil nearly signed. The ethnic cleansing of Baghdad and bribing of Sunni tribal leaders clearly worked and the Sadrists were clearly obeying the cease-fire. Glad to hear that we’ve got this about wrapped up.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:00 pmWait a minute!
Bush said we cannot talk withdrawal timetables, but now we are talking withdrawal timetables.
Bush said talking to Iran was appeasement, now Bush wants to talk with Iran.
Frankly, our trolls ought to congratulate Obama for convincing the current president to try this strategy.
Thanks Obama! And thanks for pulling your head out of your ass, Mr. Bush!
July 18th, 2008 at 4:02 pmSurge or no surge, this disagreement between the U.S. and Iraq has nothing to do with its success or failure. Nice try, triplekick in attempting to connect them, though. That was smoother than most trolls are able to muster.
What Iraq is doing is calling GDumbya’s bluff. He has been working hard for some time to set up a long-term security agreement to assure a military presence in Iraq. What Malaki has done is thumb his nose at the moron and call him on the old “when the Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down” BS.
This isn’t a sign of victory in Iraq. It is a sign of GDumbya’s impotence.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:02 pmI am glad that President Bush cleared this up. For a second I thought this might be a time line.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:03 pmCrippledick; if Iraq is so quiet, why does Bush/McPutz want 58 US bases in Iraq for perpetuity?
Putz!
July 18th, 2008 at 4:03 pm#8 Toaster,
July 18th, 2008 at 4:03 pmMission Accomplished…
I see our “surge” defenders still have that same old conservative problem with Cause and Effect. Perhaps they never heard of the “Logical Fallacy”: Just because Event B follows Event A, it does not necessairly mean that Event A caused Event B.
If violence is down in Iraq, it cannot automatically be attributed to “the Surge” (which, if they haven’t noticed, has “ended” with more troops in Iraq than before it was announced, but that’s a different matter.) Other factors, such as the call for a ceasefire by Muqtada al Sadr also played an important role in the level of violence being down. And that ceasefire is by no means permanently secured.
Violence in Iraq may be down, but the credit cannot go completely to the never-ending surge.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:04 pmSomehow the ethically challenged troll sees some good in this.
They worship their imbecile king, through rain or shine. Their lives have at least a speck of meaning while they are defending the guy. They must not have very many friends. Defending a loser is quite a trick.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:04 pmAnything Bush offers is “authentic”, all else is “artificial”. The problem is 23% of Americans ardently believe this. Hail to the Pathology in Chief!
Nouri al-Maliki and Iraqi elected officials need a timeline for their re-election. And for the oil to flow America’s way, those “recalcitrant Arab” leaders need to stay in power. (Winston Churchill referred to Iraqis as recalcitrant Arabs after he couldn’t bomb them into submission.)
July 18th, 2008 at 4:05 pmOh remember the good old days when the rightwing fruitbats hated Bill Clinton for ‘parsing the language’ to death?
You know they were ready to redo an OK City bombing over the ‘what the meaning of the word is is’.
Now they will stomach this dry drunk tool telling us that a “general time horizon” isn’t the same thing as a date for withdrawal.
What a bunch of morans.
-GSD
July 18th, 2008 at 4:06 pmOf course, the bit the White House left out of this statement is that the “general time horizon” is “anywhere between now and when the sun enters its asymptotic giant branch phase some 5-6 billion years from now.”
July 18th, 2008 at 4:06 pmStratRat; Bush still has his head up his ass, someone used a speculum to let in a little daylight.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:06 pmAnd the larger issues, of oil revenue sharing, and political reconciliation, still have seen no progress.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:10 pmtriplekick, you are one neuron short of a synapse.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:16 pmTK 2, How, exactly, do YOU define “winning”?
July 18th, 2008 at 4:18 pmTripleKick 2 Says:
wining the war.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
_______
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It’s so cute that you people still think an illegal invasion and occupation of a soverign country can be “won.”
July 18th, 2008 at 4:18 pmInvading a sovereign country and occupying it is the ultimate “big government” operation – which is why “libertarian” TripleKick2 is for it. /Sarcasm.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:19 pmcrippledick; See: Nuremberg trials
Planning, iniating, and waging a war of agression is THE SUPREME war crime. Hitler did it in 1939, Bush in 2003.
You are defending the indefensible.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:20 pmWayne A. Schneider Says:
TK 2, How, exactly, do YOU define “winning”?
July 18th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
_____
Want to start a TP-wide betting pool on how he defines “winning?” I’m gonna put my bet on “Iraq’s 15% Flat Tax.”
July 18th, 2008 at 4:22 pmBushstapo’s real fear here is that Obama will see a resounding reception by our troops in Iraq. Even Iraqis want Obama elected.
So does the rest of the World.
When Bush starts implementing everything Obama has been saying since January of 2007, you can tell they’re trying very, very hard to save face or take credit for Obama’s policies.
Hagee / McCain ‘08!
July 18th, 2008 at 4:25 pm“Winning in Iraq” == “Winning Elections for Republicans”
Worked in 2004, not so much in 2006, and a disaster in 2008 – Heckuva job Rove.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:25 pmRobertSeattle Says:
Invading a sovereign country and occupying it is the ultimate “big government” operation – which is why “libertarian” TripleKick2 is for it. /Sarcasm.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 4:26 pm______
That’s not wite accurate, though. The invasion of Iraq was not exactly a big government operation, which is why we went in with 1/4th of the troops we needed. It was a small government operation and a large corporate operation, which is why contractors nearly outnumber military personnel.
Is it just me or are McCain and Bush doing the very things that Obama said needed to be done. I guess the inexperienced guy does know what he is talking about after all, eh?
July 18th, 2008 at 4:27 pmFunny how right before the GE:
1)Oil prices have appeared to have peaked.
2)Diplomacy with Iran attempted.
3)Potential troop withdrawal in Iraq.
If I didn’t know any better, Bush is scared that Obama may win the GE and is trying to help McCain. Never put it past Bush to put party ahead of any benefit to the country.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:29 pmHT – I understand your point, but anytime a nation does a war of aggression, no matter the size, it is the absolute antithesis of “libertarianism” and is “amusing” how all these newly minted (often Bush apologizing) “libertarians” seem to support invading foreign countries that didn’t invade us first.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:32 pm“Why would you say to the enemy, you know, here’s a timetable, just go ahead and wait us out? It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.” [Bush, 6/24/05]
From “President Nixon’s Speech on “Vietnamization,” November 3, 1969.”
This can be found here.
Now, what were you just saying George (the man who wants to be worse than Nixon)?
July 18th, 2008 at 4:32 pmIs it my imagination, or did one of the threads disappear? I thought there was another one in there before.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:39 pmYep, let’s declare a General Time Horizon and get out.
If it means getting the troops out of harm’s way and home, I’ll put up with ‘The Surge worked!” from the trolls. I won’t like it but I’ll smile and nod.
What matters is that it stop.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:42 pmAnd now, of course, the “librul media” will crucify Chimpy for “cutting and running” and being a “anti-American surrender monkey”. Let’s listen.
(crickets chirping)
July 18th, 2008 at 4:48 pmThey had to change their tune since most (voting) Americans see a vote for a democrat as the only way out of Iraq. They have to make the case that we’ve won in Iraq (now conveniently separate from the war on terror) since the color-coded ‘terror alerts’ are no longer an effective scare tactic.
It will never cease to amaze me how people can’t see through the obvious charade of republican ‘leadership’.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:49 pmThe White House maintains that agreement “doesn’t reflect a shift in the U.S. position.”
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Bush is still maintaining his original position:
On his knees, mouth wide open, fellating the Blackwaters, corporations, oil companies, foreign lenders, etc…….
July 18th, 2008 at 4:51 pmHere’s some quotes from Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq’s national security advisor in an interview with Wolf Blitzer:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/13/le.01.html
He paints a picture that the policy is changing because the situation in Iraq is improving and the Iraqis are more capable to provide for their own defense.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:54 pmWayne A. Schneider Says:
Is it my imagination, or did one of the threads disappear? I thought there was another one in there before.
The Obama/socialist thread.
Don’t know why, though.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:54 pmBLITZER: What kind of time line are you talking about? How long do you want the U.S. troops to remain in Iraq?
AL-RUBAIE: Well, this is — I don’t think this is a fair question, Wolf. I think this depends on the situation in Iraq, the condition here, what the enemy is planning now, what is going to happen next year and the year after. What is the speed of the growth in number and in preparedness and in equipment and the army and the Iraqi security forces. Now I’m pleased to say that the Iraqi security forces are taking the lead and doing more than 75 percent of the security operation in the country, so — and we can see in a very short period of time the Iraqi security forces will be reaching the self-reliance status whereby we can relax the requirement for the foreign troops in this country.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:55 pmBLITZER: All right. You want to react to what Senator Obama says, because he basically interprets what your prime minister is saying as a validation of his longstanding view that there should be a timetable, he says 16 months for the removal of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq. AL-RUBAIE: See, there are — I understand, and I fully understand some of these words, the withdrawal and the timeline are very radioactive toxic material. Words should not be used two years ago but now with the conditions have changed dramatically in the last two years, and we are out of the civil war and we have a very good strong professional Iraqi security forces in place, and our enemy is nearly defeated, although there are some challenges ahead of us, but these words — shouldn’t be as radioactive as toxic as they would like it to be.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:56 pmAL-RUBAIE: See, I don’t think we are negotiating here with adversaries. We’re negotiating with allies and friends and strategic allies.
We have said this, time and again, that we, Iraq, is flying west, is heading west. And there is no doubt about it. And we would like to have a comprehensive economic, diplomatic, political, educational, scientific and other fields. These are the important issues. The security issue is probably a small part of this deal.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:56 pmTrippledick:
There’s noting partisan about wanting my country to be victorious.
Tell that to all the countries who used to be our allies. They see this cowboy exceptionalism as being out of touch with political reality.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:58 pmBackedup,
July 18th, 2008 at 4:59 pmThen why do we still have more troops than before the Splurge?
The point of the al-Rubaie comments is that the policy on timetables for withdrawal can be relaxed, because the situation in Iraq has improved.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:59 pmAl Sadr is merely biding his time. All the happy talk is proaganda, to disguise this political reality.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:01 pmMake that “propaganda.”
July 18th, 2008 at 5:02 pmWe have troops stationed in all of the countries that call us “allie”.
We went in for the oil, now we have to leave because we are running out of bullets.
Besides, the Iraqis aren’t our enemies, the neocon psychopaths seem to be doing most of the shooting.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:02 pmFrom: Marketing a Myth: How John McCain Actually Got The Surge Wrong
by Lt Gen Robert G Gard
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/14/7569/26098/54/551162
“The increase in American troops in Iraq had nothing to do with defeating the Iraqi insurgency and everything to do with actually talking with them. To claim otherwise is to market a myth and it’s time for John McCain to acknowledge it — to give credit where credit is due: to those fine officers of our military who decided to talk, even as the administration continued to beat the war drums.”
How many lives could have been saved IF Bush had fired Rumsfeld and started talking to the Sunni’s YEARS AGO!!
July 18th, 2008 at 5:04 pmRobertSeattle Says:
HT – I understand your point, but anytime a nation does a war of aggression, no matter the size, it is the absolute antithesis of “libertarianism” and is “amusing” how all these newly minted (often Bush apologizing) “libertarians” seem to support invading foreign countries that didn’t invade us first.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Very true – war by nature is “big government” whenever a government does it.
My big fear is that someday these wars of agression will be 100% privatized and profit-motivated – financed, staffed, and waged entirely by the private sector, operating without any government control. When war goes corporate, the true libertarians and the “neo-libertarians” will both get their wish.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:05 pmThe general consensus seems to be that we are drawing down troops.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/07/US_troop_levels_in_Iraq_may_drop/UPI-49221215457638/
July 18th, 2008 at 5:06 pmHave a good weekend all.
Busy day tomorrow. 1st up, antiwar rally in Port Huron for a couple of hours, dinner, then a Crosby, Stills, & Nash concert for the evening.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:09 pmBackedup,
Then why do we still have more troops than before the Splurge?
Because of deployments, both in and out of Iraq. Right now there are a lot of troops, because there is an operational overlap, between those coming in, and those leaving.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:09 pmbackup:
I think most, if not all progressives are very happy that the Iraqis might be standing up and allowing the US to begin the job of safely and wisely leaving the invaded country.
I think we are all encouraged that the Iraqis may have taken advantage of the surge/escalation to get their ‘political’ houses, at least in some minimal order. That is a good thing,
BUT:
Bush thinks this will lead to an increase in support for McSame and he probably did it out of political necessity – after all, Bush invaded Iraq for political reasons, it stands then that he would try and find a politically expedient way out of Iraq. This is just Bush playing the role of Bush – it is not a legitimate or lasting event.
Bush’s actions are ALWAYS political in nature – he knows no other way to govern.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:11 pmThe general consensus seems to be that we are drawing down troops.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
That wasn’t the question, b-kup. Just to clarify:
Why is it that government officials are saying, “the surge is over” when we have, at least, 10,000 more troops in harm’s way than when the surge began?
The honest answer would be “we decided we needed the additional 10,000 troops”. Instead we just get the same old “we’ll pull ‘em out when we’re ready”.
Why is the U.S. government fundamentally incapable of giving an honest, open, answer to any question?
July 18th, 2008 at 5:14 pmYou’re right. We should probably start with Petraeus.
To make up for some of this:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/12/webb-fallon/
and this:
http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html
July 18th, 2008 at 5:14 pmPlease don’t use their stick to beat them with. ANY sort of progress toward our exit from Iraq would be great, and so long overdue.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:16 pmthe iraqis are standing up and telling us to get the hell out of their country.
when was the last time you saw an Iraqi on America TV talking about what they wanted for their country?
July 18th, 2008 at 5:18 pmBTW. Why isn’t the Reich calling for the head of Bush? He just gave away military secrets. He has announced a plan to “cut-n-run”. He’s trying to surrender in a war we can “win”.
Where’s the outrage over his treasonous cowardice?
sarc/off
July 18th, 2008 at 5:18 pmwhen was the last time you saw an Iraqi on America TV talking about what they wanted for their country?
Mr Bush does not allow unscripted events to occur within eyesight of the American people. Every word, every image is filtered through the prism of GOP politics. The MSM will never show us things which Bushco hasn’t approved.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:20 pmStratRat. With the exception of whether we should maintain bases in Iraq, I don’t see much difference in positions between McCain and Obama.
I’m glad the Iraqis feel more capable to defend themselves. I personnally want our troops home as soon as possible and I assume most others do too.
The argument can be made that a timeline doesn’t negatively impact the situation in Iraq. I’m starting to agree. I believe that it’s becoming less relevant.
I feel that if the Iraqi leadership feel like they can now handle their own defense and they want the U.S. troops to leave, we should leave.
Maintaining bases there, is another issue that seems we need to resolve with the Iraqis.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:23 pmTripleKick 2 Says:
This is obviously good news. Iraq is relatively quiet and the enemy relatively defeated. Petraeus’ surge clearly worked and the naysaying democrats were clearly wrong. Glad to hear that we’ve got this about wrapped up.
BwaaaHaaaahaaaahaaaa! You are indeed a Twit.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:26 pmThis is just another one of BushCo’s pre-empting Obama.
pete. I see what you’re saying. But, there does seem to be better security in Iraq. There also seems to be more confidence in the Iraqi leadership that they can maintain their own security.
If that trend continues, it would lead you to believe that the troops could be redeployed to a similar effort in Afganistan and eventually, home.
That seems to be what Obama and McCain are both saying.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:36 pmThe argument can be made that a timeline doesn’t negatively impact the situation in Iraq. I’m starting to agree. I believe that it’s becoming less relevant.
WTF? Don’t you realize that, virtually, everyone outside of Chimpy’s inner circle has been saying that for years? Why is it that today it’s a “good idea based on the realities of the situation” while yesterday it was SURRENDER.
Sorry b-kup. The Republicriminals don’t get a pass on this one. They have either lied about conditions on the ground, or, they lied while attacking anyone who has proposed doing exactly what the Idiot in Chief did today. Either way it’s another in the endless list of crimes against our Nation and Humanity.
Either way, Dubbya just admitted that he’s been wasting lives to no purpose until it became politically advantageous to announce we, eventually, intend to leave. It’s enough to make a real patriot puke!
July 18th, 2008 at 5:36 pm“general time horizon”
July 18th, 2008 at 5:36 pmNo one ever has been as amazing as Bush & Co. at changing vocabulary & inventing new terms (insurgent, enemy combatants, all the euphemisms they have for torture, war on terror, etc.) — the list is enormous. Smoke & mirrors to hide the true meaning of what’s going on. And certainly their meaning-twisting just continues to show how dishonest they are.
tnrc75 Says:
Please don’t use their stick to beat them with. ANY sort of progress toward our exit from Iraq would be great, and so long overdue.
I don’t disagree that anything that helps to get our troops out of Iraq is good, but the important thing to some of us is why we are doing it. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is not always something to be commended, or even encouraged. They told us a lot of lies about why we had to send troops into Iraq and depose their government. Everything they told us that justified going to war was a lie, and everything they told us that was true did not justify going to war. If they are going to remove our troops from Iraq, we want them (the adminsitration and its brain-dead supporters) to be truthful about the reasons. Even if that means admitting they were wrong from the beginning.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:37 pmAnd it’s true – Bush et al are just copying what Obama has said for quite awhile– they just twist it into their own words & spin. Instead of praising loser Bush, trolls should thank Obama for showing the Bushies what to do. Like that’ll happen.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:38 pmJust out of curiosity, is this General Time Horizon fellow one of our generals on the ground? Is this why Bush is listening to him?
July 18th, 2008 at 5:40 pmFrom Gen Robt. Gard:
Recent published reports confirm that talks with the insurgents began all the way back in December of 2003, when military officers met with Sunni insurgent leaders in Amman, Jordan. Not only that, but when those talks were actually opposed by the administration, the military went ahead with the talks anyway.
General David Petraeus told the Congress in April of 2007, before the surge was actually in place …that the levels of violence in Iraq were down significantly and that “the tribes” were the key to that transformation. Let me repeat that: recruiting the Sunni tribes (and not the surge) has been the key to success in Iraq, along with the stand-down of the Mahdi Army. Patraeus is not alone in his thinking. The tribes of Anbar joined U.S. forces, according to U.S. Captain Jay McGee — an intelligence officer with the 69th Armored Regiment — because “everyone is convinced Coalition forces are going to leave and they are saying, ‘We do not want Al Qaeda to take control of the area when that happens.”
July 18th, 2008 at 5:42 pmImagine redeploying troops from Germany in 1944. What made sense in 1946 wouldn’t have made much sense in 1944.
The situation in Iraq changes the policy.
If/when the situation becomes more stable and the Iraqi forces become more capable, it makes more sense for our troops to redeploy.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:42 pmWAS,
July 18th, 2008 at 5:45 pmAbout 18 TP threads from about 07/15 to today went into the netherworld of the Internet for about 20 minutes.
In hindsight, we had more time to deal with Saddam without war. We should have worked to build a much more significant coalition. The war was mismanaged. There was little or no planning for the postwar period. Rumfeld took the wrong tact. There are serious questions about detainees, torture, and the war in general.
But, also in hindsight, the surge or the change in tact or the new management under Petraeus, did work.
The situation in Iraq is better today than 2-3 years ago. With the improved situation, a measured withdrawal and security handover to more capable Iraqi forces is more likely to occur without the civil war most feared several years ago.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:53 pmTripleKick 2 Says:
dbadass,
I’m simply happy that my country is wining the war that Reid swore was lost. There’s noting partisan about wanting my country to be victorious.
stupidity
is a good reason
for the failure of
conservatism.
*
good luck.
!
July 18th, 2008 at 5:54 pmAnd, of course, Bush was never about stay the course, too.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:55 pmhehe
But, also in hindsight, the surge or the change in tact or the new management under Petraeus, did work.
Cause and Effect again. Logical Fallacy. Don’t give credit to Petreaus just because the situation today is what we want it to be. He is not totally responsible for the level of violence being down, nor are the efforts of only the Americans (and their coalition forces, if any remain).
July 18th, 2008 at 5:58 pmWaltTheMan Says:
WAS,
About 18 TP threads from about 07/15 to today went into the netherworld of the Internet for about 20 minutes.
and are all Faiz’s posts labeled Igor now? Are they Faiz’s posts?
July 18th, 2008 at 5:58 pmBackup, you tried to explain the difference between troops in-country pre-surge with those still in country after the surge troops have now been withdrawn (supposedly), by stating that it was a result of overlap. I don’t think so. Prior to the surge, there were 132,000 troops in country (approximately 110 battalions). At the height of the surge, there were 160,00 troops in country (approximately 133 battalions). There are still currently 150,000 troops in country – that is approx. 125 battalions versus the 110 pre-surge. That’s an additional 18,000 troops than we had in-country prior to the surge. Compare that to the 27,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan…the highest number since 2001. And since those who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001 are not only in Afghanistan (and now Pakistan) and stronger than ever…what the he** are we doing in Iraq?
July 18th, 2008 at 5:59 pmbackup says:
I feel that if the Iraqi leadership feel like they can now handle their own defense and they want the U.S. troops to leave, we should leave.
Maintaining bases there, is another issue that seems we need to resolve with the Iraqis.
Agreed. My only problem with Bush’s announcement was that it seemed to contradict his last 5+ years of statements about ’staying the course’ and all of that – even as recently as last week. If he has finally ’seen the light’ and asks the Iraqis to stand tall and defend their own country, that is excellent – a bit late, but still most excellent.
Lets finish this thing up and get on with it.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:00 pmSomeone ought to tell these assclowns in the white house parsing words isn’t baffling anyone other than the 23%ers who watch faux. HHHHmmmmmmmm, let’s see: a “time horizon” eeerrrrrrr the horizon is a LINE… it’s a TIMELINE.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:00 pmIgnore my post @ 81… long day.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:02 pmPPPSSSSSSTTTTT, crippled dick 2, sorry to break the news to you BUT, there wasn’t any al qaeda in Iraq until after we destabilized the country.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:03 pmAhhh, semantics:
“Artificial time line” now reads “General Time Horizon.”
Just how stupid does this administration think the American public is, and just how stupid are water-carrying Republicans for continually slurping up this insepid nonsense?
Good news, yes, that an end may be in sight; what a crock to think the world is any safer because of George W. Bush.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:06 pmI hope to see a President Obama 6 months from now. I don’t care who ends up handling the situation in Iraq, because, despite the differences over the war and the surge, the policies today (Bush, Obama, McCain) are essentially the same.
We made hugh mistakes in the war. And generated serious questions about how far we go in the name of security. We have massive repair work to do with the rest of the world.
But, we should continue to support Iraq and transfer the power when we can. Then focus on Afganistan, as many on the left have been advocating for years.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:07 pmb-kup:
I’m not talking about 1944, 2004, or last year. I’m talking about YESTERDAY. Yesterday the media called plans for withdrawal, any plan, surrender.
TODAY, the Prez says we can talk about withdrawal. “The surge worked”. They love each other now, etc.
Who will be the first Reichwinger to claim Bush is a traitor for suggesting a time line might be a good idea? Or are they going to claim that something changed, in 24 hours, which made every previous, slimy, accusation inaccurate?
Maybe the generals/admirals took my suggestion of threatening to resign after Ashcroft’s pathetic testimony? Maybe the GOP panicked when they saw the most recent Reuters/Zogby poll? Maybe they know that their cover is blown and it’s time to guard against being ousted by an angry mob?
July 18th, 2008 at 6:09 pmWe made hugh mistakes in the war. And generated serious questions about how far we go in the name of security. We have massive repair work to do with the rest of the world.
But, we should continue to support Iraq and transfer the power when we can. Then focus on Afganistan, as many on the left have been advocating for years.
You state your case well. Nicely done….
July 18th, 2008 at 6:10 pmStratRat. I am with you. It was hypocritical of Bush. The diplomacy with Iran flip-flop was even more hypocritical.
Maybe if politicians stayed away from so much rhetoric, they wouldn’t have to suffer their own blatant hypocrisy.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:15 pmMaybe if politicians stayed away from so much rhetoric, they wouldn’t have to suffer their own blatant hypocrisy.
Yeah, maybe if we limited the number of words they could speak within a given period of time. If they had fewer opportunities to communicate, they may use those fewer times to actually says something important.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:19 pmGeneral Time Horizon reporting for duty, Sir.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:20 pmIt’s too bad that we can’t spin our electrical power generation turbines with Bush BS… We’d finally be “energy independent”…
July 18th, 2008 at 6:22 pmMaybe if politicians stayed away from so much rhetoric, they wouldn’t have to suffer their own blatant hypocrisy.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Maybe we should demand that politicians, at the very least, can pronounce “nuclear” and make it through a sentence without contradicting themselves?
July 18th, 2008 at 6:23 pmMaybe we should demand that politicians, at the very least, can pronounce “nuclear” and make it through a sentence without contradicting themselves?
Not a bad idea. I think I read another idea where all pressers had to be done under oath. Actually, if we had a working media, they would keep the candidates honest just by DOING THEIR JOBS.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:28 pmFrom Democratic Underground
Over the last few days three separate actions indicate that the balance of power within the Bush Administration has undergone a significant shift:
-The Joint Chiefs of Staff announce that they expect to reduce troop levels beyond expectations
-U.S. reverses course, will send envoy to talks with Iran
-US will establish a permanent diplomatic presence in Iran
Gates seems to be the involved in this change — the Obama effect?
July 18th, 2008 at 6:29 pmNot a bad idea. I think I read another idea where all pressers had to be done under oath. Actually, if we had a working media, they would keep the candidates honest just by DOING THEIR JOBS.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Not a bad idea, but, I would prefer to just eliminate “Press Secretaries” and “spokespersons”. Oaths don’t seem to mean much to this gang. I say “let those who make the decisions explain them in person”.
They may (will) continue to lie through their teeth but at least they would have to lie on their own behalf instead of trotting out a mouthpiece who can be discarded when the BS piles too deep.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:37 pmWayne-I agree and posted at 59. My point though is that if we see some substantive changes in policy, let’s just accept those. We need our boys and girls home. Quite frankly, talk is cheap anyway. These overtures to Iran are interesting, but again, talk is cheap.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:50 pmbeing a sociopath means never having to say you’re sorry
July 18th, 2008 at 6:52 pmTripleKick 2 Says:
This is obviously good news. Iraq is relatively quiet and the enemy relatively defeated. Petraeus’ surge clearly worked and the naysaying democrats were clearly wrong. Glad to hear that we’ve got this about wrapped up.
Another typical troll attempt to put lipstick on the pig.
July 18th, 2008 at 7:11 pmBy now the majority of Americans and Iraqis believe that this war was all about oil.
If just one American or Iraqi was killed or lost an arm or a leg to increase the already obscene profits of Exxon-Mobil, Shell, et al, it’s one to many.
Then there’s the trillion plus dollars that this war has cost and the damage it that has done to the U.S. economy and our future.
This war was a scam and an obscene travesty and no amount of lipstick on the pig is going to change that.
Why is it when I read “General Time Horizon” I imagine a tanned, salt and pepper crew cutted, square jawed, cleft chinned actor in some future satire a la Doctor Strangelove?
Do you suppose it is dawning on Bush that there will be a Democratic President, who because of some fortuitous turn of events will get credit for not only extricating America from the mess he’s made there, but also perhaps clean it up a bit?
Meanwhile hundreds of thousands in exile, tens of thousands more internally displaced, Bagdhad neighborhoods ethnically cleansed, Iran and Mullah Sadr the chief power brokers, huge permanent bases, the biggest American consulate compound in the world; still no electricity; still oil production less than prewar levels, but paying local thugs off with protection money, ethnic cleansing, and draining the best trained military force in the world in round the clock surveillance without regard to the incredibly high rate of non lethal physical and mental casualties has been a big success at changing the speed with which the current Iraqi government is completely inable to get anything done. Only Condi Rice has a worse record of documented achievement.
July 18th, 2008 at 7:13 pmWhat causes prytania to slither out of the cave every once in a while? Can it be in need of that posting fee from BushCo?
I do wish it would get updated and more defensible talking points, though.
July 18th, 2008 at 7:40 pmA General Time Horizon?!!
Very APT phrasing, Mr. President. Since we all know what happens to the Horizon, when we move Towards it.
The horizon moves too, and seems to still be off in the distance somewhere.
16 months sounds better to me. Iraq is more peacefull, because Iraqi’s think we are in fact LEAVING.
July 18th, 2008 at 7:59 pmimpeachcheneythenbush. I don’t disagree with your post around #82.
I think the overlap comment was actually barfly around #55.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:03 pmTripleKick. There’s been a lot of mistakes in the Iraq war, but the direction it has taken since the surge has been positive.
That was a better decision than prematurely withdrawing the troops.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:16 pm“We’re looking at conditions, not calendars here”
July 18th, 2008 at 8:17 pmThe Bush administration has always said it was in favor of troop withdrawals as warranted by “conditions on the ground”… so, if this isn’t about a timeline, what possibly can be the story here?
Bush: “I will not allow ‘Timetable’ to withdraw…but if you call it ‘Time Horizon’,I’ll consider it…”!!!
July 18th, 2008 at 8:20 pmyou say horizon, you say verizon
July 18th, 2008 at 8:39 pmhorizon verizon verizon horizon
let’s call the whole thing offfff.
The horizon is an imaginary line in the distance that retreats as one approaches it.
Interesting choice of words, d*ckheads!
PEACE
July 18th, 2008 at 8:48 pmbackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
TripleKick. There’s been a lot of mistakes in the Iraq war, but the direction it has taken since the surge has been positive.
That was a better decision than prematurely withdrawing the troops.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
According to whom ?
You and the rest of the retarded 19% Chimpy Adoration Brigade ?
Go with TripleDixinhisstupidass and PrivateMoronDancer to Iraq and suggest that to a group of Iraqis ; I always wanted to see the recreation of Mussolini’s execution……..
July 18th, 2008 at 9:06 pmThe longer chimpy’s troops stay in Iraq the more money repugs make.
We shouldn’t have been there in the first place, so it’s kind of hard to defend greed, destruction and war.
chimpy and mcchimpy are too snotty, immature, arrogant and smug to be from or for the United States of America.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:07 pm“Timelines tend to be artificial in nature,” a Pentagon spokesperson remarked. “[W]e’re looking at conditions, not calendars here,” the State Department remarked.
This whole discussion is beyond stupid. It’s going to take some time to extract our selves from Iraq regardless. Or in other words, the “conditions” are (and have been for quite awhile) that it is appropriate to set up a “timeline” for withdrawl.
That’s the problem with Bush’s argument. His argument was semantical at best but now he’s stuck with it, ultimately making him appear as foolish as he actually is.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
July 18th, 2008 at 9:13 pmdan_allnews Says:
“We’re looking at conditions, not calendars here”
The Bush administration has always said it was in favor of troop withdrawals as warranted by “conditions on the ground”… so, if this isn’t about a timeline, what possibly can be the story here?
That’s the best shit I heard all day!
July 18th, 2008 at 9:17 pmNow that Bush wants to have a General Time Horizon, does that mean he will want to appoint a General Time Tzar?
July 18th, 2008 at 9:24 pmNow that General Time Horizon has entered the debate, does that mean that Colonel Eff Up and Major Disaster are under new orders? Do Captain Assbag and Lieutenant Shitstain get choice new assignments at the Pentagon?
All of which, while it makes for interesting speculation, still doesn’t explain why our pet trolls sill feel compelled to defend Herr Shrub now that he’s turned traitor and made his call to cut-n-run.
For no reason, just when things are looking up, now they think we should surrender. They want to give Iraq’s oil to Bin Laden. They want to give Iran nukes, and a clear mandate to use them on Israel. Don’t they remember that surrender, in Iraq, will kill us all?
Effing traitors. No sense. No guts. No killer instinct. No respect for the honor and glory of war. The pathetic, cowardly, treasonous, traitorous, anti-American, little maggots make me puke. How can they live with themselves?
July 18th, 2008 at 10:08 pmWho is this new General Bush is sending to Iraq to achieve “aspirational goals”? I’ve never heard of anyone named General Time Horizon. Is he taking General Petraeus’ place?
July 18th, 2008 at 10:38 pmSay what? “General Time is on the horizon? Is that what Bush just mumbled?”
Yeah — He said, “Gen. Time has some ass per national goals.”
Sounds like we succeeded in Iraq. Sure thing, Georgie.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:53 pmTripleDick 2 Says:
hard to please this crowd. The war is in its sunset and al queda in Iraq is history.
Well, there never was any al Qaeda in Iraq before our invasion opened up the country to them (as every intelligence agency in the world will attest). Bin Laden hated Saddam for being a secular hedonist and strongly suppressing the religious fanatics.
Ask yourself, are either the Iraqis, the US, or the rest of the Middle East better off than they were before March 19, 2003? The ones in power from now on will be allied with Iran. This is why GHWBush left Saddam in power in 1991 when it would have been so easy to remove him.
We have not defeated the insurgents. We have put 100,000 of them on our payroll. This is why the violence has dropped—not because we went up to 160,000 troops. You need about 700,000 troops to control a nation the size of Iraq.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:02 amLet’s get the troops out of harms way ASAP. Then we’ll see if the Surge has worked. If Iraq can hang together after we’re gone, then the Surge worked.
But the long term effect of the Surge, I think, will be the same effect as that your fist has in a bucket of water once you remove it. I hope, for the sake of the Iraqi people, I’m wrong.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:03 amI think they must get Madison Avenue to think up their slogans like ‘TimeLine Horizon’. You can never reach a horizon. It is always in the distance.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:04 amIt’s only appeasement when the Democrats suggest it…when Republicans do, it’s victory…
July 19th, 2008 at 12:11 amJohn Kerry Says:
You libs are PATHETIC!! As usual you completely screw up the REAL facts and make your own up. It’s actually not even any fun trying to show you the real truth. You all are hopeless!
At any rate, the great George Bush has ALWAYS said that he would start withdrawing troops when the Iraqis started taking charge and guess what? THEY HAVE!
Give it up!
4 months before the election!!! Instead of being on a liberal site, you need to convince the 25%’s before they jump ship, because they are abandoning faster than a crack whore jumping on a twenty dollar bill. Nice try my friend, but you’re pissing in the wind.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:18 amJK, the fact that American troops secretly clear out places of trouble before allowing the Iraqi troops to “lead” expeditions into those places doesn’t mean that the Iraqi troops are taking charge…
July 19th, 2008 at 12:21 ambut you have nothing beyond GOP talking points, so it is you, my friend, who is truly hopeless…
July 19th, 2008 at 12:22 amIt would have been nice if our Congress had stopped finding the private army that Bush raised, which I’m sure violated the Constitution. Too bad he let Rumsfeld talk him into private contractors take over the duty of making sure our troops had good food, clean water, and a safe place to live. The Army would have done all of that correctly, and not at “cost plus”. The disrespect this president has shown for those in uniform borders on treasonous. And the people in charge of KBR belong in prison. There, I said it and I’m glad. Go ahead and sue me, KBR. The truth will come out.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:41 amPoor trolls. Their boy, George SURRENDER MONKEY Bush, sold them out. And what do they do? They drop trou, grab their ankles, and beg for another shaft up the back ramp.
It must be horrible to be filled with man-love for such an empty excuse for a human being. It’s almost enough to make me believe in mercy killing. After all, you can’t cure stupid.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:58 amAfter all, you can’t cure stupid.
No, but you can make a lot of money off them, and that’s why the Republican Party keeps them around.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:18 amJohn Kerry Says:
At any rate, the great George Bush has ALWAYS said that he would start withdrawing troops when the Iraqis started taking charge and guess what? THEY HAVE!
July 18th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
______
Maybe so, but what happens once we stop paying the Awakening Councils to “take charge?” Are they still going to be “taking charge?” or are they going to start killing Shi’ites?
July 19th, 2008 at 2:38 am“general time horizon”
I wonder which WH phrase-flunky came up with that one.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:41 amIs it something like an “event horizon”…
-Y’all have NO CLUE-I Do-as a strong Christian!!~!-This American President is one of the greatest in history for he stands unswervingly for GOD!!~!-Don’t argue-I’m RIGHTEOUS!!~!-One of the ones leading Christians and America-back to GOD!!~!-
July 19th, 2008 at 11:11 amSmilies!!~!
Patty
I give the above message all the kudoes in the world!!~!-ha ha
July 19th, 2008 at 11:13 amI’m good at battling -too-Check out -Patricia on there-(Uncle Huburt loves-YOU)-now-this a new battle-ground for GOD!!~! ha ha
July 19th, 2008 at 11:22 amSmilies!!~!
Patty
On myspace-they banned me from the “religion”-ya right!!~!
July 19th, 2008 at 11:26 am‘ forum-so I battle still-in my blogs and bulletins!!~Oh-how I’m hated-there-!!~!LOL!!~!-GOOD -I SAY!!~!
Smilies!!~!
Patty
I battle with the Words of God-for you -lost ones!!~!Convicted -YET?
July 19th, 2008 at 11:29 amSmilies!!~!
Patty
Same as President Bush-proud of it-Ya skeered!!~!–yet?-ha ha ha
July 19th, 2008 at 11:32 amI-mean what better place should I fight for TRUTH-but the WORLD WIDE WEB?-I love y’all darlin’s- but Jesus loves YOU-more!!~!
July 19th, 2008 at 11:39 amSmilies!!~!
Patty
I asked-ya-SKEERED- YET?-All I ever will do is pray for ya–
July 19th, 2008 at 11:42 amSmilies!!~!
Patty
JESUS WANTS YOU!!~!
July 19th, 2008 at 11:43 amGotta go-darlin’s-hubby wants to go someplace!!~!
July 19th, 2008 at 11:45 amGOT GOD?
Smilies!!~!
Patty
In Truth Says:
Gotta go-darlin’s-hubby wants to go someplace!!~!
Yeah, he wants to go to the closest bridge….
July 19th, 2008 at 11:50 amWhat about the consequenses? Who will answer for the huge mistake that will go down in history as a debacle?
There was no Al Quida in Iraq until bush invaded.
Just because the crime is going well does not erase the fact that it was a crime.
July 19th, 2008 at 11:52 amGeneral Time Horizon does not even exist in the context Bush uses it. http://www.investorwords.com/4…..rizon.html
July 19th, 2008 at 12:16 pmThey’re saying anything but timetable. Just like them sending the #3 state department official to Iran and say its not negotiating quoting Perino. Their eating their previous words and won’t admit it. They are counting on the American people being stupid again, and they in fact are the stupid ones They just took orders from president Obama. Thank you Bushco.
in truth may have crossed the threshold and become the wackiest troll we have ever had here.
And that is a scary thought for her hubby!
July 19th, 2008 at 12:59 pmMaybe “In Truth” is Daryll’s wife…
July 19th, 2008 at 1:22 pmPersonally, I wouldn’t be so full of God’s love if he gave me the brain of a paramecium.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:40 pmI think that the White House giving a general time line for leaving Iraq is just a ploy to appease the people of this country. By keeping this time line vague and general, the government will be allowed to withdraw our troops whenever they feel like it. When the time comes to make good on their promise, the words, “We said it was a general time line” come to mind. I can hear it now…
I really don’t think announcing that we’re going to withdraw from Iraq by a certain time really affects what the terrorists think. We can’t find them anyway, so why would it matter when we plan to leave?
July 19th, 2008 at 8:07 pmJohn Kerry Says:
At any rate, the great George Bush has ALWAYS said that he would start withdrawing troops when the Iraqis started taking charge and guess what? THEY HAVE!
Cool. So, we can declare victory and bring our troops home now? That’s all we ever wanted.
July 20th, 2008 at 6:15 amSo-ha ha -you don’t agree with me-fine-but the End is coming-and the destruction of every EVIL thing-so Choose GOD or other.On another-bright note-Randy Travis was talking about the ministry of his music in an interview-so God will use him-and all country music singers for His Great Revevial-most people listening to Country- that are hardworking -fun-lovung individuals that make this country -GO-!!~!- God will put conviction in that-that works.Makes sense-the Grand Ol Opry is the Mother Church of Country music!!~!-So-soon Country music wull become popular -again-this ime for GOD!!~!-WATCH FOR IT!!~!
July 20th, 2008 at 2:06 pm“White House Announces ‘General Time Horizon’ For Iraq Withdrawal; Is It ‘Conceding Too Much To The Enemy?’”
It’s not about “the enemy”, it’s about returning the control of a country, illegally occupied, to their citizens.
July 21st, 2008 at 8:17 amThe Republicriminalssohbet don’t get a pass on this one. They have either liedBedava mp3 indir about conditions on the ground, or, they lied while attacking anyone who has proposed doing exactly what the Idiot in cetChief did today.
April 19th, 2009 at 1:57 pm