al_Maliki says we can leave anytime we want

[Flatbutt1]

So why don't we?


U.S. troops can leave 'anytime,' Iraqi P.M. says
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shrugged off U.S. doubts of his government's military and political progress Saturday, saying Iraqi forces are capable and American troops can leave "anytime they want."

[fingpilot]

So lets let him have his $hithole country back. Get our boys out of there.

[red-beard]

If the gov't of Iraq says they can handle the situation themselves, then lets get out of there.

[hardflex]

yea. We won, declare victory, have a parade, and get the heck out.

[on-ramp]

it's not that easy. the US will never leave. trust me . won't happen. too much at risk. too much BS. too many lives lost, too much $$$ spent.

[Flatbutt1]

so we may have an ulterior motive? shocking!

[David]

I just watched "Iraq for Sale:"

Scary stuff on how US corporations are profitting from the war.

For example Haliburton charging $45 for a 6-pack of Coke, $99 to do a crappy job of washing a bag of laundry, $7,000 a month to lease an SUV!!!!

All these stories are making us look like saints in Vietnam.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

he's a shiite. as we leave, Iran will enter.

[Cdnone1]

Hey I paid $45 for a six pack ofCoke at the Dodgers game!
steve

[BGCarrera32]

Originally posted by 125shifter
I just watched "Iraq for Sale:"

Scary stuff on how US corporations are profitting from the war.

For example Haliburton charging $45 for a 6-pack of Coke, $99 to do a crappy job of washing a bag of laundry, $7,000 a month to lease an SUV!!!!

All these stories are making us look like saints in Vietnam.

Why is that scary? Is this a shock to you? GASP...

[on-ramp]

Bush's "oil business" has finally got off the ground. Given his failures in the oil industry early on, he has finally found a way to high profits.

[David]

Originally posted by BGCarrera32
Why is that scary? Is this a shock to you? GASP...

I guess I should have said words can't describe how I feel about the whole mess.

Can someone give me one rational reason why we went into Iraq?

[tabs]

Originally posted by 125shifter


Can someone give me one rational reason why we went into Iraq?

The Best answer is to finish unfinished business with Sadam from Gulf War 1. To get rid of a thorn in the side of the USA. All the rhetoric about WMDs, and being a Terrorist sponsor was all hyperbole to arouse the public ire. A sales pitch straight from Madison Avenue. The planning for the end result was misguided, shortsighted and irrational given the knowable reality on the ground in Iraq. In other words the Bush Administration had an idea in their heads that nobody could disuade them from and they ignored reality.

Bush and Cheney don't need to make the US Corps richer, they are all doing fine all by themselves. A better way to look through the prisim is to see that they are trying to preserve the staus quo so that those interest can continue doing business as usual. That in a sense is what Muslim Fundlementalism is oposed to the supposed corruption of their beliefs by Western Business practices and culture.

[David]

Originally posted by tabs
The Best answer is to finish unfinished business with Sadam from Gulf War 1. To get rid of a thorn in the side of the USA. All the rhetoric about WMDs, and being a Terrorist sponsor was all hyperbole to arouse the public ire. A sales pitch straight from Madison Avenue. The planning for the end result was misguided, shortsighted and irrational given the knowable reality on the ground in Iraq. In other words the Bush Administration had an idea in their heads that nobody could disuade them from and they ignored reality.

Bush and Cheney don't need to make the US Corps richer, they are all doing fine all by themselves. A better way to look through the prisim is to see that they are trying to preserve the staus quo so that those interest can continue doing business as usual. That in a sense is what Muslim Fundlementalism is oposed to the supposed corruption of their beliefs by Western Business practices and culture.

Not see'n it.

It seems that as much of thorn as he was for us, he was a bigger thorn for many of our enemies. There were so many reasons to leave Saddam in power and no large scale good ones for taking him out.

[jyl]

US troops will start pulling out of Iraq by the end of 2008, if not earlier.

That is as close to a sure thing as you can get in American politics.

Democratic politicians want the war to end soon. Republican politicians want the war to end soon. The great majority of American voters want the war to end soon. The Presidential candidates want the war to end soon, except McCain who is falling behind. The only ones who want the war to continue are Bush/Cheney, and their relevance shrinks with every passing day.

We agonize here about what sort of Iraq the pullout will leave behind, whether it'll be chaos etc. In the end, the civil war in Iraq won't stop the US from pulling out. Sentiments like the ones expressed in this thread - "to hell with those ungrateful Iraqis, etc" - will become mainstream, and then we'll leave.

[DanielDudley]

He was a bigger thorn to our enemies, wasn't he ?

Too bad we had to buy 40% of their oil production from France.
OH, the Indignity ! Besides, gas is now 3.00 a gallon.

Mission accomplished !

[nota]

Originally posted by tabs
The Best answer is to finish unfinished business with Sadam from Gulf War 1. To get rid of a thorn in the side of the USA. All the rhetoric about WMDs, and being a Terrorist sponsor was all hyperbole to arouse the public ire. A sales pitch straight from Madison Avenue. The planning for the end result was misguided, shortsighted and irrational given the knowable reality on the ground in Iraq. In other words the Bush Administration had an idea in their heads that nobody could disuade them from and they ignored reality.

Bush and Cheney don't need to make the US Corps richer, they are all doing fine all by themselves. A better way to look through the prisim is to see that they are trying to preserve the staus quo so that those interest can continue doing business as usual. That in a sense is what Muslim Fundlementalism is oposed to the supposed corruption of their beliefs by Western Business practices and culture.

well sort of
yes it was a poor plan not the invasion but the follow up
in fact there was NO follow up plan
not enuff troops and hurt the afgan troop levels too
a true double ''F'' up, or maybe triple

but ''goddamm insane'' was not a Muslim Fundlementalism
supporter in fact he was against it
nor was he supporting terror outside his country
sure he used state terror on his own people
nor did the WMD exist ect!!!!!!!!

now BuSh2 buddys in saudi were supporting terror
and 15 of 19 on the aircrafts were saudies plus ''ben forgotten'' too
in short we attacked the WRONG COUNTRY

[legion]

Originally posted by 125shifter
I just watched "Iraq for Sale:"

Scary stuff on how US corporations are profitting from the war.

For example Haliburton charging $45 for a 6-pack of Coke, $99 to do a crappy job of washing a bag of laundry, $7,000 a month to lease an SUV!!!!

All these stories are making us look like saints in Vietnam.

You very wrongly assume that the only cost in that six-pack of Coke is the cost of the six-pack itself.

1) What if every 10th six-pack gets blown up in the supply convoy?

2) You do have to pay people more than minimum wage to get them to go to a war zone to work.

3) What is the cost of moving that pack of Coke from a loading dock in Texas to Iraq?

[Overpaid Slacker]

OK, but that's not all he said.....
From CQ:

Nouri al-Maliki may have provided a push for Congress to get more aggressive with the White House over troop withdrawals in Iraq yesterday. However, the Prime Minister sounded a rather contradictory note, expressing confidence in Iraq's ability to secure itself while pleading for more time and pledging more progress on political reform. The New York Times reports on only one of these contradictory statements:

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki declared Saturday that Iraqi forces could secure the country on their own “any time” American troops decided to withdraw, his first response to the White House report this week that found his government falling well short of many political reforms and military goals sought by Congress.
Mr. Maliki has been under attack by American officials and many Iraqi politicians for leading a government mired in disputes and unable to make progress on major legislation seen as crucial to stabilizing the country. Support is growing in Congress for an American troop pullout that would leave Iraqi forces that are already plagued with sectarianism, absenteeism and other problems to battle the Sunni Arab insurgents and Shiite militias that dominate parts of the country.

The White House report found that Iraq failed to make satisfactory progress meeting 8 out of 18 major milestones, such as passing an oil revenue-sharing law and ending favoritism in the security forces. Such favoritism toward Shiites, the report found, even included evidence of Maliki advisers in the Office of the Commander in Chief distributing “target lists,” primarily of Sunnis who were to be arrested, directly to lower-level commanders.

“We say with confidence that we are capable, God willing, of taking full responsibility for the security file if the international forces withdraw in any time they wish,” Mr. Maliki said.

Readers who want the whole story have to read the Los Angeles Times to find out what else Maliki said about the Iraqi position:

Maliki, a Shiite, put on a brave face in the wake of the rising demand in the U.S. among Democratic and Republican legislators for withdrawal from Iraq.
He pleaded for time, pledging to achieve the passage of legislation that Washington has demanded as a condition of its continuing support, including an oil revenue sharing law, a revised constitution and the easing of government work restrictions for former supporters of President Saddam Hussein, who was captured, tried and executed after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Maliki also said that Iraqi security forces could use more training from U.S.-led forces and needed more weaponry.

Perhaps someone could ask the layers of editors and fact-checkers at the Gray Lady why this got left out of their report. It adds another dimension to the story, a context which shows a politician trying to reassure his constituency that their government can survive an American pullout -- not endorsing one, as the Paper of Record's report implies. Maliki has to make sure that Iraqis do not lose confidence in the government in order to keep the tribes from throwing in with the various insurgencies for their own perceived protection, once we do withdraw.

The real news story is that Maliki has asked the Congress to remain patient. He has not given up on passing reform through the National Assembly, and understands that the US wants to see that reform start as soon as possible. Unfortunately, both papers chose to de-emphasize that part of the story, and in the case of the New York Times, overlook it altogether.

At this point, Congress will likely take the New York Times approach to Maliki's statement. Clearly more Republicans have joined Democrats in looking for an easy way out from Iraq, and a statement of readiness from Maliki will provide an excuse to at least pull out of Baghdad. His pleading for more time will get ignored in the coming weeks by members of both parties just as it was by Richard Oppel, Jr.

UPDATE: CNN reported the request for more time and patience as well:

"We are not talking about a government in a stable political environment, but one in the shadow of huge challenges," al-Maliki said. "So when we talk about the presence of some negative points in the political process, that's fairly natural."
Al-Maliki said his government needs "time and effort" to enact the political reforms that Washington seeks -- "particularly since the political process is facing security, economic and services pressures, as well as regional and international interference."

But he said that if necessary, Iraqi police and soldiers could fill the void left by the departure of coalition forces.

The context is a bit different than what the NY Times story suggests, isn't it? Sometimes bias involves what's left out of a story more than what's put into it. Isn't it odd that NYT selectively informs you... and what they tell you just so happens to feed the bias of the self-proclaimed "Newspaper of Record"? It's particularly bad when the LAT AND CNN do a more comprehensive job at reporting.

.... but there's no bias. pass the kool-aid.

JP

[David]

Originally posted by legion
You very wrongly assume that the only cost in that six-pack of Coke is the cost of the six-pack itself.

1) What if every 10th six-pack gets blown up in the supply convoy?

2) You do have to pay people more than minimum wage to get them to go to a war zone to work.

3) What is the cost of moving that pack of Coke from a loading dock in Texas to Iraq?

I think that's what Halliburton wants everyone to think, but actually they're canned right there in the Middle East, so they shouldn't cost much more than they cost here.