Mullen Endorses ‘Conditions-Based’ Withdrawal, Suggests Iraq SOFA Dates Could Be Ignored
Mullen Endorses ‘Conditions-Based’ Withdrawal, Suggests Iraq SOFA Dates Could Be Ignored
On Sunday, the Iraqi cabinet “overwhelmingly approved” a security agreement requiring the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by 2011. The agreement’s meaning was clear to Iraqis: The New York Times reported that “Shiite legislators could barely conceal their delight” at the agreement, and noted that “they referred to the pact as the ‘withdrawal agreement.’” As proof of its determination to a firm withdrawal date, the Iraqi government even required that the U.S. “scrap the language that would have allowed the American troops to stay beyond 2011 if Iraq requested.”
Iraqi officials made it perfectly clear that they would take the withdrawal agreement seriously:
– Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh: “The total withdrawal will be completed by December 31, 2011. This is not governed by circumstances on the ground.”
– Deputy parliament speaker Khalid al-Attiya: The “Americans have responded positively on two important amendments. The first one is the Americans should withdraw from cities and suburbs on June 30, 2009, and the second one is that Americans should leave Iraq in 2011.‘”
The Pentagon, however, seems to view things differently. Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen said today that he still supports “conditions-based” withdrawal only, and indicated that the agreement could always change long before 2011:
MULLEN: Three years is a long time. Conditions could change in that period of time. … [W]e will continue to have discussions with them [the Iraqis] over time as conditions continue to evolve.
Q: So you could change the agreement, is what you’re saying?
MULLEN: Well clearly that’s theoretically possible.
Watch it:
Earlier today, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino insisted the security agreement included only “aspirational” dates for withdrawal.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
What part of “NO!” does Bushco not understand?
November 17th, 2008 at 7:04 pmThis so-called Iraqi “government” is merely a puppet regime, installed under an illegal criminal US occupation. It has no standing in International Law and it will quickly collapse when the US starts withdrawing its military forces from Iraq. Story over. Then the Iraqi people will be running Iraq. Imagine that. Just like when the American people starting running America in 1783 after the British imperial occupying troops were withdrawn.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:04 pm“SOFA dates” ?
Shouldn’t private lives be kept out of this ?
November 17th, 2008 at 7:05 pmQuote from Washington Post:
November 17th, 2008 at 7:09 pmThe Bush administration issued a pair of secret memos to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 that explicitly endorsed the agency’s use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding against al-Qaeda suspects — documents prompted by worries among intelligence officials about a possible backlash if details of the program became public.
Mullen seems to have forgotten that there’s going to be a new marshall in town on January 20, 2009. Maybe Mullen will join Bush, Cheney, Fang Rice, Wolfie and the rest of the criminals at the war crimes trials in The Hague early next year.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:13 pmThe ink isn’t even dry on the document and the Bushies are already breaking it. Did the Chimperor issue a signing statement along with it? Amazing.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:23 pm$12 billion a month would go a long way towards fixing our financial mess and national infrastructure. How can they say goodbye if we never leave? Who would want to stay anywhere they were not wanted?
November 17th, 2008 at 7:26 pmThe Iraqis are giving the US time to get out but that’s not good enough for Bush&Co. If anyone doubted that the reason for our invasion was for oil and oil alone, they should be slapping their own heads by now.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:32 pmI guess Admiral Mullen isn’t gong to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs much longer with that kind of attitude toward supporting and defending the Constitution. You don’t sign an legal agreement if you’re going to publicly say you’ll ignore your obligations under it. The only reason the Iraqis even agreed to this was because they felt President Obama would honor it. They stalled until after the elections because they assumed (and correctly, I might add) that a President McCain would not honor any agreement to remove the troops from their sovereign soil.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:35 pmThe W interpretation of what the agreement means or does not mean will not be controlling come 01.20.2009. So who cares what they think . . .
November 17th, 2008 at 7:50 pmIt’s easy to see why the Iraqis don’t trust Republicans.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:52 pmThe Pentagon shudders at the thought of all those mega-bases boarded up and abandoned, McDonalds wrappers blowing in the wind…
November 17th, 2008 at 7:52 pmZooey Says:
It’s easy to see why the Iraqis don’t trust Republicans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is true what ISNT easy to see is why so many Americans still DO trust Republicans
November 17th, 2008 at 7:53 pmMullen can suggest whatever the wuck he fants. Irrelevant in 54, 53, 52…days…
November 17th, 2008 at 7:56 pmDo you remember the little twit in grade school who would never give the ball back? Those are the neocons.
How to Tell Your Party Is Dead:
November 17th, 2008 at 7:56 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qi4ezdmO08
This is SOFA king we todd ed
November 17th, 2008 at 8:10 pmSilly Iraqis think that they’re “sovereign” and should be able to determine when foreign troops leave. Hey, no problem. Just sign this part where we own all your oil . . .
November 17th, 2008 at 8:12 pmMullen can look at the news as what Obama/Biden do when they take charge. Mullen had his chance and blow it now it’s time for someone new.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:18 pmDear Perry. Thanks for playing. Spam sucks, and so does your video.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:19 pmMcMetal @#3 ~ Heh. Does a lap dance count?
November 17th, 2008 at 8:20 pm#19
November 17th, 2008 at 8:22 pmThanks. Someone had to say it…
Well, it’s fortunate for the Iraqi’s that there will soon be a new boss in town and I doubt that he’s going to agree with Mullen. As a matter of fact, Mullen could quite likely be out of a job soon. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
These guys really do think that Obama is going to go down the same road as they did, don’t they?
November 17th, 2008 at 8:30 pmChuck Feney Says:
The ink isn’t even dry on the document and the Bushies are already breaking it. Did the Chimperor issue a signing statement along with it? Amazing.
First of all, nothing has been signed. The Iraqi cabinet has approved it, but it now goes to the entire Iraqi parliament. With Mullen’s words, it may well be delayed until after Barack takes office. Which means, all troops will have to withdraw to their bases in the interim.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:40 pm“Aspirational dates” — these loonies make up their own words, over & over. They are truly pathetic.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:07 pmEugeneDebs Says:
That is true what ISNT easy to see is why so many Americans still DO trust Republicans
November 17th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
You might find an answer here.
In a nutshell, they’re afraid. Of what, it’s not really clear because it so often seems disconnected from reality and the facts, but they are afraid. And the Republicans have shown that they know what those people are afraid of, but what they never tell people is what they’ll do to allay those fears.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:09 pmYeah, I gues Obama’s little confab with the Iraqi’s has paid off.
He violated the Logan act when he met with the Iraqis in an attempt to negotiate the SOFA himself BEFORE he was even elected.
At the time of his visit, the Iraqis were puzzled about why he was attempting to inject himself into the mix.
He introduced just enough doubt to get the Iraqis to delay the vote on the agreement until the outcome could be altered.
Funny how it went the way Obama wanted…
November 17th, 2008 at 9:10 pmOf course, Obama was just following in the footsteps of Ms. Pelosi who herself should be brought up on charges of violating the Logan Act!
Remember her pathetic, unpatriotic attempt to cause problems with the Kuds and the Turks? If her effortts had been successful, our vital supply lines through Turkey would have been disrupted.
She’s no better than a traitor in my book.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:13 pmSpecifically, what Obama told the Iraqis is that they should hold off on negotiating the SOFA until AFTER the election! No wonder they took pause… they couldn’t fathom what a candidate for the U.S. Presidency was doing by suggesting such a thing OUSIDE of proper, diplomatic channels!
They might as well shit-can the Logan Act…
November 17th, 2008 at 9:15 pmOf course, Obama was just doing what he does best.
After all, the official, elected government of Kenysa had to insist that he cease and desist in his meddling of their internal affairs re: the Odinga affair.
Like father like son as they say…
November 17th, 2008 at 9:18 pmSo, when does the war start paying for itself?
November 17th, 2008 at 9:36 pmabarts,
Unfortunately, there is no “dollars and cents” payoff in war. You either win it or lose it – nothing in between.
The payoff comes with achieving the objectives you set out when you have to go to war.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:40 pmHi Tim
November 17th, 2008 at 9:40 pmI can’t wait to hear what those objectives are/were…
November 17th, 2008 at 9:42 pmSpecifically, what Obama told the Iraqis is that they should hold off on negotiating the SOFA until AFTER the election!
Did he really do that? Or is that just speculation? Because sitting Senators and Representatives (including Speaker Pelosi) know that they cannot go to foreign countries and contradict official American foreign policy, and I have heard of no evidence suggesting that either of them did.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:50 pmUnfortunately, there is no “dollars and cents” payoff in war. You either win it or lose it – nothing in between.
That’s absurd. There have been plenty of wars throughout history that fizzled into nothing, or ended with neither side better off than the other.
ANd he didn’t ask you when it would “payoff”, he asked whenit would start “paying for itself”, which is what one of the architects of the War in Iraq told Congress in sworn testimony. So it’s a legitimate question. When does the War in Iraq start paying for itself? Obviously not when Wolfowitz said it would, “relatively quickly”.
The payoff comes with achieving the objectives you set out when you have to go to war.
Well, since we didn’t “have to go to war” in Iraq, I wonder what kind of “payoff” we can expect, since there clearly could not have been “objectives” to achieve.
I’m not sticking around to hear what other drivel comes out of the troll.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:55 pmNo prob Wayne. I will. It will no doubt amuse me.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:56 pmSo the USA has signed its name on an agreement – in short they have signed a contract and immediately started indicating that they could ignore it if they wanted to.
The soldiers signed a contract with the Army for their term of enlistment. I am sure the Army will let the soldiers ignore that if they want to.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:25 pmDbadass,
I assume you are referring to what our new President’s objectives are vis-a-vis the Iraq war?
My understanding is that he wants us outta there, like yesterday.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:40 pmNo I was thinking more about the ones the current president made up, discarded, made new ones, discarded, and so on. Might I kindly pointout again that the d is lowercase? Sheesh…
November 17th, 2008 at 10:54 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Yeah, I gues Obama’s little confab with the Iraqi’s has paid off.
He violated the Logan act when he met with the Iraqis in an attempt to negotiate the SOFA himself BEFORE he was even elected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Do you have any evidence that Obama violated the Logan Act? Did you pull that directly out of your ass or is that what the Limborg has instructed you to believe. I notice he hasnt been CHARGED with violating the Logan act. Perhaps because the President elect isnt CONSIDERED a private citizen? Perhaps he didnt do any NEGOTIATING? Most likely you are a liar and a fool and an ignorant brainwashed cretin
November 18th, 2008 at 2:36 amTim Vaculik Says:
Of course, Obama was just following in the footsteps of Ms. Pelosi who herself should be brought up on charges of violating the Logan Act!
Remember her pathetic, unpatriotic attempt to cause problems with the Kuds and the Turks? If her effortts had been successful, our vital supply lines through Turkey would have been disrupted.
She’s no better than a traitor in my book.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And YOU are no better than a brainwashed propaganda parrot unpatriotic, stupid and a liar. Pelosi did no such thing. My GOD you are ignorant. Congress has been meeting with foriegn leaders for more than 200 years you fool. You do not KNOW she was negotiating anything contrary to Administration policy. She was obviously never charged. She is speaker of the House. The State Dept briefed Pelosi for the trip and gave material support for it.
Here is what the State Dept ITSELF says about the Logan Act
when talking about McGovern going to Cuba
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33265.pdf
The clear intent of this provision is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953, however, would appear to restrict
members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in
any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba, was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country.
So do you have some EVIDENCE that Pelosi was doing anything but pursuing her legislative duties in Syria? Oh you DONT? Imagine my suprise. You NEVER know what you are talking about and simply spew your hivemind programming at us. You are ignorant and pathetic
November 18th, 2008 at 2:44 amTim Vaculik Says:
Specifically, what Obama told the Iraqis is that they should hold off on negotiating the SOFA until AFTER the election! No wonder they took pause… they couldn’t fathom what a candidate for the U.S. Presidency was doing by suggesting such a thing OUSIDE of proper, diplomatic channels!
They might as well shit-can the Logan Act…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well that is what Zebari says. Obama denies it. Got PROOF?
November 18th, 2008 at 2:52 amTim Vaculik Says:
——————————————————————————–
Of course, Obama was just doing what he does best.
After all, the official, elected government of Kenysa had to insist that he cease and desist in his meddling of their internal affairs re: the Odinga affair.
Like father like son as they say…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kenya.asp
You can tell a brainwashed moron like you by his post they say. They ARE right about that.
The corrupt govenment of Kenya MIGHT say anything but the Obama Odinga connetion is slight.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:58 amI appreciate that Random Chaos Thank You
November 18th, 2008 at 3:20 amThis is great for Obama. The withdrawal was going to happen with or without him, so the radical right wing can’t (but you know they will) blame him for the pull out.
November 18th, 2008 at 7:32 am