White House sends press corps al-Maliki's praise for Obama plan »
Posted By ybdogsct 11 months, 3 weeks ago in NewsAn embarrassing slip up, when an aide mistakenly sent to the news media a Reuters article saying Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki backs Barack Obama's troop withdrawal plan. Its timing is particularly embarrassing as Bush's "general time horizon" for withdrawing U.S. troops is being cited by some as resembling Obama's redeployment pro
Read Full Story at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com »
1566 Views Share Story 53 Comments Report
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 201 of 218 Comments (view all)
-
0%
ybdogsct11 months, 3 weeks ago
The Reuters article that the White House press mistakenly sent to the news media can be found here:
http://news.propeller.com/story/2008/07/19/-ira...
Reply-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE11 months, 3 weeks ago
That ought to shut them up on THAT issue..
These are publicly made "Quotes"...So they can't even shoot the messenger this time..
Hmmmm, a young dynamic Commander in Chief who thinks like it's the 21st century, or an aging and bitter battle worn commander in Chief, who takes his marching orders from rich angry old men and, who still thinks like it's 1970?? I wonder who would be our best leader?
Reply -
-
0%
Klarissa11 months, 2 weeks ago
Obama is hedging - wants to appear anti-war but is covering his bases:
"The Democratic candidate says he supports a phased withdrawal of troops, promising to remove all combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months of taking office if he becomes president."
But he can leave peace keepers, bases, and guards, etc.
Combat brigades are only part of the presence in Iraq.
and probably leaves the Marines and the Navy in Iraq.
Reply
-
-
0%
ybdogsct11 months, 3 weeks ago
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/0...
"The Obama campaign welcomed comments by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supporting Sen. Barack Obama's proposed 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
Asked when most U.S. troops would leave Iraq, Maliki said: 'As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. 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. Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems.'"
Reply-
0%
cowboygrandpa11 months, 2 weeks ago
ybdogsct:
OK. So Bush is now trying to follow Obamas lead. Hmmmmmmmm?
Not because the polls show what a complete moronic idiot he has been. But because his way just won't work!!!!
Bush has been a failure at everything he has done. Now he is making America fail.
We need to imprison the lying traitor and try him for the treasonous acts he has committed, he and Cheney.
Not to hard to figure out why we were in Iraq. Hello Oil!!!
They have made their huge profits and are now looking to dump the problem on the Democrats to solve and take the blame for.
We should have kicked the Talibans asses long ago and beat them into dust. Instead we went after Bush and Cheneys god. OIL.
They don't care who they have to destroy to get it. They have oil fever like the old gold miners had gold fever.
No more neocon leaders. Vote them out and keep them out.
Reply
-
-
0%
ybdogsct11 months, 3 weeks ago
The Obama campaign issued a memo to reporters, 'Obama Leading on Foreign Policy, McCain Following':
There are two problems with John McCain's political attacks on Barack Obama's foreign policy. First, Barack Obama made the right judgment and John McCain has sided with George Bush in making the wrong one [in starting the Iraq War in the first place]. Second, the failure of the McCain-Bush foreign policy has forced John McCain to change his position, and to embrace the very same Obama approaches that he once attacked.
Just this week, Senator McCain has been forced by events to switch to Barack Obama's position on two fundamental issues: more troops in Afghanistan, and more diplomacy with Iran.
The next shift appears to be Iraq. For months, Senator McCain has called any plan to redeploy our troops from Iraq 'surrender.' Now, Bush is embracing the negotiation of troop withdrawals with the Iraqi government - a position that Senator Obama called for last September."
Reply -
-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 3 weeks ago
I am pretty certain Obama will be receiving accolades through this entire trip that the McCain campaign goaded him into doing. Those outside the U.S. see without the colored lenses of American tainted reporting and political predisposition.
All I can say is if you like the last 8 years, if your doing better than 8 years ago, vote McCain. If not vote Obama.
Seems like a no-brainer.
Reply -
-
0%
JoseMadre11 months, 2 weeks ago
He doesn't have to. al-Maliki's satements were mistranslted:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_maliki_obama_dc
Reply
-
-
-
-
ML2007Comment removed: User banned.
-
0%
LumFan11 months, 2 weeks ago
Hey, ybdogsct, thanks for the heads-up on this article.
All I can say about this latest slip-up from the Bush administration: "Oops!"
And I agree, ML2007. This is one time that I think that the Bushies did something right. Does not make up for the last seven years, but it's a start.
Reply -
-
0%
sinophil4911 months, 2 weeks ago
N2N - Hey!? Who's that tall, blonde guy? What's he doing here in Abu Ghraib?
Reply
-
-
0%
CHAM11 months, 2 weeks ago
Just more justification to retire McCain, his boss, the co-conspirator, and the evil men behind the scene. Time for change McBush, and its too late to change your fumble.
Good can win over evil.
Reply -
-
-
0%
CRYMTYPHON11 months, 2 weeks ago
The question is not what will happen to the luckless aide*;
I am wondering what will happen to Maliki?
We got rid of the last troublesome Iraqi leader who turned against his former friends.
We can show Maliki who is the real boss if we have to.
Or just want to.
__________...
*ok, if you happen to be this guy,
then what happens to you is probably
more important.
Tough.
Reply-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE11 months, 2 weeks ago
I can picture George saying this with his two hands extended out with his palms in...Picture John Stewart imitating him:
"Now here's the plan, you see"..>We get a couple of dozen men in Iranian uniforms to sneak into the compound, you see."
"They have guns, of course...ya see where I'm goin with this"?
"now they shoot this Maliki guy, but before they do they make sure the windows are open and they shout something in Iranian so the people outside can hear them..you see??"
"But then, this is how we (snicker) kill two Arabs with one stone.."
"Get it??"...
"We can get this traitor out, after all we've done for him,
put another one of our guys in and he can attack Iran"..
"he he he"!!
Reply -
0%
cushi11 months, 2 weeks ago
Just posted my thoughts on that as a response to Alpha above. Check it out when you get a chance.
Reply
-
-
-
-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
-
-
-
0%
Klarissa11 months, 2 weeks ago
McCain doesn't have to do anything. Obama's has put his foot in his mouth.
He will now have to come up with a specific plan, platoon by platoon, and determine what order to close the bases, and pretend like he doesn't know that Iran and Al queida are massed on the border just waiting.
Gas prices will go sky high, not because we get oil from Iraq, but because they will all be fight over it, and the supply will drop.
Reply-
0%
CHAM11 months, 2 weeks ago
Don't worry about it Klarissa. Merriot is going to build a 5 Star Hotel in the Green Zone. You know the bunch that brought us Iraq is going to create a new country in the middle of Baghdad, Declare Democracy, kill any Iraqi that objects, use that new country to start a new war with Iran and they will do it because they know they have some people in Ameica that will still vote for them.
Another 4000 American soldiers will die, another million will die in Iran, Democracy will also be declared there as the powerful few steal the resources.
Then they will all gather around with Hagee and Parsley and praise God for the land and resources he gave them. They won't worry because they won't ever be in harms way and the American Taxpayer will have another load of debt piled on them. Gas, Groceries, Utilities, and everything except wages will go up and there will still be people out there who will vote for them.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct11 months, 2 weeks ago
KLARISSA:
"McCain doesn't have to do anything. Obama's has put his foot in his mouth."
Guess again. Obama has demonstrated an uncanny ability to be right again and again. Obama was right in 2002 when he said we shouldn't start a war against Iraq in the first place. Now, Obama is right about establishing timelines for eventual troop redeployment - a plan Nouri al-Maliki promotes, a plan Bush has finally agreed to, and a plan McCain has flip-flopped to support.
KLARISSA:
"He will now have to come up with a specific plan"
Obama won't have to do that until after the election, when he grants Nouri al-Maliki's wish to sit and discuss a proposed timeline for troop redeployment.
KLARISSA:
"Gas prices will go sky high"
Gas prices are already sky high. Where have you been the last few weeks and why don't I see you pointing that same judgmental finger at Bush?
LOL.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct11 months, 2 weeks ago
MCCAIN'S FIRST FLIP-FLOP ON TIMETABLES:
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/05/15/...
"A crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years. 'Maybe 100,' McCain replied."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/politics/1...
"Senator John McCain declared on Thursday that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013. The remarks offered no proposals for how he would achieve that vision.
During his primary battle, Mr. McCain accused his rival Mitt Romney of setting a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq, even though Mr. Romney was merely speaking generally about timetables that might be set in private discussions among Iraqi and American leaders. Since then, Mr. McCain himself has come under repeated fire for offhand comments that he could envision a United States peacekeeping presence in Iraq for 100 years."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct11 months, 2 weeks ago
MCCAIN'S SECOND FLIP-FLOP ON TIMETABLES:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/0...
"QUESTIONER: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if a sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?
MCCAIN: I think it's obvious that we would have to leave. I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people."
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/02/27/mcca...
"'If we do what Senator Obama wants to do, and that's immediate withdrawal, that would mean surrender in Iraq. So I guess that means he would surrender and then go back,' McCain said."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct11 months, 2 weeks ago
MCCAIN'S THIRD FLIP-FLOP ON TIMETABLES:
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/mccain/2008/...
"For Obama to talk about dates for withdrawal, which basically is surrender in Iraq, I think, really inexcusable," said McCain.
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/0...
"When we withdraw, we will withdraw with honor and victory. An honorable and victorious withdrawal would not be possible if Senator Obama's views had prevailed."
Reply -
-
-
0%
AntiNeoCon11 months, 2 weeks ago
One of their officials on C-Span said sometime ago that conditions would improve in Iraq if we would just leave.
I guess King George is a bit slow on the uptake...or just don't want to leave all that oil to the Iraq leaders instead of his buds.
Reply -
-
100%
RCHIII11 months, 2 weeks ago
Barak Obama 2002..
"I don't oppose all wars."
"After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administrations pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again."
"I don't oppose all wars."
"And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism."
"What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perles and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."
Reply-
100%
RCHIII11 months, 2 weeks ago
Obama 2002 continued...
"I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Queda."
Basically, he was dead right. And he's right now!
Reply -
0%
RCHIII11 months, 2 weeks ago
And more Obama 2002...
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Queda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."
Yup, dead right.
Reply
-
-
0%
mmrhe11 months, 2 weeks ago
The real reason for the establishment of military bases in Iraq is to watch over our interests there.
Interests as in what Big Oil wants to do.
If only the world were as simple now as it was before when we could install who we wanted as leader like the Shah of Iran.
Then MAYBE we could get away with such shenanigans but the world is wise to our corporate amorality and these bases will do more harm than good.
So if this was the ultimate goal of this pathetic administration then they have ultimately failed.
Reply-
0%
saneman11 months, 2 weeks ago
Yeah, and then you see a country like Iceland which is years ahead of the U.S. Within the next 1 1/2 to 2 years, Iceland will be totally off oil. They will be totally converted to hydrogen fuel. For the last 10 years, all city buses in Iceland have been operating on hydrogen fuel.
Reply -
0%
raza911 months, 2 weeks ago
"The real reason for the establishment of military bases in Iraq is to watch over our interests there."
"We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there," Obama said. He went on to speak against any desire to hold permanent military bases in Iraq, but followed by saying that he would leave in place a residual force of undetermined size behind to "perform limited missions" like going after remnants of al-Qaida and training Iraqi forces.
Despite claims of wanting to withdraw troops and not keep a presence, he immediately contradicts himself with the above statement.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25676250
Reply
-
-
0%
agrovertic11 months, 2 weeks ago
I've follow this issue for a weeks and today i find out something new thanks for the info.
http://www.submiteaze.com/affiliate-join-progra...
Reply -
0%
breckandy11 months, 2 weeks ago
Pretty simple.
Like in Viet Nam
Just make it like we are turning over the job to the Iraqi troops over a period of a few months, declare success and get out. Then give the Nobel Peace prize to someone with dual citizenship with Israel.
Reply -
0%
Klarissa11 months, 2 weeks ago
So Obama goes around saying that he will bring the troops home in 16 months. dragging their tails behind them in defeat.
Then the hordes on the border, waiting patiently, not expending people or arms, can march right in.
If this is how Obama sits down and talks, does he negotiate? or does he just do his diplomacy by standing up and preaching to whatever country he is in. Then gives them whatever they ask for.
He doesn't need a state department to lay the ground work - he will just proclaim.
Reply-
0%
GWHayduke11 months, 2 weeks ago
-"He doesn't need a state department to lay the ground work - he will just proclaim"-
Havent you been paying attention for the past 5 years Klarissa?
The absolute, complete unmittigated failure that is the occupation of Iraq is a result of a lack of diplomatic support from the US State department and a Condi Rice bumbling of epic proportions.
The military has limited means of defeating a constantly morphing guerilla army. Commanders have expressed their limited ability to resolutely win without diplomatic efforts. WHERE ARE THEY?!?!?!?!
The only success that will result will be a diplomatic success which Obama has urged since before "Mishun Ackomplished" and even before the invasion.
Reply -
0%
BillieMaxer11 months, 2 weeks ago
You will find out shortly, just a few more months and he will then show you how he will do it. No need to worry yourself.
Reply
-
-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE11 months, 2 weeks ago
Your wasting your time on blind idiots who only see what they want.
Here are some beauties from them AND Rush Limbaugh.
1) Hitler was a Socialist
2) poor people are poor by choice
3) the price of a barrel of oil does not effect gas prices (Rush, Sept. 2007)
4) oil companies aren't making any more profit with high gas prices than they were before
(they forgot to mention the $5billion in dividends, stock redistribution and bonuses to executives)
5) The war in Iraq saves us from fighting them here, even though we bragged about chasing them out of Iraq and don't know where they went!
6) "we still have troops in Europe and Korea, those wars aren't over either".
Hey geniuses: How many troops have died in those countries in the last 20 years?
There are dozens more, like making fun of Michael J. Fox and of course the long, long, long list of why John McCain should never be elected..Hey, it's THEIR words!
(they say we get our news from comedy shows)
THEY write it for us!
Reply -
-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE11 months, 2 weeks ago
yep..and Libsrfunny's response??
"Now for the first time some idiot liberals (name calling again, due to lack of sense of humor) fell for some false info."
here's my response:
What were the misquotes? It is not false content.
Try to get past your A-D-D and read the entire article and the entire comments... Your smoke (saying it was mis-interpreted)still puts the burden on the writer to answer what was mis-interpreted...
Name one quote that was quoted and interpreted wrong and then properly re-interpreted..NAME ONE.. You're making the claim!...NAME ONE...(as you disappear from this discussion in shame, once again)
Reply
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.