Wrong or Right... It's your choice.
by
Greco
08/11/2008, 10:19 AM #
In a story published on July 7th by Reuters, Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said, "Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty, Maliki told Arab ambassadors in blunt remarks during an official visit to Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates. One of the two basic topics is either to have a memorandum of understanding for the departure of forces or a memorandum of understanding to set a timetable for the presence of the forces, so that we know (their presence) will end in a specific time."
The next day The Associated Press published a follow up story on the subject. Iraq's national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, a day after the country's prime minister first publicly said he expects some type of timeline said, "We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq,"
Later that day The White House released a statement that said it did not believe Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was proposing a timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals. Huh? A week later The White House started using the phrase "time horizons" to discuss our departure from Iraq. Obviously that was a term unfamiliar to the Iraqis, as well as the rest of the planet.
Quickly the Prime Minister of Iraq issued another statement to George W. Bush. He said, "The U.S.troops should leave Iraq as soon as possible, prolonging their stay would cause problems." Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki also said, "Presidential candidate Barack Obama's suggestion of 16 months is the right time frame for a withdrawal."
On Sunday, August 10th, The Associated Press published another story titled "Iraq Demands Timeline For U.S. Withdrawal". Their story stated, "Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told reporters that American and Iraqi negotiators were very close to reaching a long-term security agreement that will set the rules for U.S. troops in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year. Zebari said the Iraqis were insisting that the agreement include a very clear timeline for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces, but he refused to talk about specific dates. But Zebari made clear that the Iraqis would not accept a deal that lacks a timeline for the end of the U.S. military presence. No, no definitely there has to be a very clear timeline, Zebari replied when asked if the Iraqis would accept an agreement that did not mention dates."
<link>
This, almost certainly, will not be resolved during the final days of the Bush administration. It will be one more mess George W. Bush will leave for the next president to clean-up after him. One of two people will have that responsibility. There's little doubt, actually there is no doubt, the Iraqis are ready for the U.S. occupation to end. Their clear, increasingly strong public statements establish that point. By making their statements on the subject public, it casts a spotlight on the United States before the world community to see how we handle it.
John McCain has a public position aligned with George W. Bush, wanting a permanent occupation of Iraq for "100+ years", and has made this a cornerstone issue of his presidential bid. Barack Obama has opposed the war from its beginnings and has been unwavering in his resolve to withdraw our troops from the mistake of the Iraq war. Two candidates, one who mirrors the Bush policy, now opposed by the Iraqi government, and one who was right about Iraq from the beginning and agrees with the latest Iraq demand are our choices.
Boiling it down to it's most simple proposition, we can elect a president that was wrong from the beginning and is wrong now, or we can elect a president that was right from the beginning and is right now, in agreement with the official demands of the Iraqi government. More Mideast strife, less Mideast strife. More war, less war. Bad judgment, good judgement. Wrong or right. Two choices.
