Salon is now an archive.
New site here
This site's archives
22 August 2008 at 10:55:27 AM
salon
The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven. Old Man McCain, or as McBlogger calls him, McThusaleh (heh) has been whining about Obama saying that he would have a timeline for leaving as *surrendering*. Well, I guess he thinks Bush is surrendering, eh? From Juan Cole The security agreement nearly completed between the Bush administration and the government of the Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki may pull the rug out from under Sen. John McCain on Iraq, according to AP. It will stipulate that US troops will be out of Iraqi cities by June, 2009 and then mostly out of Iraq by 2011. In that light, it will be much harder for McCain to paint Obama as "surrendering" or wanting to "cut and run," since his withdrawal plan is very close to what Bush and the Iraqi government have agreed on.
McCain's position on having long-term bases in Iraq a la South Korea was always pie in the sky, because it assumed that it was a decision he as president would get to make all by himself. Neither the Iraqi parliament nor Congress will likely actually put up with such a policy. Why McCain hasn't been called on this by the Dems is mysterious to me. Why not do an ad? "McCain says he wants long term bases in Iraq. But that is not what the elected government of Iraq says it wants. Is he going to invade again to get what he wants?"
AP reviews Bush's flip-flop on the timetable issue.
That last part is pretty funny, when you read the AP timeline. Remember how, in July 200, Bush didn't want to say the word "Timeline" so he said "general time horizon" (snark!) Now, by August, only about a month later, it's TIMETABLE. July 18, 2008: _ "In the area of security cooperation, the president and the prime minister agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals." — White House statement that first raised the possibility of timelines. ___ Aug. 21, 2008: _ "Well, we have always said that the roles, missions and size of the American forces here, the coalition forces, was based on the conditions on the ground and what is needed. We have agreed that some goals, some aspirational timetables for how that might unfold are well worth having in — in such an agreement. ... And I have to say, if I could just make the point, the reason we are where we are going, talking about this kind of agreement, is that the surge worked, Iraqi forces have demonstrated that they are strong and getting stronger." — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in Baghdad.
Permalink
Tags:
iraq
timetable
john mccain
security agreement
Views: 2479
Latest Blog Post by salon -Video- Somervell County Commissioners Court Special Sessions (2) Dec 23 2019
More Posts You Might Enjoy
Gee! Bush Burned in Effigy in Baghdad by Thousands Who Don't Want the SOFA Agreement
*The Kite Runner* Author Khaled Hosseini Asks If the McCain/Palin Ticket Thinks He's a Pariah, Too
Foo Fighters Don't Want Grumps McCain Playing their Music... EITHER
John McCain Said, in 2000 Presidential Bid, that US Troops Were Killing Innocent Civilians
| |
Somervell County Salon Blog is now an archive site. Commenting
not enabled.
|
Click Here
for Main Page
Guest
Today Is
Monday, November 17, 2025

Latest Posts
More Blog
Headlines
|
|