Bush and Maliki talk about withdrawal from Iraq

When President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki talked on Thursday -- a secure video conversation that wasn't disclosed until today -- one of the things the White House said they talked about was "a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals."

Translation: a date for meeting the goal of handing over security responsibilities from the U.S. troops to the Iraqis and "the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq."

Wait a minute.

Hasn't the president been adamant: There would be no bright-line deadline for pulling American forces out of Iraq, because Al Qaeda there or other opponents would just bide their time and wait to attack until the U.S. had pulled out?

The point was presented today by reporters to Scott Stanzel, the deputy White House press secretary traveling with Bush on a Western political fundraising trip that ended at the president's home in Crawford, Texas.

There's a difference, the spokesman said.

"These are aspirational goals, not arbitrary timelines based on political expediency. So we want to get to a point where we have sustainable security in the country, and our forces are able to come home and transition into a role there of more over-watch and training."

Besides, he added:

"It's important to remember that the discussions about timeline issues previously were from Democrats in Congress who wanted to arbitrarily retreat from Iraq without consideration of conditions on the ground.  All of the discussions that we have always had have been based on conditions on the ground and making progress in the country, and we are doing just that."

Yes, the Democrats did call for setting dates for withdrawal, and still are. But now, Stanzel was reminded, it is Iraqis who are seeking a commitment that the U.S. presence will end.

Right, he agreed, putting this interpretation on the matter: "It's a reflection of the Iraqis becoming more and more capable of addressing the security situation in their country."

Not surprisingly, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) had a different take:

"After rejecting 18 months of attempts by the Democratic majority in Congress to adopt redeployment timetables,  the President now proposes a vague ‘general time horizon’ that falls far short of a commitment to ending our involvement in Iraq."

-- James Gerstenzang

Photo: Khalid Mohammed / Associated Press

Comments

[Ron]

I think the author is missing some important context. The context of previous statements was while there was a war going on. The anarchy of the past is really gone and the environment has changed significantly. The country has made impressive political gains and violence is down to a point where it's pretty much a criminal matter rather than a real insurgency.

The Iraq government is looking legitimate with diplomatic relations being opened with neighboring countries; the majority of people now see an "Iraq" instead of tribal or religious sects; local elections have been held and this fall provential elections are happening; the economy is growing rapidly; basic govermental services are functioning.

Violence is going to happen even after we leave but now the Iraqi military and police are the majority of security prescence and the Iraqi government feels confident they can take over---which is a first! Now we're talking about redeployment time tables because I think we've achieved our objective---Mission Accomplished. We'll keep an eye on things from a safe distance.

[Dick]

It's as simple as this. . .

If we win, the Democrats loose.

If we loose, the Democrats win.

Pick yer poison.

DD

[Brian]

The personal bais of this so called "Reporter" is laughable. Better check for his name on the DNC payroll. Nice spin!

[Jeff]

I'm not generally a defender of President Bush, but this doesn't seem to strange to me... the government of Iraq is (hopefully,hopefully) gaining some stability and it seems to make sense, if that turns out to be true, that we would factor that in as we decide on our future involvement there. The stated policy (whatever the real strategy may have been), was never "we'll stay over there no matter what".

On the other hand, the position taken by Ms. Pelosi and others appeared to be "get out as soon as possible, no matter what", and much as I hated our troops being over there, that didn't make sense to me.

[Steve in California]

It is clear that the Iraquis want us out and most Americans want out, but nobody wants a meltdown. No matter what anyone says in this election, things will always be governed by "facts on the ground" the only difference is in tendency towards faster or slower. I believe that Obama's position is more in line with that of the people and government of Iraq. If his orientation towards speed makes them take things seriously, then that is good. Iraq, like the rest of the world and the sane people in the US want as much of a non-Bush administration as possible.

[iPhone Wallpapers]

There seems to be a lot of policy change in the last couple of days with those in the government right now. I hate to be too 'tin foil hat' ish but the cooling of the oil market and easing of the strain on the economy seems to be going hand in hand with this policy change.

Makes a person wonder who is really pulling on the strings!

[muttley]

Um, footdragging by the administration on getting into the nitty gritty on withdrawal with Maliki notwithstanding, Pelosi needs very much to shut her trap. She does not further any concievable political agenda by doing so.
Not hers, not Iraq's, not the Democratic Party's, not the Republicans, not Obamas, not the Man on the Moon's.

What on earth is she "thinking"?

I'm not going to say "I told you so" about the eventual outcome of things
in Iraq, so don't twist and spin a true positive into some negative, Negatori Nancy! It doesn't fly at ALL.

Yes, yes, Virginia, a 3 year old knows we're going to beef things up in
Afghanistan. So again don't twist and spin THAT one into a negative.
(N)obama himself wants more troops in Afghanistan.

Can we finally agree that all else said and done, we all actually AGREE on something?

Sheesh!

[MissClarity]

Re withdrawal: Well isn't that just ducky. Again Obama is a great motivator and gets the credit for Bush trying to steal Obama's impending thunder. Amazing what motivates Bush. Not the lives, not the families and deaths but a Democratic Presidential Candidate. Whatever it takes, and Obama gets all the credit. It doesn't matter anymore what Bush does. It's almost like Bush is serving Obama, Bush had his chance to service the American People and we all know how he (Bush) handled that even like Katrina and watching the Chinese take care of their own within moments of devastation should have shamed Bush but it takes a conscious for that and a heart for anything not Bush. Cause it's all about Bush NOT.

[MissClarity]

someone went home. no lookie at comments. guess that's not all that important anyway no lookie at comments. guess that not all the important anyway. thank you for confirming your care level. boo hoo i'm grip'd with so much disappointment 'cause you not being there means you've got a life and me still being here means I don't Shuck, golly gee. hmmmmmmmmmm I feel my life taking a new direction and I have you to thank. ending this is about as hard as it is to drive by see's candy w/o going in and getting a chocolate lolly, 1 piece of calfornia brittle (dark chocolate of course), two almond/carmel clusters and one raspberry truffle and one raspberry cream. And to think I could have gone to see's instead of hurrying home to comment on LA Times articles. What has become of me. Very soul searching.. Oh well a glass of milk and everything will be just fine. Sweet dreams 'til sunbeams find you.

[Whatever]

"Now we're talking about redeployment time tables because I think we've achieved our objective---Mission Accomplished."

I'd hope after shattering the country, causing the mass exodus of thousands and the deaths of millions, and opened up the country to private oil companies that we've finally achieved our goals in Iraq. What else can we blow up, confiscate, torture or strongarm in that country?

If this is success, I'd hate to see what failure looks like.

And by the way, the original goal of our going into Iraq was 'regime change' and to get rid of Iraq's WMDs. There were no WMDs (the inspectors told us that beforehand), but we got our regime change. It's nice when we can redefine our goals in Iraq every couple months so that we can design a success scenario that everyone is happy with.

And what's this claptrap about "we were never supposed to be there indefinitely". What is the construction of all the permanent military bases about?

[John Galt]

Democrats have been calling for withdrawal since 2005 in defeat and Bush wants a withdrawal in VICTORY.

IF MALIKI WANTS US TO LEAVE....GOOD .....THAT MEANS AMERICANS WON!!! SO LETS CELEBRATE ....Eat your hearts out, defeatist Dems and Obama worshipers! hah haha h

[VJ Machiavelli]

The Democ'rats' took control in 2006 by saying withdraw now, bring the troops home now, out of iraq now.

If we did what they wanted Maliiki would be "DEAD" and the Terrorists would be in control of the country with their buddies the "Iran Guard".

The serge worked and Maliki is alive.

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