Iraq's Maliki backs Obama's exit plan

Again, I would like to thank McBush for this wonderful idea to show how the world is tired of the cowboy politics Bush and McBush represent.

And tell us all again, folks, how Maliki is a puppet for Bush? I'm sure now he's a genius, right?

43 McSame is always has been too the party, better never than late.

1/20/09 12:00:01 p.m. B.H.O., O.of.O.

Boy.....that Waterloo that was predicted from one of the pundits from the right sure is happening....

Nothing like hedging your bets.

I'm with bill "Hussein" r today. And wasn't it also nice to watch the media IGNORE Gore's big doings?
Al Gore's speech can defuse our crisis of confidence--fear--that is paralyzing us and making us worry that Barack Obama will 'take away our guns' as they say in a lot of areas now. We need to focus on REAL THREATS---like global warming and a lack of an energy policy.
So of course big media (big power) IGNORED Gore's SOLUTION SPEECH:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt9wZloG97U
and McSame is talking about a car out of Detroit.
Make the guy watch Who Killed the Electric Car, somebody--please!?

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/

How long until McCrazy adopts Barack's exit plan? Or did he already?

Dear American Citizens and the Press

As a concerned citizen, I consider it is my duty to bring following message to you all.

"We the citizens of the United States of America have the ultimate responsibility to elect the " Right Candidate" to lead our nation, out of our huge present and future internal and external challenges as well as opportunities. This is to prevent depression and isolation in-spite of being the only superpower in the world morally, democratically, economically, and militarily.

We need to consider the "critical qualities and characteristics" of our presumptive presidential nominees at the time we vote.

In my personal and professional opinion the critical considerations are as under:


1. Calm, cool, and collected " temper " [ Presidential Temperament ].
2. Sound and sustained "Judgment and Caliber".
3. "Thought-fullness and togetherness" of purpose and positions.
4. Minimum "ex-poser and exploitation" around "Washington and Washington insiders".
5. Renewed " Vigor and Vision " for our Greatgrand Nation.
6. Foreign policy based on " American Values, Virtuous, Vastness".

Stay informed, stay involved, and stay engaged. Do not allow some partisan media, pundits, pollsters, and perpetual political opinion makers effect your vote in the wrong direction.

Don't be effected and duped by "Psychological Terrorism" that is afflicted upon you all the time.

Long live U.S.A and its diverse but democratic people.

Col. A.M. Khajawall [Ret] MD., ABFM., ABDA.
Chief Consultant: World Wide Porfessional Consultants[WWPC]
Colonel, USAR/MC Combat Stress Control[Ret], Disabled American Veteran and Freedom team.
Consultant Psychiatrist: CA State, Medical Board of California, and Los Angeles Mental Health Department
Address: 7642 Eaglehelm Court Las Vegas NV 89123
PS: Good for US

McCain should just go home and put a bag over his head.

He's been following Obama on Afghanistan and now he's been aced out of the Iraq solution.

What a loser.

Sounds like Frank James thinks he knows more about conditions on the ground than Iraq's Prime Minister.

Typical of the Corporate Media.

The conservative right who feel we need to be "victorious' are foolish. We already are victorious, at a steep price. There is the lost lives, the damaged minds and bodies, the huge deficits and the continuing bribery of the Iraqis.
We have our tarnished international image, the sense that we are unreliable because of our adolescence need to flex our muscles.

But the truth is we have won. The conditions are ripe for a gradual exit from Iraq that will be able to provide for their own security needs. We have removed the tyrant and the people of Iraq will be able to have a better life if they so choose to cooperate amongst themselves

The problem is that that accomplishment is not appreciated by the rest of the world but the tragedy of this is that history may write a different picture after the Iraqis who paid the price for this have died off. The important analysis of the times will be made by the Iraqis who experienced and suffered this "liberation." It is there perspective of the war five to ten years after the "occupiers" are gone that really matters.

Don't worry cowboys...McBush will listen to the generals on the ground that will tell him what he wants to hear....not the Iraqi people.

Recently, the Republicans have put a serious, public focus on Afghanistan - which Obama has been talking about for a long time. In the last few days, the administration has undertaken diplomatic engagement with Iran - which Obama has been talking about for a long time. Today, the White House and McCain talk openly of a "time horizon" for withdrawal from Iraq - which Obama has been talking about for a long time.

I'm confused. Which candidate is shows poor judgement?

Gee, Maliki, too bad Barack has been backing away from his "plan" lately.
We here in the States are used to that. Barack has ben backing away from all of his previously stated Liberal positions -- not that he had so many to begin with. But we love him anyway cuz he's the candidate of "hope".

Obama is the "MAIN PROP" in the troop withdrawal issue.

So MaIiki is using him well.

Yes, Obama = Chamberlain = Appeasement = Terrorists win and we die

VJ Machiavelli
http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com

Dear American Citizens and the Press
In my professional opinion, we in the Greatgrand United States should ignore punditry, paunch, paleness, paucity, pendelums and pancakes!
Long live the Untied States and its adversely democratic people!
Maj Gen Ima Spammer (ret) WTF, BMF
Some Kinda Psychologist, Reno NV
PS Good Morning!

Sounds like muslim brotherhood to me-

VJ-

Answer this equation:

Bush = Negotiation w/ Iran = Appeasement = ??

Maliki better be careful. Pretty soon the Bush administration is going to start smearing him as an evil, murderous dictator who is harboring WMD's.

If the Iraqis want us out (gee, what a surprise) then let's get out, for crying out loud.

What does the more twisting?

A pretzel company with pretzel dough?

Or Frank James, twisting what Der Spiegel reports Maliki said?

Luckily, it's the fact-challenged Frank James, The Trib's leading Obama cheerleader, so the above article shouldn't be taken seriously.

VJMachiavelli:

For openers, talk of appeasement/Chamberlain, straight out of the Goebbels/Atwater/Rove/SwiftBoaters propaganda book of the big lie, is ridiculously irrelevant.

Further, anyone purporting to have familiarity with Machiavelli's magnum opus would know that the 'old prince, McCain, is strangling from the albatross of Bush's legacy wrapped around his waddled neck, whereas the 'new prince', Obama (devious though he be), offers new and imaginative programs which the people accept and support.

Show some intellectual integrity, change your handle to "Dolt."

Well, this is great, that means that OB can now come out and admit McCain's surge was a success. He can come back saying that the war was NOT a mistake. I'll be waiting a while for that one. OB is now busy acting like this whole success was HIS ha! Now, we shall see what Maliki areas needed to be changed about OB's 16 mo end.

I heard that there won't be that many troops leaving in 16 mo's.

15:52 pm Ron-actually, Obama is in Iraq because made him go.

I think it is wonderful that the Iraqi government feels strong enough to go it alone. I really do. I just hope they are correct in their assessment of their own abilities, and wish them good fortune.
*
What I would like to know, however, is how Frank James can put words into Maliki's mouth, and make him answer a question no one asked him. In particular, no one asked Maliki whether U.S. forces made political rapprochement possible, trained the Iraqi security forces well enough to make observable progress, or whether our troops (or the U.S. in general) assisted in economic recovery or help pull the plug on Al Qaeda. Even Mr. James seems to concede such was the case, and that Maliki omitted to mention U.S. influence more for his audience's consumption than any other reason.
*
The most important object lesson we can learn from this is that Ron Paul is right: We have no place playing world cop. Former administrations pursued a much wiser policy when they stuck to realpolitik and refrained from direct intervention like this. George Washington imparted that wisdom in his farewell address to Congress. Although some countries want us to play world cop, it is only because, although a particular result of a conflict might be in their best interests, they do not wish to expend their own lives and treasure in deciding it. They would rather see us playing the role of a happy tool. From now on, we should be wise enough only to send troops only into a foreign conflict when China does; which is to say, never.

I like how McCain supporters try to spin this to McCain's advantage.

Logically speaking, can anyone tell me how McCain benefits from this? Before you say the "surge," remember Iraq's PM does not credit this to the success. I am sure there is no scientific evidence that supports the surge working, so it is an invalid point.

There is, however, proof that the PM supports what Obama has been telling the American people. Obama seems to have a better sense of what's best for America and Iraq at this point.

Maliki has the look of one who would be interested in starting secret negotiations with whichever side he thought would come out on top. Like someone at a blackjack table.

John W, I agree that with you, but you know there's going to be a future president who wants to bomb somebody to improve his poll results when things aren't going his way. I'd suggest the president take your suggestion one step further. We should outsource our military adventurism to the Chinese. They have a huge standing army and I'll bet they could provide whatever troop levels are needed for a much lower overall cost.

Dear Jolly Roger & Martscan

I guess I hit a nerve, Yes Obama = Neville Chamberlain = Appeasement = Terrorists Win and we "DIE"

Neville Chamberlain came back with "peace in our time" Obama is coming back with "WITHDRAWAL IN OUR TIME"

VJ Machiavelli
http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com
ps If Obama had said 14 months or 10 Months etc Maliki would say the same thing.

Duck and cover Maliki! There'll be a false flag WTC attack on you because Bush = McSame.
Obama's already the prez---can we get a bet spread on when exactly Cheney Bush goes before the war crimes court in the hague?

Turns out Reuters and Der Spiegel were wrong. And Frank James, like a puppy dog eager to please his master, ran with the story without checking. See CNN:

"A German magazine quoted Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as saying that he backed a proposal by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months," he said in an interview with Der Spiegel that was released Saturday.

"That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes," he said.

But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.""

truth defined 8:24pm- where did you read that the PM commented on what he felt the success came from?? What are you suggesting the reason for the success is>Obama's visit HA?

What proof says that OB is given credit by the PM on withdrawl figure...the magazine that misquoted Maliki's statement?

Tom O
If bombing someone raises your poll numbers, why is the media saying that Bush numbers are down because of the WAR? Also, if OB gets in there and his numbers go down, which we know they will, how many wars will he start to get them back up?

No he didn't. Maliki has already released a statement saying Der Spiegal seriously misunderstood his comments. Is there no level to which the media won't stoop to help Obama?

"Logically speaking, can anyone tell me how McCain benefits from this?"
Simple, Der Spiegal lied first and Frank James swore to it because he's a good Obamabot. Nice try, Obamaniacs, but Iraq's leader doesn't actually support withdrawal. In your enthusiasm to help your candidate you've AGAIN made major errors in fact and lied about the facts in Iraq.

* * * * *
Posted by: Teresa | July 20, 2008 1:16 PM
*
Teresa, what was Bush's approval rating when he started the war? Did it never dawn on you that Bush perceived that the American people were still out for blood after 9/11, or that he could justify the war to those with blood lust? You see, Tom O was correct. It was the President's perception, and not reality, that drove the decision-making process. The negative consequences were probably not apparent to him. That is why a future President might still believe that dropping bombs would improve his or her approval rating.

John W 5:36pm I have heard that the numbers go up myself, I just didn't agree with the logic of Bush starting the war for numbers, that's absurd.I made a point of using that same logic if Obama got in there as starts his taxation, war after war after war.

You must be awfully unhappy with Dems because they supported the war too !? Are you suggesting that they were all mislead for all the years prior to Bush presidency (Clinton)?

* * * * *
Posted by: Teresa | July 21, 2008 6:25 AM
*
Teresa,
*
I do not think Bush necessarily started the war for numbers. I do believe he started it, in no small part, for recognition. It is one way for a President to gain immortality. After all, who remembers peacetime presidents? I know that Bush could not have believed the war in Iraq was necessary to protect America's interest. That has to be true because Iraq posed no imminent threat to us, or to any of our vital interests. I also know that he could not have reasonably believed that an invasion, occupation and reconstruction of Iraq would have gone off without a hitch. The history and demographics of the region make such an assumption laughable. That leaves only personal gain as a motive. Remember the words of economist John Kenneth Galbraith: "If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error."
*
As for the rest, do not confuse me with a progressive, a Democrat or a pseudo-liberal. I am a conservative and (as for now) a Republican with strong Libertarian leanings. I am critical of George Bush and his policies because I do not believe they are at all consistent with traditional conservatism. I also do not buy into the neo-conservative agendum, especially when it comes to foreign policy. So, not only am I dissatisfied with the support of Democrats for the war, I am dissatisfied with their presence in Congress altogether.

John W-I think in his honest heart of hearts that if he didn't take care of it now he would have had to take care of it later. I just can't accept the logic that all these leaders up until Bush felt Saddam was a threat and then just when it came to Bush he decided to look at the threat as a way to make a name for himself.

Someone interviewed Saddam before he was put to death and he confided that he wanted it out there that he had WMD because he wanted Iran to be affraid to attack him. That backfired on him where we were concerned.

As for the rest of what you wrote>here here!