Well, well, well. It appears the Iraqi's now want a timetable for withdrawl.

BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating.

It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable - an idea opposed by President Bush.

He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security.

Iraq wants withdrawl timetable

Now we can sit back and watch Bush and McCain scramble, because they have no intention of giving the Iraqi's a withdrawl timetable. They only want to give the Iraqi's control of their country back if they have the kind of government we want them to have, and agree to our terms, like control of airspace, bases, etc. Little things like that. It appears the Iraqi's are now marching to a different drummer, though.

Don't think for a minute that Maliki, or his Shiite allies, want the US forces to leave. But they are under a lot of pressure. First of all, they are under pressure from Iran, whose regime remains the chief ally of the ruling alliance of Shiites, including Maliki's Dawa party and the powerful Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), led by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim. Iran's goal is to neutralize Iraq as a possible threat to Iran, and Iran's leaders are pressuring Maliki and Hakim to loosen their reliance on the United States. Interestingly, Maliki reportedly told President Bush personally, in a video teleconference on Friday, that the United States cannot use Iraqi territory to attack Iran, and he added that "fomenting tension in the region and pushing for military action against Tehran could wreak havoc on the entire region, including Iraq."

Maliki is also under pressure from a broad coalition of Iraqi nationalists, from angry, disenfranchised Sunnis to Muqtada al-Sadr's movement.

But Maliki's statement is a big deal. At a minimum, it presents an enormous problem for Bush and John McCain, who are arguing for an indefinite US stay in Iraq til "victory," and who oppose a timetable. True, Maliki seems to be linking his timetable to Iraqi military success, which is not too different from the Bush-McCain formula. But inside Iraq, the pressure is building day by day for a US withdrawal, and Maliki is by no means in control of the process. The fact that both Iran and Sunni nationalists, who are on a collision course, agree that US forces need to leave Iraq, only means that pro- and anti-Iranian factions will settle their differences (either by peaceful diplomacy or by violence) once the United States is gone.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/334991

That last line in the article above, translated, means that there is yet a civil war to be fought in Iraq, between the Sunnis and Shiites, which is exactly what I, and others, have been saying all along. We just might be told to get the hell out so they can fight it. Won't that be interesting?

For those who are wondering, McCain will be the one running on the "We're not leaving, even if you want us to" platform.

truthhurts wrote:
Well, well, well. It appears the Iraqi's now want a timetable for withdrawl.

BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating.

It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable - an idea opposed by President Bush.

He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security.

Iraq wants withdrawl timetable

Now we can sit back and watch Bush and McCain scramble, because they have no intention of giving the Iraqi's a withdrawl timetable. They only want to give the Iraqi's control of their country back if they have the kind of government we want them to have, and agree to our terms, like control of airspace, bases, etc. Little things like that. It appears the Iraqi's are now marching to a different drummer, though.

Don't think for a minute that Maliki, or his Shiite allies, want the US forces to leave. But they are under a lot of pressure. First of all, they are under pressure from Iran, whose regime remains the chief ally of the ruling alliance of Shiites, including Maliki's Dawa party and the powerful Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), led by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim. Iran's goal is to neutralize Iraq as a possible threat to Iran, and Iran's leaders are pressuring Maliki and Hakim to loosen their reliance on the United States. Interestingly, Maliki reportedly told President Bush personally, in a video teleconference on Friday, that the United States cannot use Iraqi territory to attack Iran, and he added that "fomenting tension in the region and pushing for military action against Tehran could wreak havoc on the entire region, including Iraq."

Maliki is also under pressure from a broad coalition of Iraqi nationalists, from angry, disenfranchised Sunnis to Muqtada al-Sadr's movement.

But Maliki's statement is a big deal. At a minimum, it presents an enormous problem for Bush and John McCain, who are arguing for an indefinite US stay in Iraq til "victory," and who oppose a timetable. True, Maliki seems to be linking his timetable to Iraqi military success, which is not too different from the Bush-McCain formula. But inside Iraq, the pressure is building day by day for a US withdrawal, and Maliki is by no means in control of the process. The fact that both Iran and Sunni nationalists, who are on a collision course, agree that US forces need to leave Iraq, only means that pro- and anti-Iranian factions will settle their differences (either by peaceful diplomacy or by violence) once the United States is gone.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/334991

That last line in the article above, translated, means that there is yet a civil war to be fought in Iraq, between the Sunnis and Shiites, which is exactly what I, and others, have been saying all along. We just might be told to get the hell out so they can fight it. Won't that be interesting?

For those who are wondering, McCain will be the one running on the "We're not leaving, even if you want us to" platform.


All your bla bla bla won't change the fact that you cannot help Barack Hussien win in November with this crap. He needs the poor black women in the big cities to get off the couch and history tells us they wont.

On the bright side for you liberals it looks like it will be just a one term for President McCain. Then you will have to beat out Mitt Romney for the job...

Same old woody. Always good for a laugh, and a delusion or two.

woody wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Well, well, well. It appears the Iraqi's now want a timetable for withdrawl.

BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating.

It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable - an idea opposed by President Bush.

He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security.

Iraq wants withdrawl timetable

Now we can sit back and watch Bush and McCain scramble, because they have no intention of giving the Iraqi's a withdrawl timetable. They only want to give the Iraqi's control of their country back if they have the kind of government we want them to have, and agree to our terms, like control of airspace, bases, etc. Little things like that. It appears the Iraqi's are now marching to a different drummer, though.

Don't think for a minute that Maliki, or his Shiite allies, want the US forces to leave. But they are under a lot of pressure. First of all, they are under pressure from Iran, whose regime remains the chief ally of the ruling alliance of Shiites, including Maliki's Dawa party and the powerful Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), led by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim. Iran's goal is to neutralize Iraq as a possible threat to Iran, and Iran's leaders are pressuring Maliki and Hakim to loosen their reliance on the United States. Interestingly, Maliki reportedly told President Bush personally, in a video teleconference on Friday, that the United States cannot use Iraqi territory to attack Iran, and he added that "fomenting tension in the region and pushing for military action against Tehran could wreak havoc on the entire region, including Iraq."

Maliki is also under pressure from a broad coalition of Iraqi nationalists, from angry, disenfranchised Sunnis to Muqtada al-Sadr's movement.

But Maliki's statement is a big deal. At a minimum, it presents an enormous problem for Bush and John McCain, who are arguing for an indefinite US stay in Iraq til "victory," and who oppose a timetable. True, Maliki seems to be linking his timetable to Iraqi military success, which is not too different from the Bush-McCain formula. But inside Iraq, the pressure is building day by day for a US withdrawal, and Maliki is by no means in control of the process. The fact that both Iran and Sunni nationalists, who are on a collision course, agree that US forces need to leave Iraq, only means that pro- and anti-Iranian factions will settle their differences (either by peaceful diplomacy or by violence) once the United States is gone.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/334991

That last line in the article above, translated, means that there is yet a civil war to be fought in Iraq, between the Sunnis and Shiites, which is exactly what I, and others, have been saying all along. We just might be told to get the hell out so they can fight it. Won't that be interesting?

For those who are wondering, McCain will be the one running on the "We're not leaving, even if you want us to" platform.


All your bla bla bla won't change the fact that you cannot help Barack Hussien win in November with this crap. He needs the poor black women in the big cities to get off the couch and history tells us they wont.

On the bright side for you liberals it looks like it will be just a one term for President McCain. Then you will have to beat out Mitt Romney for the job...

Lordy Woody that was a good one! My sides are sore!! Tell me Woodman, where did you get your cute phrase about poor black women that you must have memorized by now? 4 years of McSame? Oh, oh there goes my side pains again!!!President Mitt Romney,stop it I can't take anymore! I will have to log off now and let my laughter subside!!

truthhurts wrote:
Well, well, well. It appears the Iraqi's now want a timetable for withdrawl.

BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating.

It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable - an idea opposed by President Bush.

He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security.

Iraq wants withdrawl timetable

Now we can sit back and watch Bush and McCain scramble, because they have no intention of giving the Iraqi's a withdrawl timetable. They only want to give the Iraqi's control of their country back if they have the kind of government we want them to have, and agree to our terms, like control of airspace, bases, etc. Little things like that. It appears the Iraqi's are now marching to a different drummer, though.

Don't think for a minute that Maliki, or his Shiite allies, want the US forces to leave. But they are under a lot of pressure. First of all, they are under pressure from Iran, whose regime remains the chief ally of the ruling alliance of Shiites, including Maliki's Dawa party and the powerful Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), led by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim. Iran's goal is to neutralize Iraq as a possible threat to Iran, and Iran's leaders are pressuring Maliki and Hakim to loosen their reliance on the United States. Interestingly, Maliki reportedly told President Bush personally, in a video teleconference on Friday, that the United States cannot use Iraqi territory to attack Iran, and he added that "fomenting tension in the region and pushing for military action against Tehran could wreak havoc on the entire region, including Iraq."

Maliki is also under pressure from a broad coalition of Iraqi nationalists, from angry, disenfranchised Sunnis to Muqtada al-Sadr's movement.

But Maliki's statement is a big deal. At a minimum, it presents an enormous problem for Bush and John McCain, who are arguing for an indefinite US stay in Iraq til "victory," and who oppose a timetable. True, Maliki seems to be linking his timetable to Iraqi military success, which is not too different from the Bush-McCain formula. But inside Iraq, the pressure is building day by day for a US withdrawal, and Maliki is by no means in control of the process. The fact that both Iran and Sunni nationalists, who are on a collision course, agree that US forces need to leave Iraq, only means that pro- and anti-Iranian factions will settle their differences (either by peaceful diplomacy or by violence) once the United States is gone.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/334991

That last line in the article above, translated, means that there is yet a civil war to be fought in Iraq, between the Sunnis and Shiites, which is exactly what I, and others, have been saying all along. We just might be told to get the hell out so they can fight it. Won't that be interesting?

For those who are wondering, McCain will be the one running on the "We're not leaving, even if you want us to" platform.

Imagine that!

The country we have taken a pre-emptive war to which murdered 100s of thousands and demolished any signs of modern living wants us to leave?

I hope that catches on in Afganistan then maybe we can return to our country which has been ruined in the last +8 years of dictatorship and willful neglect by the voters.

utocoman wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Well, well, well. It appears the Iraqi's now want a timetable for withdrawl.

BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating.

It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable - an idea opposed by President Bush.

He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security.

Iraq wants withdrawl timetable

Now we can sit back and watch Bush and McCain scramble, because they have no intention of giving the Iraqi's a withdrawl timetable. They only want to give the Iraqi's control of their country back if they have the kind of government we want them to have, and agree to our terms, like control of airspace, bases, etc. Little things like that. It appears the Iraqi's are now marching to a different drummer, though.

Don't think for a minute that Maliki, or his Shiite allies, want the US forces to leave. But they are under a lot of pressure. First of all, they are under pressure from Iran, whose regime remains the chief ally of the ruling alliance of Shiites, including Maliki's Dawa party and the powerful Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), led by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim. Iran's goal is to neutralize Iraq as a possible threat to Iran, and Iran's leaders are pressuring Maliki and Hakim to loosen their reliance on the United States. Interestingly, Maliki reportedly told President Bush personally, in a video teleconference on Friday, that the United States cannot use Iraqi territory to attack Iran, and he added that "fomenting tension in the region and pushing for military action against Tehran could wreak havoc on the entire region, including Iraq."

Maliki is also under pressure from a broad coalition of Iraqi nationalists, from angry, disenfranchised Sunnis to Muqtada al-Sadr's movement.

But Maliki's statement is a big deal. At a minimum, it presents an enormous problem for Bush and John McCain, who are arguing for an indefinite US stay in Iraq til "victory," and who oppose a timetable. True, Maliki seems to be linking his timetable to Iraqi military success, which is not too different from the Bush-McCain formula. But inside Iraq, the pressure is building day by day for a US withdrawal, and Maliki is by no means in control of the process. The fact that both Iran and Sunni nationalists, who are on a collision course, agree that US forces need to leave Iraq, only means that pro- and anti-Iranian factions will settle their differences (either by peaceful diplomacy or by violence) once the United States is gone.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/334991

That last line in the article above, translated, means that there is yet a civil war to be fought in Iraq, between the Sunnis and Shiites, which is exactly what I, and others, have been saying all along. We just might be told to get the hell out so they can fight it. Won't that be interesting?

For those who are wondering, McCain will be the one running on the "We're not leaving, even if you want us to" platform.

Imagine that!

The country we have taken a pre-emptive war to which murdered 100s of thousands and demolished any signs of modern living wants us to leave?

I hope that catches on in Afganistan then maybe we can return to our country which has been ruined in the last +8 years of dictatorship and willful neglect by the voters.


"""""as a tear rolls down conmans face"""""""