Malaki only favors the 16 months part now that he and we stuck with Bush’s plan long enough to get to the 16 month part. Malaki was right then and Barack was wrong.

Obama is like a economists that palways predict recessions are around the corner. Stopped clocks are right twice a day and all that.

Beyond 16 months, though, that’s about it. Barack wanted to withdraw in defeat. Now, we will be withdrawing in victory.

Maliki is doing what the U.S. media and the world media are telling him to do right now, including Paul Krugman at the New York Times, which is the newspaper of record, after all.

The only problem for Maliki and the thing that he might like to think twice about is that so far, if the President had listened to the media in this country not only would Saddam Hussein still be in power, there are an innumerable number of times in the past five years that America would have simply left and allowed Mr. Maliki to fend for himself.

But there’s a lot of pressure in Europe especially to elect Barack, and the narrative here in the United States is simply that Barack’s presidency is a fait accompli and so Maliki is trying to cover those bases.

It’s a public statement designed for media consumption in the middle of the dog days of summer in the American Media, which above all else needs to be constantly flattered if it is to be effective.

I’m not so worried about #4 because Maliki also knows that if there’s a hasty withdrawal by U.S. troops, he’s basically a dead man.

Obama arrives in Afghanistan

Obama visits Afghanistan to tour war zone

Obama In Afghanistan For Visit With Karzai

Obama kicks off Middle East tour with stop in Afghanistan

Obama Visits Afghanistan to Tour War Zone

Here’s the big phrase of the day “I’m more interested in listening than doing a lot of talking”.

LOL…He better keep his mouth closed…If he talks to much this could be the Nail in his coffin.

He’s making a big Mistake by bringing the MSM…I Hope he trips up

well, weeks, that we would be withdrawing in victory much faster than people thought. Which we will be. Where Obama is still wrong is how many troops will need to remain after 16 months, but I fully expect him to flip on that soon as well. By November he will be a taller Napolean.

Your title, and the quote you use to back it up (whcih is the closest that your link comes to such an endorsement), do not match.

There’s a massive difference between agreeing with a time frame, and agreeing with the implementation of a plan within that time frame.

Oh, and Maliki says thes urge is working. When is Your Prophet going to admit error on that? Magical thinking and denial of reality are signs of mental illness, not suitability to be President.

T.O. will throw Maliki under the bus as soon as he ceases being a shill for his position. Guaranteed.

Was Maliki talking about timetables last year when Obama was talking about an immediate, unconditional withdrawl then - and was promising us the surge would be a “catastrophe?”

and because this Maryland Easternshorer is a pretty good lib.

I think you make a valid point that this carefully orchestrated trip will enhance Obama’s image even more than it already has been. Media have widely reported, even before this trip was announced, Europe and many in the Middle East heart Obama.

I have serious concerns, however, about the impact of an Obama presidency, coupled with a Pelosi-led Congress, on my country. Here’s why.

Maliki, possibly speaking from both sides of his mouth, also “agreed” with President Bush about a “time horizon.” This was reported yesterday:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aHNGOnkMmckE&refer=us

And I think we may admit, if we are objective, it is impossible at this moment to establish a timetable. Anything may happen between now and November–even overnight, depending upon the politics and various terrorists in the Middle Eastern regions.

Many in other countries heart Obama because let’s face it, they have much to gain. The Global Poverty Act, for instance: http://obama.senate.gov/press/080213-obamahagelcan_1/

Who do you suppose will pay to halve that poverty?

Barack Obama is relying on a number of Clintonites for his foreign policy. It’s my personal opinion that Clinton’s foreign policy left much to be desired and impact many of the problems we’ve experienced since.

Obama has the support of media, and even more, he has the advocacy of media. We have serious domestic problems here, and efforts may be undercut by the extremely generous amounts of foreign aid I suspect your candidate would like to offer other countries. I am certain many in other countries are drooling at the prospects Obama offers them.

Europe and the Middle East aren’t electing this president. We are. And I predict we will pay dearly if Obama takes the White House.

We paid dearly when JFK took it. The catastrophes set in motion by his lack of experience were repressed for a quarter of a century–by the media machine. We have only learned about that in the last decade. Media will do the same thing for the junior senator from Illinois–throw a protective, well-spun gauntlet around him.

Your post is an interesting look, however, at why someone would support Obama’s foreign policy aspirations.

Maliki is simply pandering to his political opposition in order to secure an agreement with the Bush administration establishing a long-term US military presence in Iraq.

In much the same way he declared that the US military would not be allowed to use Iraqi soil to launch military operations against Iran.

Note: Special forces operations across the Iraqi border into Iranian territory continue unabated.

Plausible deniability…. Wink, wink.

Obama NOW is in favor of withdrawing troops. but 18 months ago he was also in favor of defeat and withdrawing troops.

For simple minded liberals, it would be like Obama calling for an immediate withdrawal of all US troops from France beginning in June 1944 and lasting for 16 months till they were all out of Europe. So that by May 45 there would be an “end to this mistaken war”- except of course the end would have been an Axis/Communist victory.

Is that the same thing as WINNING A WAR and then withdrawing? We are going to cut you defeatist cowards up on this issue- just watch…

is at these links: part 1 and part 2.

Maliki Rejects Obama’s Cut and Run Strategy In Iraq

Maliki Rejects Obama’s Cut and Run Strategy In Iraq

You posted your headline and I am posting real headline

Maliki Rejects Obama’s Cut and Run Policy In Iraq

Here’s a thoughtful analysis:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5378156&page=1

Traditionally, Dem strategy has been cut and run. Look at what we did after channeling millions (perhaps billions) into the Afghan effort to oust the Soviets. And look at what happened when we bailed, despite pleas from a Democratic congressman.

It would also seem to me we should base the US plan on US military recommendations.

That is huge. It is very important that the world knows we defeated the enemy. The enemy already knows.

Obama’s recent “revelations” on this subject have come with the price that the screaming discontent of the people on the Left has been effectively squelched:

I was a contributor in the Washington Post thread on the evolution of Barack’s position and on the day it was published, the nutroots was furious, and Bob Herbert was also furious. Now all of a sudden, some of them have discovered that Obama’s previously stated positions were completely ludicrous (and designed to pander to them) and now that he’s “matured” on his position, many of them are having difficulty accepting it.

I personally don’t have any difficulty accepting Barack’s newly matured position so far as it goes: what bothers me is that it has never been his consistent position and his campaign is now willing to use it as a positive indicator of his foreign-policy expertise, which happens to coincide with him riding on a jet plane to Europe.

Well, I can ride on a jet plane too. I can even speak at the Brandenburg Gate. And if I was doing that, an informed observer might notice that Barack’s current position given his recent positions is laughable, unless you believe (as I do) that nothing he says means anything except in terms of the exigencies of the moment.

That’s hardly the kind of President the Europeans should want to have in the United States, but people can be very foolish indeed.

the best evidence that the MSM has lost the argument over the Iraq War in much the same way that the best evidence that the US landed on the Moon was that the USSR didn’t deny it.

Maybe we should let Maliki taste the impact of his words. Let’s see the President draw up a plan to get American troops out by November and see whether or not Maliki really wants that.

He talks of a “long term strategic agreement” in Iraq but he’s helping the candidate that until recently was calling for a total withdrawal, so I think we should call the guy’s bluff:

I know there are a lot of families of American servicemen and servicewomen who would like to see them leave tomorrow, if not sooner, so let’s give al-Maliki what he wants and start talking about pulling the forces out of Baghdad first. If he’s so confident in his security apparatus that he thinks he can last until the end of the American withdrawal, maybe we should believe him.

Whether or not the 16-month period of BO matches with that of Maliki’s timetable, it doesn’t matter.

If BO claims that his policy is better than that of McCain solely for the reason that his 16-month period matches with that of Malixi, then BO will prove that all accusations against him are precisely corect: His proposed foreign policy only serves the interests of other countries. He doesn’t serve America’s interests.

The warden said it not the bossman…

And this thread is EPIC…Recommended

Is Maliki going into conniptions, too? Or will you now fully admit that Der Spiegel snookered you, and that the whole thing was just what I said it was?

Overkill, I know, but the link I posted to Maliki and Bush was a new story–7/18.

• A 16-month timetable for withdrawal would not have been possible a year ago when Obama and the Libs were pushing for an immediate, unconditional surrender. Just the mere discussions of a withdrawal timetable have been made possible by the success of same surge Obama said would be a “catasrophe.”

• • Elections are coming up in Iraq - Maliki is trying to act “tough” and make his people believe he is in total control. The U.S. is not the only country in which politics are played.
• Iraq is a soveriegn nation. Maliki has the right and the power to kick us out of his country anytime he wants. Who needs a timetable?

2

he did it for domestic political reasons. We may be needed, and we may be very much appreciated—but we are still infidels to many Iraqis. No doubt he can shore up his political support by asserting a more independent position. Maybe Malaki honestly didn’t pick up on Obama’s particular nuance to the time table (i.e. unconditional).

It will be interesting to see how Iraq develops over time and to see how different cultural forces shape the country. There are no doubt some pro-western elements in Iraq, and the fact that it will take a western-style government to avoid sectarian violence may make Iraq a shining example for the Muslim world.

However, I for one am not a long term optimist. Turkey had the benefit of a strong home-grown leader who was a genuine secular reformer. It seems to me that Turkey represents the realistic best case scenario. It is worth noting that Islamism is on the rise in Turkey as well, despite an expressly secular legal system.