Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Maliki Spokesman Looks Forward to Withdrawal by 2010

Following a meeting between Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) today, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told reporters, "We can't give any schedules or dates, but the Iraqi government sees the suitable date for withdrawal of the U.S. forces is by the end of 2010."

Continue Reading on the Home Page»

By Web Politics Editor  |  July 21, 2008; 4:17 PM ET
Categories:  Today at The Post  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: League of Conservation Voters Endorses Obama
Next: McCain: Obama 'Completely Wrong' on Iraq


If we go to war with Iran, please tie Obama to drone and fly it straight to Tehran.

Posted by: Heshmati | July 21, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

I don't know... think Cheney, not Bush. He could give a crap about the political interests. Think Checkmate (from his perspective). Taking out Iran is the final piece in de-militarizing the M.E. (except for Isreal). That would leave.... c'mon, Pakistan, but I have always felt that installing MuSharif was tatamount to gaining control over the structure there. Anyway... very dangerous, Cheney went over recently and met with Likud, and there is no telling what kind of scenario they put together. Obviously, if Isreal launches, we have no choice but to back them, and all the pieces are in place (100 some odd warships, carriers). I think Bush will open the strategic reserve and try and slip out of Office with some sort of Junta pass off to McGoo. But basically we are screwed, and don't you know if I know it, Cheney and his henchmen know it.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | July 21, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm, apparently the Bushies weekend woodshedding of Maliki didn't work. Didn't he get the message he was supposed to say Obama was the devil incarnate? Lol ... and who's the one with the judgment and foreign policy credentials?

Posted by: straight talk my a** | July 21, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Bush is not that stupid to engage in a war with Iran with only 5 months left in office. Not only are we talking about more military deaths but the world economy would fall into a depression, especially if Iran is successful in blocking off the Straits of Hormuz (where 40% of the world's oil passes through).

Bush would have to watch his back constantly after his presidency if this were to happen, not to mention the Republican brand would be damaged for DECADES (i.e. no Jeb or Jenna Bush presidential runs for 30+ years)!

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | July 21, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

"We would be percieved by the Iraqi people as liberators, This war would be over no more than 3 months, We would be accepted with open arms by the Iraqi people." Unfortunately, the Iraqi people didn't ask for the presence of U.S. troops and didn't percieve us as liberators. This is the mistake Bush/Mccain made. Assuming the Iraqi people would embrace the U.S. with open arms. That is the ideology of Bush/Mccain and not of the Iraqi people. If the Iraqi people believed the same ideology as Bush/Mccain than Bush would have gotten his longterm agreement to stay in Iraq. Unfortunately, both Bush and Mccain got ahead of themselves thinking for the Iraqi people and miscontruing the facts that the Iraqi government didn't want us there when we first invading Iraq and doesn't want us there permanently now. The Iraqi government wants a time table to withdrawl troops and Bush said he would leave if they asked. Both Bush/Mccain wanted long term presence in Iraq, Bush was pushing a long term agreement and Mccain has spoke of a U.S. presence in Iraq like we have in Europe and Japan. We'll its time to go.

Posted by: Brad | July 21, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Want it? , sexy naked women, [url=""]sexy naked women[/url], sexy naked women,

Posted by: ClarkKent | July 21, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

re: "Iraq War"

Actually, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War;" And the Iraq Resolution was a passive aggressive piece of legislation.

While we did have a legal argument for War against Iraq - it did not comply with the 1991 cease fire agreements - there was not a clear and present danger from Baghdad in 2002 and 2003.

Further, the real problem with the way Iraq was mismanaged is that: 1) It diverted special forces, and the few military and diplomatic people who speak Arabic, from Bin Ladin's trail, 2) It confused the issue of Iraq with terrorism, 3) It provided a recruiting bonanza for Al Qaeda, and 4) We had no clear exit strategy.

We may have had to fight Iraq in some way, and at some time. Just like we may have to deal with Iran. But there was not an urgent need for that war when Al Qaeda was the real threat.

If some guy wearing a tan shirt sucker punches you at a bar you don't just find the next guy you have a minor grievance with and let him have it- you get THE guy.

And we didn't. It was stupid foreign policy. And our allies are pissed.

The Washington Post, for some reason, decided to back Bush's war. Perhaps in due time we will understand why...

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 21, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

You can go over to Intrade dot com and place a bet on either a US or Israeli airstrike on Iran and get good odds. Check current events and iran.

The odds there on an airstrike are: 7-1 by October, 3-1 that it'll happen by December, and 2-1 by next March.

Conventional wisdom is that the Israelis will do the air strike sometime between the election and inauguration day.

The Bush people would not start WW III before leaving office. One of the unwritten rules of Presidential politics is not to start a war on the way out. And seeing as how they have plans for Jeb, they are not going to break with that tradition now.

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 21, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

My understanding about the Iraq War is that President Bush, under the authorization of Congress, made his executive decision based on the information or intelligence available, along with the coalition he has built in Europe and around the world.

It is President Bush's decision how to handle the situation in Iraq. No presidential candidates can promise any false withdrawal time-table or reduction of troops in Iraq.

Posted by: premier | July 21, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

I would make a bet with anyone we are in a war with Iran before Bush is out of office as a new distraction. What the hell, kill off a few thousand americans as long as you get the deranged Mccain elected

Posted by: Anonymous | July 21, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Now we see that the Iraqi Prime Minister is also committed to American troops leaving Iraq by the end of 2010. Obama has to be a little careful here. He must not look as though he is over-ruling GW Bush on Iraq. Even though Bush's favorability rating is at 22%, he is still the President of the US (at least for only 163 days more!)

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | July 21, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Maybe the Republicans can draft Maliki, he would have a better chance then Mccain.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 21, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

don't you know the McCain and Bush political weinsters are trying to get control of this thing. "OFF MESSAGE, DANGER, DANGER WILL ROBINSON". Sorry, I love the visual.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | July 21, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company