Maliki's Iraq pullout line keeps White House scrambling

A clever White House press secretary can pretty much tell what questions are going to be welling up from the seats in the press briefing room and comes out prepared.

So it was no surprise today that Dana Perino wrote a statement—“all on my own,” she said self-deprecatingly—to tackle the controversy du jour: Whether U.S. officials had put the muscle on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki to back off his seeming endorsement of Barack Obama’s 16-month timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq.

Setting the stage: President Bush has been adamant in saying that he cannot set a specific date for troop withdrawals, which he says must be based on security conditions in Iraq. But the White House said on Friday that some sort of “general time horizon” might be achievable.

Along comes Maliki, for whom Bush has had nothing but kind words in public, and the German magazine Der Spiegel, combining to seemingly give the Democratic presidential nominee-presumed a big wet kiss on a central issue of the senator’s campaign: How long U.S. troops will remain in Iraq.

The result: A lot of scrambling and backpedaling from Crawford (where Bush was spending the weekend) to Baghdad.

That brings us to Perino. Her prepared statement, of course, dealt only tangentially with the heart of the controversy, filled, as it was, with diplo-speak: “It is precisely because we are succeeding in Iraq that we are able to have these conversations today to set aspirational goals for time horizons when we can transition our mission to overwatch, counterterrorism and training, which is the goal that we share.”

Under questioning, she pointed out that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker in Baghdad and Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, meet with Maliki and his aides daily, “so I do believe that we’ve had contact with them.”

But she avoided a direct answer about...

...whether such contact had taken place to go over (read that "spin") the prime minister's comments to the German magazine.

Still, she made it clear that the White House was not happy with Maliki’s willingness to talk publicly about specific dates for a withdrawal.

“We don’t think that talking about specific negotiating tactics or, you know, a negotiating position, in the press, is the best way to negotiate a deal,” the White House spokeswoman said.

Perino also offered this advice, unsolicited, for the next commander in chief regarding decisions about troop levels: “I would hope that .... he would make them based on conditions on the ground, whichever president it is. Whether or not it’s 16 months or later or earlier I just don’t know.”

U.S. and Iraqi officials are not likely, she said, to meet their July 31 deadline for a “status of forces” agreement that would govern the U.S. deployment after the current U.N. mandate expires this year. It would establish just what say the Iraqis have in the deployment and when it ends.

Perino said that whatever time frame is worked out with the Iraqis, the withdrawal schedule would in the end be based on security conditions at the time that shifts in the deployment are being made.

“It’s not a firm, hard, fast date, where you, all of a sudden, take all the troops out,” she said.

When a reporter reminded her that the Iraqis did not appear to be on the same page -- and were characterizing 2010 as the time frame for withdrawal -- Perino replied: “That might be what some of them think. It might be what the prime minister thinks. But I will tell you that it’s based on conditions.”

-- James Gerstenzang

Comments

[wolf]

The Bush Administration simply has no shame.

[MsSwin]

“That might be what some of them think. It might be what the prime minister thinks. But I will tell you that it’s based on conditions.”

You have to wonder who is setting these conditions. Is it Iraq, supposedly a sovereign nation, or George Bush.

[Norris Hall]

For years the Bush Administration has said that when Iraqis stand up we will stand down and has built a strategy based on pressuring the Iraqis to do more to take responsibility for their own country.

Now that the Iraqis are saying "We are ready to take charge in 16 months", the Bush administration is back peddling.

That's because the Bush administration’s wants to maintain a military foothold in Iraq and wants access to Iraq’s oil.

For that they need a compliant Iraqi government that is willing to allow U.S. troops to remain garrisoned in Iraq indefinitely.

[MsSwin]

It's about judgment, my friends....

“And I believe that the success will be fairly easy” and “There's no doubt in my mind that... we will be welcomed as liberators.” [John McCain 3/24/03]

“I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past... I don't believe it's going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991.” [John McCain 9/15/02]

“There's not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias. So I think they can probably get along.” [John McCain 4/23/03]

“Look, we're going to send young men and women in harm's way and that's always a great danger, but I cannot believe that there is an Iraqi soldier who is going to be willing to die for Saddam Hussein, particularly since he will know that our objective is to remove Saddam Hussein from power."
[John McCain 9/15/02]

"But the fact is, I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past. But any military man worth his salt is going to have to prepare for any contingency, but I don't believe it's going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991." [John McCain 09/15/02]

"He's a patriot who has the best interests of his country at heart." ]John McCain on Ahmed Chalabi, 2002]

"Absolutely. Absolutely." [John McCain, asked by Chris Matthews, "you believe that the people of Iraq or at least a large number of them will treat us as liberators?" 03/12/03]

I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks. [John McCain, MSNBC, 1/28/03]
It’s clear that the end is very much in sight. … It won’t be long. It, it’ll be a fairly short period of time. [John McCain, ABC, 4/9/03]

We’re either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months. [Meet The Press, 11/12/06]

"Well, then why was there a banner that said mission accomplished on the aircraft carrier?" [John McCain, responding to assertion by Fox News' Neil Cavuto that "many argue the conflict isn't over," [John McCain, 06/11/03]

"My friends, the war will be over soon, the war for all intents and purposes although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years." [John McCain, 02/25/08]

[chris]

“That might be what some of them think. It might be what the prime minister thinks. But I will tell you that it’s based on conditions.”

What happened to "we're there at the request of the Iraqi government'? Statements like that make it sound as though we'll leave when we're damn good and ready, Iraqi opinion be damned.

What a farce, it's seeming that on a daily basis we're coming closer and closer to everyone on the planet except for Bush believing that we need to wrap things up in Iraq. That now openly includes the Iraqis. Talk about audacity, how about the the audacity of the Bush White House trying to spin Maliki's comments to Der Spiegel when it was Maliki's own guy doing the translation and the whole interview was recorded. I swear they'll try and argue the sky is red one day before he leaves office...

[Norm]

Any movement of U.S. troops are at the sole discretion of the President. President Bush has stated and maintains troop missions will change and come home as Iraqi's stand up to defend their own nation. Already our troops are seeing less front line action as Iraqi units stand to and face their own problems. The strategy is working and it needs to continue to be an as needed basis. The Iraqi government is welcome to add their 2 cents, but ultimately it is the generals on the ground who need to be listened to by the president, not a foreign or even "domestic" politician.