Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/07/AR2008070700364.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...364.html</a> >>Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has for the first time suggested establishing a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, a step that the Bush administration has long opposed. Maliki raised the idea Monday during a visit to the United Arab Emirates, where he spoke with Arab ambassadors about a security pact being negotiated to determine the future U.S. military role in Iraq.<< White House spokesperson says this is entirely consistent with their plans. But when a Democrat mentions a timetable, well, that's defeatist. And it was just a few weeks ago when President Bush said.... >>''There should be no definitive timetable,'' Bush was quoted as saying. ''I am confident that (British Prime Minister Brown), like me, will listen to our commanders to make sure that the sacrifices that have gone forward won't be unraveled by drawdowns that may not be warranted at this point in time.''<<
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Well, while I'd rather have a time machine than a time table, a time table works fine for me. I imagine they have time tables for all sorts of things without us knowing. Can't they create a time table for pulling out of Iraq and not publish the details? You know, say something like "We have a plan for pulling completely out of Iraq and the withdrawal of ______ troops next month is a part of our plan." It seems that could satisfy all parties invloved to know we're making progress toward a complete pullout without compromising security by publishing hard dates.
Originally Posted By dshyates I guarantee that not one boot will leave Iraq while the GOP is in charge. That would defeat the purpose of going in to start with. Halliburton stops draining the national treasury when we leave.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Part of this story also includes a timetable of 5 years from when the Iraqi government takes solid control. If Bush signs this will Obama follow it or would it be an empty document anyway ? Can't have it both ways - if we sign a timetable then we better honor it. I want to see the troops home ASAP also ,but let's make sure we capture the entire meaning of the timetable before we decide to pile on the GOP again.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 The Iraqi timeline proposal made public Tuesday appears to set an outer limit, requiring U.S. forces to fully withdraw five years after the Iraqis take the lead on security nationwide - though that precondition could itself take years. "Our stance in the negotiations under way with the American side will be strong," said Iraq's national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, a day after the country's prime minister first publicly said he expects some type of timeline. But Ali al-Adeeb, a Shiite lawmaker and a prominent official in the prime minister's party, told The Associated Press that Iraq was linking the proposed timeline to the ongoing return of various provinces to Iraqi control. The proposal stipulates that once the U.S. transfers security authority back to Iraq in all 18 provinces, American-led forces would then withdraw from all cities nationwide. After that, Iraq's security situation would be reviewed jointly every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said. So far, the United States has handed control of nine of 18 provinces to Iraqi officials. "This is what the Iraqi people want, the parliament and other Iraqi leaders," said al-Adeeb. The proposal, as outlined by al-Adeeb, is phrased in a way that would allow Iraqi officials to tell the Iraqi public that it includes a specific timeline for a U.S. withdrawal, with specific time periods mentioned. However, it also would provide the United States some flexibility on timing because the dates of the provincial handovers are not set.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 So if Bush signs this it effectively ties Obama's hands ( assuming he wins in the fall ) unless we as the US want to then reneg on the deal. Is this what you are asking ?
Originally Posted By Walter Elias My guess is that the Iraqi Prime Minister wanting a timetable is much different than Democrats who want to make a political statement. If you want a timetable...sounds like one is coming. You got what you wanted.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>So if Bush signs this it effectively ties Obama's hands ( assuming he wins in the fall ) unless we as the US want to then reneg on the deal.<< President Bush should be actively engaging with the house and senate on anything he plans on signing. That oversight, especially close to an election, is critical. I just found it interesting that after so many years of foot stamping and temper fits about no timetables by this administration, their man in Iraq is now looking for one.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^^^^ which iswhy I don't believe GWB is going to sign a thing - and my point is - the Dem's should be happy about that also, when and if they take the White House.
