Axelrod Reaffirms Obama’s Commitment To 16 Month Iraq Withdrawal Timetable
Axelrod Reaffirms Obama’s Commitment To 16 Month Iraq Withdrawal Timetable
Throughout his campaign for president, Barack Obama consistently said that if elected, on day one, he would sit down with his top military commanders and give them a new mission: begin to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq in 16 months. “Let me be as clear as I can be: I intend to end this war,” Obama said last July. “I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades per month.”
Indeed, Obama has in fact, scheduled a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other top military commanders next Wednesday, his first full day in office. Today on ABC’s This Week, host George Stephanopoulos noted the meeting and asked Obama’s senior adviser David Axelrod if Obama intends to keep his promise, and order the 16 month withdrawal timetable. Axerod answered, “yes”:
AXELROD: Well, that was something that he’s consistently said. He believes that that is a reasonable timetable. We’ve moved a great distance from the time he started talking about that. And now, we’re in an area where everyone agrees we should be on a path to withdrawing those troops and he is going to begin that process as promised on that day.
STEPHANOPOULOS: He’ll give the command?
AXELROD: Yes.
Watch it:
This news may come as a shock to Vice President Dick Cheney, who recently suggested that Obama “overcome” his “campaign rhetoric” when it comes to his criticism of the Bush administration’s security policies. Just last week, Cheney warned against what he called an “irresponsible withdrawal” from Iraq:
CHENEY: I think there’s still a lot of work to be done there. [...] I hear a lot of people among our critics who keep saying, Iraq’s a mess, pull out. Well, that’s not true. It’s not a mess. We have had major progress. We have come close to achieving a significant portion of our objectives. And an irresponsible withdrawal now is exactly the wrong medicine.
But, in fact, the Pentagon has already begun planning for Obama’s Iraq withdrawal timeline. “Our military planners do not live in a vacuum,” Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said last week. “They are well aware that the president-elect campaigned on withdrawing troops from Iraq on a 16-month timeline, so it would be only prudent of them to draw up plans that reflected that option.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Dick Cheney giving foreign policy advice to Obama?
January 18th, 2009 at 1:50 pmIt’s a real juggling act to see all the Sunday talk shows, so I appreciate TP putting highlights here — I did see most of this interview and most of MTP as well, where Rahm Emanuel met the obnoxious Gregory toe-to-toe. Gawd, I thought Russert was bad…
January 18th, 2009 at 1:58 pmWe might keep in mind the Bush/Cheney/Repug difficulty with separating sex from war. An “irresponsible withdrawal” could have devastating consequences. Like ‘warus interrutpous. These boys could be scarred for life.
January 18th, 2009 at 2:18 pmWhy does Cheney keep forgetting that the “sovereign” government of Iraq wants us out of Iraq as soon as feasible?
January 18th, 2009 at 2:18 pmYeah, cheney still wants to claim victory when the truth is this has been lost for some time….
Iraq and Iran will be closer allies than Iraq and the US. You can thank cheney for that!!
January 18th, 2009 at 2:25 pmIt will be very interesting to watch this. I predict that if the withdraw results in chaos Obama will not feel constrained by his campaign rhetoric. If, however, the Iraqi army is capable of securing the country and the Iraqi political system we put in place is capable of surviving while maintaining a pluralistic society, the withdraw will be a triumph. It will also save us tons of money.
Again, very interesting times ahead.
January 18th, 2009 at 2:31 pmCHENEY: I think there’s still a lot of work to be done there. […] I hear a lot of people among our critics who keep saying, Iraq’s a mess, pull out. Well, that’s not true. It’s not a mess. We have had major progress. We have come close to achieving a significant portion of our objectives. And an irresponsible withdrawal now is exactly the wrong medicine.
What Cheney doesn’t point out is that their “objectives” were never in the best interests of American citizens. Corporate America, of course, but not American citizens. And WE were the ones he was supposed to be serving.
I think we on the left should take every opportunity to remind our elected officials from all parties, that public servants serve the public first.
January 18th, 2009 at 2:35 pmThe idea that BushCo’s ‘objectives’ were ever in the best interest of either the Iraqi or American people ranks right up there with clapping so Tinkerbell can live.
January 18th, 2009 at 2:39 pmThey haven’t gotten their hands on Iraq’s oil, or finished stealing the American taxpayers’ money.
January 18th, 2009 at 2:57 pmWe have had major progress. We have come close to achieving a significant portion of our objectives.
And those were? Finding WMD’s? Ousting saddam? Bringing democracy? Allowing people freedom to vote?
Are you once again going to redefine/change your objectives or has it been the same all along? OIL?
January 18th, 2009 at 3:14 pmunwavering conservatism, my sympathies to anyone in your life. If you truly believe the only ‘honorable’ way to end a mistake is to smash anyone involved. Admitting one is wrong, when they are obviously wrong is not defeat.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:25 pmGood intentions? Check the road you are on, unwavering, its paved with them.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:27 pmDems are just power mongers. I love that assertion. Ranks right up there with Dems have been ‘in control’ of Congress since 2006. A zero vote majority equals control?
A president impeached for a hummer (Republican controlled Congress) and another who has admitted, on national TV and repeatedly he has lied about a war and no impeachment.
Damn those power hungry Dems.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:31 pmUnwavering, have you ever heard of the idea of multiple sources? Obviously not.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:34 pmAnd, boyo, if the Iraqis love us so much, how come their ‘democratically elected’ government has asked us when we are getting the heck of of Baghdad?
January 18th, 2009 at 3:36 pmHoodathunk Says:
Unwavering, have you ever heard of the idea of multiple sources? Obviously not.
Hooda, I am pretty sure unwavering is doing some performance art by way of satire.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:37 pm#3 ectoendomezo; The sad fact is, because the military decided to lower the standards, some of those soldiers were allowed in even though they had a felony record which prevented them from owning a gun in the U.S.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 pmI personally think we should also get our butts out of Afghanistan asap. The opportuntity to make a differance there
has come and gone.
The Heritage Foundation was created for the purpose of providing an “academic-like” institution from which policy papers on conservatism could be written and dispersed to the conservative community, especially those appearing on or in the various media of the day. They are not a “scholarly” institution in the sense of objectively studying a subject and reporting the results, whether or not the results agree with the hypothetical predictions. They exist to help spread conservative thought and philosophy under the guise of a pseudo-academic institution. It is not objective, and its funding comes primarily from wealthy conservative families who have a personal interest in spreading the idea that their policies work for the best interests of all, when they really work mostly for the best interests of the kind of people who give huge sums of money to the Heritage Foundation.
They are not a reliable source of objective thought when it comes to the application of conservative policies. They will tell you it works every time.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:53 pmKeltoi at Night Says:
Hoodathunk Says:
Unwavering, have you ever heard of the idea of multiple sources? Obviously not.
Hooda, I am pretty sure unwavering is doing some performance art by way of satire.
Smells like Daryll to me.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:53 pmunwavering conservatism Says:
We can’t leave Iraq! That would be an inappropriate thing to do. Ever heard of retreat and defeat, liberals?
January 18th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Well, I thought the Iraqis asked us to leave. I think it was in the SOFA-like agreement they signed with us. So it would be entirely appropriate. And, yes, I have heard conservatives equate the word “retreat” with the word “defeat”, but they were usually of the “Might makes Right” mindset and saw military power as the means to solve any problem in the world.
“They haven’t gotten their hands on Iraq’s oil, or finished stealing the American taxpayers’ money”
I don’t like this statement. When conservative principles come into play there are always good intentions. Conservatism does not need to be redefined just because liberals want people to suffer to gain power.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:24 pm {Amended as requested}
As I am sure it has been noted, the original Iraq invasion plans were called “Operation Iraqi Liberation”, and they called for the selling off of all of Iraq’s oil to, primarily, American oil companies. This is not a lie, it is the truth. Somewhere along the line they must have noticed that the acronym spelled OIL, and it would look to the public like exactly what they were trying to do.
And you are quite naive to believe that when Republicans like Tom DeLay and Newt Gingrich applied conservative principles, that it was always with good intentions. Did you know that Tom DeLay personally promised the owner of a sweat shop in the Marianas Islands that used slave labor, that he would not have to worry about a bill trying to apply US labor law to the islands coming to a vote because he personally (DeLay) scheduled the votes, and that one wasn’t going to happen. And was Newt applying conservative principles in governance to his own life when he intially agreed to accept a $4.5 million advance on a book deal signed shortly after Nov 1994, but before he took office as the new Speaker of the House, the third highest Public Office in the country? Of course when the public found out, he backed off and accepted one dollar. I don’t even know if the book sold $4.5 million worth. Just because conservatives are applying the principles, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is for the public good. Republicans have been known to advance the interests of business over the interests of the people. That is a fact. Some of them see it as their reason for going to Washington.
Lastly, whether or not you choose to beieve it, it is true that modern-day conservatism has defined itself to be anti-Liberal on every major issue. It was created to oppose the principles of FDR’s New Deal programs, and its goal has been to destroy everything he created or helped create (including Social Security, but not including the Atom Bomb). We aren’t defining conservatism to be anti-Liberalism. Conservativism defined itself that way. And it does not care who suffers to get its way. [And, in anticipation of your first reaction, yes, I do know what I'm talking about.]
January 18th, 2009 at 4:11 pmgummitch Says:
Smells like Daryll to me.
On a non-gay thread, sans Bible quotations? Nah. Maybe Hippiecrusher. Or perhaps an original, it happens.
January 18th, 2009 at 4:11 pm“Work”. “Progress”. “Medicine”. For a few trillion, you’d think we could get something specific.
January 18th, 2009 at 4:48 pmTo be fair, the Pentagon’s plans presumably also include an option for keeping 160,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely.
GWB never tired of asserting he would always follow the advice of “commanders on the ground”, but it’s worth keeping in mind that those commanders take their orders, directly or indirectly, from the Commander in Chief.
January 18th, 2009 at 4:54 pmSatire? I am not sure he can spell it let alone indulge in it.
January 18th, 2009 at 5:01 pmThe problem is Obama wants to withdraw only the COMBAT troops from Iraq, not all troops. “Combat troops” comprise only 25 percent of the troops in Iraq. Watch Obama’s language carefully. He talks about withdrawing from Iraq “responsibly.” The word “responsibly” is code for “We expect to have over 50,000 troops stationed in Iraq FOREVER.”
January 18th, 2009 at 5:29 pmColeman’s Futile Election Contest
January 18th, 2009 at 5:39 pmThis has never been about “conservative principles.” Cheney and company have never been the least bit interested in principles, conservative or otherwise.
For them, this has always been about personal gain.
For the record, liberals are not interested in gaining power. They (and by that, I mean we) are interested in doing the most good for the most people. We’re also not trying to make anyone suffer. If you’ll recall, WE don’t torture. That’s what Cheney and his buddies like to do.
January 18th, 2009 at 7:13 pmI have doubts on this timetable going through. I remember this same kind of talk flying around almost a year ago, when the timetables were put in place, we always seemed to hear news about the timetables being “extended by x-amount of weeks” to complete key objectives.
Maybe it’ll be different this round. I guess we’ll just wait and see.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:45 amI just want a President to give the order to start and to make regular progress on getting out. Have a goal and work towards it. As opposed to flail around and refuse to be held to any standard of how well you’re doing.
Seriously, imagine Bush was an employee at your workplace and Iraq was a project he was working on. Could you imagine anyone refusing to tell his boss when he’ll be done or how much it’s going to cost and expect to keep his job? All those “run the country like a business” Republicans should hate Bush more than liberals for starting a war with no exit strategy or definition of victory.
.
John Kerry Says:
Yeah sure!!
You betcha!!
January 19th, 2009 at 11:21 amfrom antiwar.com :
…In the age of Obama, what the late, great libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard dubbed the welfare-warfare state will take on gargantuan proportions, just as it did under LBJ, both at home and abroad. This is bad news on every front. An inaugural celebration? Not for me, thank you. I’m going into inaugural mourning: all black to mourn the victims of Obama’s wars, and the death of our old republic.
~ Justin Raimondo
January 19th, 2009 at 1:27 pmWithdrawal ?
January 19th, 2009 at 2:29 pmSort of like , I didn’t have sexual relations with that woman ….. ?
Lawyers speak for Neoconservatism won !
God some people are gullible .