NPR's Kelemen reported McCain's response to Maliki's call for withdrawal timetable, but not McCain's 2004 assertion that "it's obvious" the U.S. "would have to leave" if Iraq requested it
SUMMARY: NPR's Michele Kelemen reported that Sen. John McCain "suggested in an interview with MSNBC that the Iraqi calls for a troop withdrawal date may be driven by politics in Baghdad," and quoted McCain as saying, "The Iraqis have made it very clear, including the meetings I had with the president and foreign minister of Iraq, that it's based on conditions on the ground. [...] I've always said we will come home with honor and with victory and not through a set timetable." But Kelemen did not note that in 2004, when asked what the United States would do if the "Iraqi government asks us to leave," McCain responded, "I think it's obvious that we would have to leave."
On the July 9 edition of National Public Radio's Morning Edition, diplomatic correspondent Michele Kelemen reported that Sen. John McCain "suggested in an interview with MSNBC that the Iraqi calls for a troop withdrawal date may be driven by politics in Baghdad, where Prime Minister [Nouri al-] Maliki is facing a lot of skepticism about the status of forces agreement." Kelemen was referring to recent reported statements by Maliki and Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie suggesting that a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces could be a requirement for any status of forces agreement between the countries. Kelemen then aired the following statements McCain made on the July 8 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe: "The Iraqis have made it very clear, including the meetings I had with the president and foreign minister of Iraq that it is based on conditions on the ground. [...] I've always said we will come home with honor and with victory and not through a set timetable." But Kelemen did not note that in 2004, when asked what the United States would do if the "Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there," McCain responded, "I think it's obvious that we would have to leave."
During an April 22, 2004, appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations, McCain had the following exchange with then-council chairman and moderator Peter G. Peterson:
PETERSON: We're now ready for questions. Please wait for the microphone, identify yourself, keep your questions to the point, if you would, and try to remember we have only one speaker here, speaker McCain. Our distinguished new head of the Washington office asked me to kick off one or two, senator, and let me try.
Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it's a hypothetical, but it's at least possible.
McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because -- if it was an elected government of Iraq -- and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but 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.
PETERSON: A second and final question from me. As you know --
McCAIN: By the way, could I -- if we do it right, that's not going to happen, but we will be there militarily for a long, long, long time.
From the July 9 edition of NPR's Morning Edition:
KELEMAN: The Bush administration has been trying to negotiate a status of forces agreement with Iraq to make sure U.S. troops have the legal right to be there once a United Nations mandate ends late this year. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has now made clear the invitation won't be open-ended. His national security adviser told reporters that Iraq can't accept any agreement unless it has clear, exact date for a withdrawal of U.S. troops. That would be hard to swallow for the Bush administration, according to Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Service.
KATZMAN [audio clip]: That would be a very, very big journey for the administration to sign on to any type of firm timetable for withdrawal.
KELEMAN: The Bush administration argues that the U.S. drawdown should be based on conditions on the ground, not on a timetable that could allow insurgents to simply wait it out and regroup. State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos reinforced this view in his briefing yesterday.
GALLEGOS [audio clip]: We're looking at conditions, not calendars, here. We're making progress and are committed to departing, as evidenced by the fact that we have transferred over half of the county's provinces to provisional Iraqi control, and we're planning on removing the fifth and final surge brigade at the end of the month here, if things go according to plan.
KELEMAN: The Bush administration and Republican presidential hopeful John McCain have argued that the so-called "surge" has worked, but the progress is fragile so the U.S. can't rush out. McCain suggested in an interview with MSNBC that the Iraqi calls for a troop withdrawal date may be driven by politics in Baghdad, where Prime Minister Maliki is facing a lot of skepticism about the status of forces negotiations.
McCAIN [audio clip]: The Iraqis have made it very clear, including the meetings I had with the president and foreign minister of Iraq, that it's based on conditions on the ground. [...] I've always said we we'll come home with honor and with victory and not through a set timetable.
KELEMAN: Democrat Barack Obama, on the other hand, said it was encouraging to him to hear the Iraqis talk about the need to set out a time frame for the U.S. to pull out.
OBAMA [audio clip]: I think that Prime Minister Maliki's statement is consistent with my view about how a withdrawal should proceed and how a status of force agreement should not be structured without congressional input, and should not be rushed.
This whole thign is so stupid. The Goverment of Iraq now says it's ready to maintain the conutry on it's own. There has never been a better time to declare "MISSION ACCOPMLISHED" start bringing troops home, and start to cement our alliance with the new government that we help put in power. (Especially with Iran now doing daily missile tests.)
Instead, we insist on occupying them idefinitely, potentially making yet another enemy out of apotential ally, and practically writing Al Quaeda's propaganda for them.
This presidency cannot end quickly enough.
Eddie, we can't leave until we get the oil deals wrapped up. Did I say oil? Sorry, I meant Freedom Fuel.
I get you. But even there their being stupid. Our coporations have already been granted no-bid contract by the Iraqi government. Why jeoppadize that by trying to occupy them militarily? That only makes it more likely that our own investments will one day be nationalized by a new, radical nationlist governemtn elected by the people because WE REFUSED TO LEAVE.
And to any con's out there - ExxonMobil & co. DO NOT NEED the U.S. military to protect their investments. They've been doing business in the middle east FOREVER and they kow hwat they're doing.
This can only ewnd badly, unless Al Maliki is patient enough to wait for Obama, and war with Iran doesn't break out in the next few months.
"I've got this real moron thing I do... It's called THINKING! And I'm not a very good american because I like to form my own opinions!"
-George Carlin (1937-2008, RIP)
It is truly amazing how many different positions Sen. George McCain
is allowed to take.
Flip, meet Flop... Or maybe flip-flop is just the sound of Saint John McCain's angel wings fluttering. You know he was a... <spoken in hushed tones> POW.
Yesterday morning McCain was on CNN. Host Roberts was showing him a letter where McCain was requesting for earmark (The letter had the word earmark in too) and asking if McCain never asked for earmarks
McCain brazenly replied that the letter was not for an earmark even though anyone who could read English would know he was lying (not even being dishonest).
I have the actual give and take now.
"ROBERTS: Senator, on this issue of earmarks that you talk about frequently, you reiterated that you've never take an earmark. Can you clarify something? Back in 1992, you were trying to get $5 million for a wastewater treatment plans in Nogales. You tried to get it through Congress, they wouldn't put it through Congress, so you sent a letter to then-president George H.W. Bush, where you quote, "I would like to request that EPA either reprogram $5 million out of existing funds, or earmark the amount from an appropriate account, to meet the wastewater treatment needs at the Nogales plant." Was that an earmark?
MCCAIN: Of course, not. It was a request to have it put in the President's budget. And that's a very legitimate request that the administration will ask for. The definition of an earmark is a program that is put in, and money that is put in an unauthorized fashion in the middle of the night. So no, it's not that, and it's not the same."
Memo to all rightwingers:
President NumbNuts and Senator McSame both said that as Iraqi's stand up, we will stand down!
"If the Iraqi government asked us to leave, we will"
I seem to recall this being said by our grand ole leaders that this is the way to save America and keep her safe by creating a democracy......
Perhaps it isn't the greatest democracy we could have hoped for, but they seem to be one? They have asked us to leave?
So, do the Republicans do the right thing, or do they keep doing the same thing? Geez..... I wonder which one they will chose.....
Or..... perhaps a third posibility:
The oil/energy cabal will want to do what is good for their bottom line, even to the detriment of all else? This is likely to be the case!
I'm not sure that antagonizing the local's into (eventually) electing a more militant government that will (eventually) nationalize those assets IS in fact in the interests of Big Oil. No matter how you look at it, from any angle, now is the time to begin planing for withdrawal.
NOW is the time to say "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED."
Eddie, you think too much...
It's like I told my wife the other day: If using your brain burned calories I'd be thin as a rail.
LOL. Sorry, couldn't resist that little bit of self indulgence.
As long as Eddie is wearing a flag pin (which indicates to me patriotism)...
I'm willing to listen.
Barack Obama wears a flag pin at all times, even in the shower.
***WAIT...THIS JUST IN***
McCain has now modified his response to Maliki's call for withdrawal...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/09/mccain-spokesman-us-shoul_n_111691.html
What PM Maliki is essentially saying is that neither he nor his government is going to enter into any long-range commitments with the Bush administration: it has been this way for a while now, more than a year... no "oil revenue sharing law", no to several of the other Bush "benchmarks"... essentially NO to the Bush administration: PM Maliki and his government are waiting for the next administration of the U.S. Government, to reach any and all agreements, regarding any and all things.
It's been this way for a while now, and it's a good thing.
The American People probably feel as strong if not much stronger about this same thing, as does PM Maliki and his government: we don't want George W. Bush and Dick Cheney doing any more damage than they already have, and we don't need them jeopardizing American lives in the future, with the schemes they are hatching presently... and the Bush administration has already profited too much from the death and the lies and the greed that fueled their IRAQ scheme: if George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were like employees or ours (which they are), who after the job they'd done are now just hanging around causing trouble until their last day of work in January '09, then we'd just as soon be rid of them now, and tell them to leave now, we'll get by without you until January...
That's how we feel about them, and how PM Maliki and his government feel also: we'll get by without signing or agreeing to anything with you, until January, when your replacement takes Office.
And it's no wonder that John McCain would fail to see what is so obvious to us all, and would describe PM Maliki's comments as "driven by politics in Baghdad": because PM Mailiki's rebuke to the Bush administration is also a rebuke to all who make their bed with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney... it's also a rebuke of John McCain.
The American People feel the same way too: just as we'd like Bush and Cheney to just go away and stop doing any more damage until we can get a new administration of our Federal Government, we also are not about to let John McCain get his ignorant and corrupted hands on the U.S. occupation of IRAQ.
No wonder his mind, so lost and without any bearings, would miss the ugly truth (because it involves him): and that he would instead say that this was just politics in Baghdad is all.
we don't want George W. Bush and Dick Cheney doing any more damage than they already have...
Boy, does that say it all in a nutshell...!
Let me see....hmm I know English a little especially since I was born here and have a long family history of being an American....But I think we are being told to leave Iraq. You think!! McCain spent most of his campaign about national security, how dare anyone take that away from him. We Americans just do not understand the relationship between a wanna be president and his oil, foreign, big corporation lobbyist.
McCain we are sorry! What can we do to make it better? Anything besides putting your old ways in the white house? Let us know because we really want to make it better for your Elitist A** and less painful for our normal selves.