Well, well, well. I can just see them squirming in the White House and the McCain camp tonight.

BERLIN - Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says U.S. troops should leave Iraq "as soon as possible," according to a magazine report, and he called presidential candidate Barack Obama's suggestion of 16 months "the right timeframe for a withdrawal."

In an interview with Germany's Der Spiegel magazine released Saturday, al-Maliki said he was not seeking to endorse Obama. The Illinois senator and likely Democratic nominee has pledged to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months if he is elected.

"That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes," al-Maliki was quoted as saying. "Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of U.S. troops in Iraq would cause problems.:

Asked when U.S. forces would leave Iraq, he responded, "As soon as possible, as far a we're concerned."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/maliki_obama

Yup, I'd say the White House and McCain Headquarters isn't full of happy campers tonight.

This is good news. The naysayers that said Iraq's outcome was civil war and endless fighting, were wrong. The Sunnis and Shiites are reconciling. Another advance the naysayers said will never happen. The Iraqi people are quickly becoming capable of running their own country. And all this BEFORE the election. This is ALL good. The fight is finished. (To use a quote.)

What I find bothersome is this statement from Susan Rice, Obamas "National Security Advisor".

"This presents an important opportunity to transition to Iraqi responsibility, while restoring our military and increasing our commitment to finish the fight in Afghanistan," Rice said in a statement Saturday.

Why so anxious to get bogged down in Afghanistan? Seems they really don't want to bring the troops home. Bring out the Obama war drums. So much for being against war.

Do you know what a non sequitur is?
"Obama war drums?"
I realize you can't insult the intelligence of the neo-cons, Thomas. Have some regard for the rest of us.

ThomasK wrote:
This is good news.
It sure is good news, Thomas. Obama and al-Maliki are on the same page. Bush, McCain and al-Maliki are not. Glad to hear you are now on the Obama page, dude. Will you be making a campaign contribution?

BTW, I doubt McCain and Bush think it is good news. Watch for all kinds of reasons from them why they think it is not, in fact.

The naysayers that said Iraq's outcome was civil war and endless fighting, were wrong. The Sunnis and Shiites are reconciling.
Well, if one side winning and one side losing can be called reconciling, I guess that will be the case. Kinda like the North and South "reconciled" after our civil war...after the North won. No, Thomas, that civil war will finish itself out after we are gone. Hint: The Shiites will win. They have the majority, they have the current Prime Minister (al-Maliki), they have the support of Iran, and they have the majority of the government. And they will be real buddy-buddy with Iran, too. They already are, In fact. That is another ramification of Bush having taken Saddam out.

What I find bothersome is this statement from Susan Rice, Obamas "National Security Advisor".

"This presents an important opportunity to transition to Iraqi responsibility, while restoring our military and increasing our commitment to finish the fight in Afghanistan," Rice said in a statement Saturday.

Why so anxious to get bogged down in Afghanistan? Seems they really don't want to bring the troops home. Bring out the Obama war drums. So much for being against war.
Silly Tommy...Obama has never said he was against all wars, just the stupid ones. Afghanistan is the war on terror. The Iraq war falls in the "stupid war" category. Afghanistan is the job that Bush never finished because he went into Iraq to take out the guy who had nothing to do with 9/11 to begin with, and which allowed Afghanistan to re-flame and al Qaeda to rebuild. But no, he was too anxious to take out the guy who embarrassed his daddy. Never mind the fact that he let bin Laden get away.

BTW, we currently have 150K troops in Iraq...only a small portion of that, 2-3 brigades, would go to Afghanistan. The majority would come home. So are you against the war on terror, Thomas?

Or are you just one of those whiners Phil Gramm was talking about?

truthhurts wrote:
Never mind the fact that he let bin Laden get away.


Bin Laden would have never been in Afghanistan if Bill Clinton hadn't allowed him to "get away".

eric hussein miami wrote:
Do you know what a non sequitur is?
"Obama war drums?"
I realize you can't insult the intelligence of the neo-cons, Thomas. Have some regard for the rest of us.

What ever eric. Afghanistan never attacked us either. Why do you want to send more troops there? How will that win the "war on terror"?