PDA

View Full Version : Religion Bush close on specific timetable deal for Iraq Withdrawl


Taco John
08-07-2008, 03:15 PM
Iraqis: Deal close on plan for US troops to leave

BAGHDAD - Iraq and the U.S. are near an agreement on all American combat troops leaving Iraq by October 2010, with the last soldiers out three years after that, two Iraqi officials told The Associated Press on Thursday. U.S. officials, however, insisted no dates had been agreed.

The proposed agreement calls for Americans to hand over parts of Baghdad's Green Zone — where the U.S. Embassy is located — to the Iraqis by the end of 2008. It would also remove U.S. forces from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, according to the two senior officials, both close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and familiar with the negotiations.

The officials, who spoke separately on condition of anonymity because the talks are ongoing, said all U.S. combat troops would leave Iraq by October 2010, with the remaining support personnel gone "around 2013." The schedule could be amended if both sides agree — a face-saving escape clause that would extend the presence of U.S. forces if security conditions warrant it.

U.S. acceptance — even tentatively — of a specific timeline would represent a dramatic reversal of American policy in place since the war began in March 2003.

Both Iraqi and American officials agreed that the deal is not final and that a major unresolved issue is the U.S. demand for immunity for U.S. soldiers from prosecution under Iraqi law.

Throughout the conflict, President Bush steadfastly refused to accept any timetable for bringing U.S. troops home. Last month, however, Bush and al-Maliki agreed to set a "general time horizon" for ending the U.S. mission.

Bush's shift to a timeline was seen as a move to speed agreement on a security pact governing the U.S. military presence in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

Iraq's Shiite-led government has been holding firm for some sort of withdrawal schedule — a move the Iraqis said was essential to win parliamentary approval.

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad declined to comment on details of the talks. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nangtongo said the negotiations were taking place "in a constructive spirit" based on respect for Iraqi sovereignty.

In Washington, U.S. officials acknowledged that some progress has been made on the timelines for troop withdrawals but that the immunity issue remained a huge problem. One senior U.S. official close to the discussion said no dates have been agreed upon.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because the negotiations have not been finished.

But the Iraqis insisted the dates had been settled preliminarily between the two sides, although they acknowledged that nothing is final until the entire negotiations have been completed.

One Iraqi official said persuading the Americans to accept a timetable was a "key achievement" of the talks and that the government would seek parliamentary ratification as soon as the deal is signed.

But differences over immunity could scuttle the whole deal, the Iraqis said. One of the officials described immunity as a "minefield" and said each side was sticking by its position.

One official said U.S. negotiator David Satterfield told him that immunity for soldiers was a "red line" for the United States. The official said he replied that issue was "a red line for us too."

The official said the Iraqis were willing to grant immunity for actions committed on American bases and during combat operations — but not a blanket exemption from Iraqi law.

The Iraqis also want American forces hand over any Iraqi they detain. The U.S. insists that detainees must be "ready" for handover, which the Iraqi officials assume means the Americans want to interrogate them first.

As the talks drag on, American officials said the Bush administration is losing patience with the Iraqis over the negotiations, which both sides had hoped to wrap up by the end of July.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and al-Maliki had a long and "very difficult" phone conversation about the situation on Wednesday during which she pressed the Iraqi leader for more flexibility particularly on immunity, one U.S. senior official said.

"The sovereignty issue is very big for the Iraqis and we understand that. But we are losing patience," the official said. "The process needs to get moving and get moving quickly."

The official could not say how long the call lasted but said it was "not brief" and "tense at times."

In London, Britain's defense ministry said it is also in talks with Iraq's government over the role of British troops after the U.N. mandate runs out. Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently said that early next year Britain will reduce its troops in Iraq, now at about 4,100, and that Britain's role in the country will change fundamentally.

Iraq's position in the U.S. talks hardened after a series of Iraqi military successes against Shiite and Sunni extremists in Basra, Baghdad, Mosul and other major cities and after the rise in world oil prices flooded the country with petrodollars.

As the government's confidence rose, Iraqi officials believed they were in a strong negotiating position — especially with the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, pledging to remove all combat forces within his first 16 months in office if security conditions allow.

Standing firm against the Americans also enhances al-Maliki's nationalist credentials, enabling him to appeal for support from Iraqis long opposed to the U.S. presence.

On Thursday, a spokesman for Muqtada al-Sadr said the Shiite cleric will call on his fighters to maintain a cease-fire against American troops — but may lift the order if the security agreement fails to contain a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal.

The statement by Sheik Salah al-Obeidi came as al-Sadr planned to spell out details of a formula to reorganize his Mahdi Army militia by separating it into an unarmed cultural organization and elite fighting cells.

The announcement is expected during weekly Islamic prayer services on Friday.

"This move is meant to offer an incentive for the foreign forces to withdraw," al-Obeidi said. "The special cells of fighters will not strike against foreign forces until the situation becomes clear vis-a-vis the Iraq-U.S. agreement on the presence of American forces here."

Several cease-fires by al-Sadr have been key to a sharp decline in violence over the past year. But American officials still consider his militiamen a threat and have backed the Iraqi military in operations to try to oust them from their power bases in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080807/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_bases;_ylt=AitHYdISVlE2xodPE0Vdwp934T0D

penchief
08-07-2008, 03:20 PM
WooHoo!

dirk digler
08-07-2008, 03:28 PM
Looks like Obama wins and was correct all along. Sorry old man McCain.

KC Fish
08-07-2008, 03:29 PM
This is good news for everyone. Party affiliations aside.

Bring the boys home safe.

Direckshun
08-07-2008, 03:30 PM
Merely leaving behind a newly-built American embassy the size of the Vatican.

noa
08-07-2008, 03:31 PM
Merely leaving behind a newly-built American embassy the size of the Vatican.

Sadly, that was inevitable from day one of the invasion.

mlyonsd
08-07-2008, 03:32 PM
Looks like Obama wins and was correct all along. Sorry old man McCain.

Actually it looks like Bush and patteeu were right all along and most planeteers and all dems in Congress were wrong.

HolmeZz
08-07-2008, 03:33 PM
Actually it looks like Bush and patteeu were right all along and most planeteers and all dems in Congress were wrong.

hilarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrious

mlyonsd
08-07-2008, 03:35 PM
hilarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrious

You're right, I forgot about Lieberman.

HolmeZz
08-07-2008, 03:37 PM
You're right, I forgot about Lieberman.

I'm pretty sure all those people said that a specific timetable for withdrawal was disastrous because it would tell our enemies when we're leaving.

dirk digler
08-07-2008, 03:40 PM
Actually it looks like Bush and patteeu were right all along and most planeteers and all dems in Congress were wrong.

LMAO

That is hilarious. This was Obama's plan all along. Nice spin there mylonsd.

mlyonsd
08-07-2008, 03:41 PM
I'm pretty sure all those people said that a specific timetable for withdrawal was disastrous because it would tell our enemies when we're leaving.

I'm pretty sure they said until the Iraqi's could defend themselves a timetable for withdrawl would be disastrous. Those people you talk about always deferred to conditions on the ground.

The dems I'm talking about were the ones that wanted out ASAP with no care given to the stability of the country. You know, the ones that hoodwinked the public into giving them back congress but really had no intention of ending the war because they thought it would be a winning issue for them in 2008. Kind of ironic how that worked out.

mlyonsd
08-07-2008, 03:42 PM
LMAO

That is hilarious. This was Obama's plan all along. Nice spin there mylonsd.

Not hardly.

Sully
08-07-2008, 03:42 PM
Great news. If this comes to fruition, I don't care what party does it, I just want to celebrate a good move.

SBK
08-07-2008, 03:43 PM
I'm pretty sure they said until the Iraqi's could defend themselves a timetable for withdrawl would be disastrous. Those people you talk about always deferred to conditions on the ground.

The dems I'm talking about were the ones that wanted out ASAP with no care given to the stability of the country. You know, the ones that hoodwinked the public into giving them back congress but really had no intention of ending the war because they thought it would be a winning issue for them in 2008. Kind of ironic how that worked out.

Do not interrupt worship services at the church of Obama.

HolmeZz
08-07-2008, 03:52 PM
I'm pretty sure they said until the Iraqi's could defend themselves a timetable for withdrawl would be disastrous.

Nice attempt to revise history.

Unfortunately for you the likes of Bush, patteeu, and Lieberman have been criticizing the idea of a withdrawal even recently. I guess it was in just the past week that the Iraqis were finally determined to be capable enough to defend themselves. LMAO

Garcia Bronco
08-07-2008, 03:59 PM
Looks like Obama wins and was correct all along. Sorry old man McCain.


I don't know where you'd get that impression boogie nights. It actually removes this as a campaign issue that Obama or McCain can work with.

Garcia Bronco
08-07-2008, 04:00 PM
I'm pretty sure they said until the Iraqi's could defend themselves a timetable for withdrawl would be disastrous. Those people you talk about always deferred to conditions on the ground.

The dems I'm talking about were the ones that wanted out ASAP with no care given to the stability of the country. You know, the ones that hoodwinked the public into giving them back congress but really had no intention of ending the war because they thought it would be a winning issue for them in 2008. Kind of ironic how that worked out.


This is correct. It looks like the dumbest President we've ever had has yet again owned the Democrats and John McCain.

little jacob
08-07-2008, 04:05 PM
More proof of the success of the surge and in a larger sense, of General Petraeus.

It will be fantastic if, only a year and a couple months after Reid and the congressional Dems declared the surge a failure and "the war is lost", we begin the withdraw plan with Iraq starting to stand up on its own.

Turns out that leaving when the situation warrants looks a lot better than leaving as soon as the choppers can be gassed up.

I really wish Iraq the best for the sake of the people there. They are going to have a lot of challenges and there are many, many in the world who either overtly or secretly wish failure on them in raising their new state. As a people they have been through much. I hope that now as we begin to finish our last objectives there that they can become a peaceful and prosperous beacon in that part of the world.

Garcia Bronco
08-07-2008, 04:07 PM
More proof of the success of the surge and in a larger sense, of General Petraeus.

It will be fantastic if, only a year and a couple months after Reid and the congressional Dems declared the surge a failure and "the war is lost", we begin the withdraw plan with Iraq starting to stand up on its own.

Turns out that leaving when the situation warrants looks a lot better than leaving as soon as the choppers can be gassed up.

I really wish Iraq the best for the sake of the people there. They are going to have a lot of challenges and there are many, many in the world who either overtly or secretly wish failure on them in raising their new state. As a people they have been through much. I hope that now as we begin to finish our last objectives there that they can become a peaceful and prosperous beacon in that part of the world.

Amen. I hope they push forward and don't have to live under the conditions they've lived for the past 3 decades.

bunnytrdr
08-07-2008, 04:19 PM
I'm pretty sure all those people said that a specific timetable for withdrawal was disastrous because it would tell our enemies when we're leaving.
One thing changed between then and now, we won the fuggin war.

Garcia Bronco
08-07-2008, 04:26 PM
One thing changed between then and now, we won the fuggin war.

Exactly. People will actually claim that we didn't win and the other team decided to quit fighting. For the love of Michael, that's what winning is. Making the other team quit.

VAChief
08-07-2008, 04:39 PM
Merely leaving behind a newly-built American embassy the size of the Vatican.

Who got the contracts for that construction?

bishop_74
08-07-2008, 04:40 PM
Who got the contracts for that construction?

Haliburton.

Taco John
08-07-2008, 04:44 PM
Actually it looks like Bush and patteeu were right all along and most planeteers and all dems in Congress were wrong.



I'll take this bit of revisionist history if it will get us out of Iraq.

Ultra Peanut
08-07-2008, 04:52 PM
WE CAN'T CUT AND RUN YOU PANSY

Exactly. People will actually claim that we didn't win and the other team decided to quit fighting. For the love of Michael, that's what winning is. Making the other team quit.There hasn't BEEN an "other team" in ages. We've been sitting in the middle of a sectarian shitfest.

We won the military battle, we've bribed the insurgency away to a reasonable degree, and it's too late to undo the ethnic cleansing. Time to get the **** out and pray the Iraqis can fix the mess we caused (they won't, but we can cross our fingers).

Donger
08-07-2008, 04:53 PM
Haliburton.

ROFL

They just do everything, don't they?

markk
08-07-2008, 04:57 PM
Once the war is over, I wonder how the Democrats will try to take credit for it?

But I guess they never really opposed the war, after all they almost all voted for it and continued to approve each and every funding measure, and even after they took Congress after campaigning on ending the war did nothing about it because they thought it would be a valuable wedge issue in 2008.

Garcia Bronco
08-07-2008, 04:57 PM
WE CAN'T CUT AND RUN YOU PANSY

There hasn't BEEN an "other team" in ages. We've been sitting in the middle of a sectarian shitfest.

We won the military battle, we've bribed the insurgency away to a reasonable degree, and it's too late to undo the ethnic cleansing. Time to get the **** out and pray the Iraqis can fix the mess we caused (they won't, but we can cross our fingers).

The insurgents regardless of their faction are the "other team" keeping us from accomplishing our goals. Face it. We've won.

beer bacon
08-07-2008, 06:03 PM
What exactly did we win?

KC Fish
08-07-2008, 06:07 PM
http://whatthe.blogetery.com/files/2008/05/mission-accom.jpg

Think they'll use the same banner?

beer bacon
08-07-2008, 06:10 PM
Are we more secure because of the war?
Is the Middle East less hostile towards to the United States because of the war?
Are we more influential at a global level because of the war?
Are our armed forces more capable then before the war?
Are we richer because of the war?
Is oil cheaper because of the war?
Is the region less volatile because of the war?
Are we safer from WMDs because of the war?

little jacob
08-07-2008, 06:12 PM
What exactly did we win?

We removed Saddam Hussein and set up a new state in his place. We and the free Iraq are the winning side. Hussein, the insurgent elements, and Al Queda are the losing side. We accomplished our objectives, they did not.

irishjayhawk
08-07-2008, 06:13 PM
We removed Saddam Hussein and set up a new state in his place. We and the free Iraq are the winning side. Hussein, the insurgent elements, and Al Queda are the losing side. We accomplished our objectives, they did not.

If only it was that simple. :rolleyes:

little jacob
08-07-2008, 06:16 PM
If only it was that simple. :rolleyes:

It's open to debate whether it was worth the effort. But it's ludicrous to say the US did not win if we substantially accomplished the objectives we set for ourselves and left on our terms.

irishjayhawk
08-07-2008, 06:23 PM
It's open to debate whether it was worth the effort. But it's ludicrous to say the US did not win if we substantially accomplished the objectives we set for ourselves and left on our terms.

:rolleyes:

We're defining "winning" based on the objectives we set? Isn't that kind of, you know, convenient?

That way of thinking fails on so many levels it's hilariously sad.

irishjayhawk
08-07-2008, 06:24 PM
For as many times as patteeu and the ilk said that a timetable - regardless of kind - isn't the right course of action pretty much ever, it's amazing that we have people performing mental gymnastics to put him on the "correct" side of this development.

HolmeZz
08-07-2008, 07:41 PM
One thing changed between then and now, we won the fuggin war.

Oh? And when exactly did that occur? The idea of a timetable has been getting criticized by this administration and McCain's campaign very recently.

SHTSPRAYER
08-07-2008, 07:56 PM
Are we more secure in spite of the democrats?
Is the Middle East less hostile towards to the United States in spite of democrats?
Are we more influential at a global level in spite of the democrats?
Are our armed forces more capable in spite of democrats?
Are we richer in spite of democrats?
Is oil cheaper in spite of democrats?
Is the region less volatile in spite of democrats?
Are we safer from WMDs in spite of democrats?


Yes, absolutely.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-07-2008, 10:09 PM
Were headed for an almost certain depression but hey mission accomplished, hopefully we can find another country to buy our debt.

beer bacon
08-07-2008, 10:25 PM
Were headed for an almost certain depression but hey mission accomplished, hopefully we can find another country to buy our debt.

We just need to raid Iraq's treasury. Apparently, they have 80 billion saved up.

ROYC75
08-07-2008, 10:59 PM
We just need to raid Iraq's treasury. Apparently, they have 80 billion saved up.

They owe us, BIG TIME. Our debt is in the trillions ......... Give us cash and cheap oil, like 1972 prices per barrel, and lots of it until debt paid is paid in full.



The sad part, IMHO, I feel we will have to go back within 5 - 10 years after leaving to help reinforce what was implemented.

Taco John
08-07-2008, 11:37 PM
We removed Saddam Hussein and set up a new state in his place. We and the free Iraq are the winning side. Hussein, the insurgent elements, and Al Queda are the losing side. We accomplished our objectives, they did not.

We delivered Iraq to the Iranian Al Dawa party, and we did it on the American dime. Let's celebrate!

Ari Chi3fs
08-07-2008, 11:42 PM
Are we more secure because of the war?
NO
Is the Middle East less hostile towards to the United States because of the war?
NO
Are we more influential at a global level because of the war?
NO
Are our armed forces more capable then before the war?
NO
Are we richer because of the war?
hahaha uh, NO.
Is oil cheaper because of the war?
BWHAHA NO.
Is the region less volatile because of the war?
uh, NO.
Are we safer from WMDs because of the war?
No.

SBK
08-08-2008, 12:06 AM
Are we more secure because of the war?
NO
Is the Middle East less hostile towards to the United States because of the war?
NO
Are we more influential at a global level because of the war?
NO
Are our armed forces more capable then before the war?
NO
Are we richer because of the war?
hahaha uh, NO.
Is oil cheaper because of the war?
BWHAHA NO.
Is the region less volatile because of the war?
uh, NO.
Are we safer from WMDs because of the war?
No.

Would liberals admit it even if they thought we were?
No :D

Taco John
08-08-2008, 12:09 AM
Would liberals admit it even if they thought we were?
No :D



Seems like a two way street. Bush is capitulating to a specific deadline, and we have dopes in here telling us this is what Bush and patteeu were telling us the whole time. Apparently, it's only victory when it's your side finally packing it in.

irishjayhawk
08-08-2008, 12:10 AM
Would liberals admit it even if they thought we were?
No :D

I'm not a liberal, but I definitely would.

Unfortunately, the answers to those questions are a resounding no and to disagree would be to stick said person's head in the sand even further.

SBK
08-08-2008, 12:16 AM
Seems like a two way street. Bush is capitulating to a specific deadline, and we have dopes in here telling us this is what Bush and patteeu were telling us the whole time. Apparently, it's only victory when it's your side finally packing it in.

I think there's a big difference between having the Iraqi's agree when we can leave, and pulling out unconditionally on our own. But what do I know?

HolmeZz
08-08-2008, 12:29 AM
I think there's a big difference between having the Iraqi's agree when we can leave, and pulling out unconditionally on our own. But what do I know?

We went in on our own.

I take it you think all criticism of Obama's plan has been unwarranted then?

irishjayhawk
08-08-2008, 12:32 AM
We went in on our own.

I take it you think all criticism of Obama's plan has been unwarranted then?

The ignoring of the bolded statement by the pro-war crowd with respect to leaving is one of my bigger beefs with their argument.

It baffles me.

SBK
08-08-2008, 12:40 AM
We went in on our own.

I take it you think all criticism of Obama's plan has been unwarranted then?

Not at all. People are tying to spin this story as an Obamaesque surrender/pullout when it's not that at all.

irishjayhawk
08-08-2008, 12:45 AM
Not at all. People are tying to spin this story as an Obamaesque surrender/pullout when it's not that at all.

I see it more as Bush caving into a pull out after being against it for a VERY, VERY long time.

In fact, I think a strong case can be made that this is an attempt - well obviously - to help McCain by taking it off the table. Essentially, he's giving the Republican party the opportunity to say "Look we got Obama's plan done before him hahahhahahaah".

Taco John
08-08-2008, 02:37 AM
I think there's a big difference between having the Iraqi's agree when we can leave, and pulling out unconditionally on our own. But what do I know?



The Iraqis have been asking us to leave since 2005. The difference now is that it is politically unviable for us to stay indefinitely. Just last month, we were negotiating an agreement that would have kept us there for at least another decade. What changed?

Ultra Peanut
08-08-2008, 04:36 AM
What exactly did we win?A brand new car!!!!!!

tiptap
08-08-2008, 06:51 AM
600 billion dollars, 5,000 American lives, 50,000 Iraqi collateral deaths, I am glad to get out of this bad situation.

A DEAR PRICE FOR SO LITTLE GAIN.

mlyonsd
08-08-2008, 08:43 AM
Seems like a two way street. Bush is capitulating to a specific deadline, and we have dopes in here telling us this is what Bush and patteeu were telling us the whole time. Apparently, it's only victory when it's your side finally packing it in.

I'll wear being called a dope by the likes of you as a badge of honor.