Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Maliki's 'Timetable' Shakes Iraq Debate

By Ray McGovern
July 16, 2008

What I find nonetheless amazing is how they, and the pundits, have taken such little notice of the dramatic change in the political landscape occasioned by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s bombshell on July 7 — his insistence on a “timetable” for withdrawal of U.S. troops before any accord is reached on their staying past the turn of the year.

Read on.

3 comments:

fact checker said...

Please tell me who … just who is likely to turn on the siren, pull them over, and give them a ticket?

Well, first of all, there are only so many people in a position to issue a ticket that would stick.

But, I won't hold my breath for Obama to take a strong, committed stand, since he continues to
recalibrate his words about Israel as he panders for votes.

We don't even know what Obama's true views are. He's a chamelon, with well-honed oratory skills. He's adroit at hiding his views behind bromides written by David Axelrod -- including recycled bromides (such as the ones written for Deval Patrick...but that's another subject).

Anonymous said...

The problem isn’t only McCain and Obama, the peace movement is paying no attention to the details of what’s happening in Iraq. No attempt to cheer Maliki (the peace movement no exception). Americans are fixated that al Sadr is a fanatic, not a shrewd reasonable politician. Al Sadr worries about the US possibly attacking Iran. So the Bush administration constantly threatens Iran to encourage al Sadr to back down a little.
And as far as Israel is concerned, overwhelmingly only those who see Israel as a close to an omnipresent octopus, pay attention to what Israel is doing. I guess I don’t dare suggest overwhelmingly only anti-Semites are paying attention to what Israel is doing.

When the Sunni’s outed al Qaeda strongman Zarqawia to the CIA, Bush offered peace talks. But so many Sunni’s had died in the battle for Fuluja, after the last time al-Jeelani had agreed to a cease-fire that he demanded the release of thousands of detainees as a good will gesture. None, of the few in the US who noted the offer and response, pointed out why al-Jeelani would be reluctant to agree again to a cease-fire or non pre-conditional peace talks.

The entire US (peace movement included) is acting like the Three Stooges, and no Iraqi regardless of political or ethnic stripes can trust any one of us.

But al Sadr is intelligent, shrew and reasonable. If we start cheering him, he might have more power to end this disaster.

Meanwhile the bin Laden wing of al Qaeda is using the US in its efforts to persuade or force moderate Muslims to become militant. So the peace movement claiming al Qaeda is largely CIA hype is part of the problem. I hope Oboma is more intelligent them the rest of us Three Stooges, regardless of our politics, who are screwing everything up.

RichardKanePA

Jemez said...

I have long suspected that the Bush Admin would find a way to play their 'national security' trump card to win the election, then position McCain in front of the cameras to look Commander in Chief-like. Of course, a lot of Americans are realizing that the military stance is making things worse, but after the GOP has stolen the election, the Repubs will be able to point to whatever "national security emergency" it came up with to explain why McCain "won," even if he was behind in all the polls. (I think this is the same idea behind the gay marriage, abortion, etc wedge issue fusses they bring into the election debate - they can explain their "wins" as being due to the American people's being swayed by these matters, while the real reason is usually because the races are stolen.)

People like those in the White House will not give up power without doing everything they can to keep it. It's one of the lessons of history. The tyrants of the world don't just stand aside and peacefully pass the baton. Since they have to keep elections in the calendar or risk rebellion, they manipulate the whole process. The American people themselves DON'T choose the Democratic candidate - the Right Wing, with the help of the media, does. They got rid of their biggest threat - Edwards - by having the media ignore him to death. In all kinds of straw polls across the country, Edwards swept the field as the preferred candidate. So many people claim to be former Edwards supporters that I suspect he would have had no problem becoming the candidate had the media given him decent coverage. But the GOP had to get rid of him, so from the beginning the attention was mostly on Clinton and Obama so they would wind up with the two candidates they figured they could most easily beat, the despised (by Republicans) Hillary, and the black guy. They are counting on all the Americans who will never vote for either a woman or a black as president. Just one more "reason" the Democrat will lose.

In a Mike Malloy interview on Air America, Mark Crispin Miller, who wrote books detailing how the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen, said we would be "lucky" if the Republicans stole the election this time, because if they could not and the Democrat won anyway, the Republicans would "do something else" to stay in power. A good dose of fear might be just the ticket. Expect it.