Iraqi PM supports Barack Obama timeframe for withdrawal
As if they didn't have enough trouble as they scrambled to clear up confusion over just how President Bush feels about deadlines for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, the president's aides now have to deal with their ally in Baghdad, Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, who says a deadline is fine with him: the one set by Barack Obama.
White House officials were saying Friday that Bush had agreed to a "general time horizon" for further troop withdrawals.
Then along came Maliki, who said in an interview that went online today that the deadline set by the Democratic presidential nominee-apparent works for him. That would be 16 months after inauguration day, Jan. 20. (We'll overlook for now the occasional squishiness that surrounds Obama's pronouncements on the exact time frame.)
Der Spiegel, the German newsmagazine, reported:
When asked in an interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks U.S. troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned." He then continued: "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
The magazine added that "Maliki was careful to back away from outright support for Obama."
The prime minister told Der Spiegel: "Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business."
But he made it clear that he didn't care for the approach taken by Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee-apparent, 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.
All of which should....
...make for a friendly welcome when Obama, who landed in Afghanistan this morning, reaches Iraq on a trip taking him to other Middle Eastern points and Europe.
The White House's statement about a "general time horizon" represented a marked softening of its longstanding opposition to deadlines for ending the American mission, Times staffers Paul Richter and Julian Barnes are reporting.
Administration officials portrayed the shift as an evolution in policy, rather than a fundamental change. They emphasized that withdrawals would still be tied to improving conditions.
But military officials acknowledged that, by setting targets for troop reductions, the new agreement was a step toward a time line.
“The bottom line is, I think there has been a little bit of a shift, or at least a shuffle,” said a senior defense official.
Bush and Maliki struck the agreement Thursday during a video teleconference, a call meant to break a logjam over a long-term security agreement between the U.S. and Iraq.
The shift marks another in a series of policy adjustments that administration officials have long said they would never make.
On Wednesday, White House officials said they were sending a top State Department official to meet with Iran’s nuclear negotiator, after insisting for years they would never hold face-to-face substantive discussions with Tehran until it agreed to halt uranium enrichment. The White House is also considering opening a low-level diplomatic mission in Tehran.
And it has recently agreed to take North Korea off its list of state sponsors of terrorism in exchange for Pyongyang’s providing a list of some of its nuclear activities and assets.
--James Gerstenzang
Photo of Maliki: Alaa al-Marjani/Associated Press
Photo of Obama: Associated Press
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
Posted by: COL. A.M.Khajawall [Ret] | July 19, 2008 at 10:00 AM
The Times is resembling Obama campaign literature more and more with each passing day.
Objectivity at the Times? Forget it.
Posted by: DPierre | July 20, 2008 at 07:48 PM