0
   

Will Obama get ALL American troops out in sixteen months?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jul, 2008 02:00 pm
H2O, And your picture is proof of Bush's crime; killing innocent Iraqis; men, women and children who posed no threat whatsoever to Americans.

"Shock and awe," you brainless j...k.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jul, 2008 02:19 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Not only that, but Bush chased out the UN weapon's inspectors to start his illegal war.


This is pure BS!!!

Bush didnt force them to leave, nor did he "chase" them out.
He advised them to leave, he told them what was coming, but they left of their own free will.
He didnt have the power or ability to "chase" them out, and you know it.
They had the choice to stay, and they chose to leave.

But if you can provide evidence that he "chased" them out or that he forced them to leave, I will be glad to see it.

You may not like the war, but dont try to alter history to suit you.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jul, 2008 09:12 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Iraq agrees to unconditional return of UN weapons inspectors - Annan
[Annan speaking to the press].....

Thats what they said, ci, but I recall cat and mouse games continuing. You forget that Hussein was not a man of his word.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jul, 2008 09:17 pm
okie wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Iraq agrees to unconditional return of UN weapons inspectors - Annan
[Annan speaking to the press].....

Thats what they said, ci, but I recall cat and mouse games continuing.
and that I recall Bush lying through his teeth playing cat and mouse games with the UN as well as the american public. Could one of be wrong? Perhaps someday Colin Powell will tell us all, perhaps not. So just what was the UN security council vote on authorizing the invasion of Iraq?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jul, 2008 09:28 pm
Your CIA advised Bush and Congress. Congress voted for war, dys. You seem to forget the basics of what happened. Take it up with your congressman if you are unhappy, or vote for a different one. This is a representative republic, Bush recommended, Congress agreed.

I know you will say Bush made up all the intelligence. There was a congressional investigation into those allegations and it was shown to be false.

Get over it, we are winning right now, aren't you happy or would you rather lose, and would you rather Hussein was still in power, killing hundreds of thousands of his own people, and still threatening his neighbors and us, with who knows what?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jul, 2008 09:34 pm
okie, The US broke international laws by our preemptive attach on a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us. We are/were a "partner" in the Security Council of the UN. They did not authorize the war. What is so difficult to understand, except your myopia?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jul, 2008 09:41 pm
Skeptics argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war.[22][23] The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation.[24] Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry.[25]
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2008 06:36 am
It is true that the situation in Iraq has improved. However it was not justified nor was it ever necessary for our security and in fact has been a distraction from our real concerns with AQ in Afghanistan and Pakistan which has been building up ever since the invasion of Iraq.

Also it has been proven time and time again that the whole administration stretched and distorted and omitted the truth of all the intelligence concerning Iraq in the lead up to the war and even after the invasion.

It is also true that Bush didn't make the UN inspectors leave but they would have been fools to stay in the line of fire after Bush announced we were fixing to invade. So yes in effect, Bush did cut short their ongoing inspections and caused them to leave.

In any event; Iraqis do not want us there in the long term and it is their country and we should listen to them despite what McCain camp says to the contrary now verses what he said back in 2004.

Quote:


links to back up statements at the source

Quote:
"His domestic politics require him to be for us getting out," said a senior McCain campaign official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "The military says 'conditions based' and Maliki said 'conditions based' yesterday in the joint statement with Bush. Regardless, voters care about [the] military, not about Iraqi leaders."


http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/mccain_campaign_responds_to_al.php

One the thing the guy in the McCain camp is right about is that Maliki's domestic politics is driving Malaki to force the issue of withdrawal and it is that force which will keep Malaki to stick to it and not let him get away with stalling tactics. (IMO) Conditions are never going to be so ideal that we can leave with out a care that things can get worse. I just hope that same force won't let Maliki get away with signing that security deal.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2008 09:02 am
revel wrote: It is also true that Bush didn't make the UN inspectors leave but they would have been fools to stay in the line of fire after Bush announced we were fixing to invade. So yes in effect, Bush did cut short their ongoing inspections and caused them to leave.


If that isn't an "order to leave," I don't know the meaning of the word. Anyone with half a brain knows that's an order to evacuate; it's not a simple request.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2008 11:54 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
revel wrote: It is also true that Bush didn't make the UN inspectors leave but they would have been fools to stay in the line of fire after Bush announced we were fixing to invade. So yes in effect, Bush did cut short their ongoing inspections and caused them to leave.


If that isn't an "order to leave," I don't know the meaning of the word. Anyone with half a brain knows that's an order to evacuate; it's not a simple request.


So Bush doesnt have the power or authority to order the UN to enforce their own resolutions, but he does have the power and authority to order the UN to remove the inspectors?

Do you not see the contradiction there?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2008 11:57 am
mm, I refuse to answer your stupid questions, so expect no response from me.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2008 12:01 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
mm, I refuse to answer your stupid questions, so expect no response from me.


So then this isnt a response?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2008 12:09 pm
You are stupid!
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2008 12:36 pm
H2O_MAN wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
awe and destruction


Shock and Awe

http://www.jennifer-eccleston.com/jennifer_eccleston/pictures/jennifer_eccleston_miss_shock_and_awe.jpg


awe and destruction

You are quoting from the Bush archives. I am using my own version.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2008 12:39 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
You are stupid!


So you make a contradictory statement, then you call me stupid for pointing it out.
Are you really so blind that you cant see how you contradicted yourself?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2008 12:45 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.

"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."

Asked if he supported Obama's ideas more than those of John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for.

"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."


Wow, the 16th month thing is looking more likely.

This is by all measures an endorsement of Obama.

Cycloptichorn


Nice try, Obama followers, but Iraq's leader doesn't actually support withdrawal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_maliki_obama_dc

Quote:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki did not back the plan of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and his comments to a German magazine on the issue were misunderstood, the government's spokesman said on Sunday.


Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement that Maliki's remarks to Der Spiegel were translated incorrectly.

The German magazine said on Saturday that Maliki supported Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months. The interview was released on Saturday.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes," Der Spiegel quoted Maliki as saying.

Dabbagh said statements by Maliki or any other member of the government should not be seen as support for any U.S. presidential candidate.

Obama is visiting Afghanistan and is set to go to Iraq as part of a tour of Europe and the Middle East.

Maliki's remarks were published a day after the White House said he and President George W. Bush had agreed that a security agreement currently being negotiated between them should include a "time horizon" for withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Bush has long opposed setting a timetable for withdrawal, and the White House said the time horizon agreed by the two leaders was not as specific as a time frame pushed by Democrats and could be adjusted based on conditions on the ground.


So now it seems that you and other Obama followers were wrong.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2008 12:56 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Nice try, Obama followers, but Iraq's leader doesn't actually support withdrawal.


Please don't try to be ridiculous when the statements are there for everyone to read. This here:

Quote:
Dabbagh said statements by Maliki or any other member of the government should not be seen as support for any U.S. presidential candidate.


does certainly mean that the Iraqi government doesn't want to get caught up in the US presidential campaigns. It means that they don't want to endorse Obama.


I have a hard time to get from "we don't endorse Obama" to "we don't want US troops to withdraw".
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2008 01:46 pm
mysteryman wrote:
So now it seems that you and other Obama followers were wrong.


Spiegel:
Quote:
In the interview, Maliki expressed support of Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. "That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of changes."

Maliki was quick to back away from an outright endorsement of Obama, saying "who they choose as their president is the Americans' business." But he then went on to say: "But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited."

A Baghdad government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said in a statement that SPIEGEL had "misunderstood and mistranslated" the Iraqi prime minister, but didn't point to where the misunderstanding or mistranslation might have occurred. Al-Dabbagh said Maliki's comments "should not be understood as support to any US presidential candidates." The statement was sent out by the press desk of the US-led Multinational Force in Iraq.

A number of media outlets likewise professed to being confused by the statement from Maliki's office. The New York Times pointed out that al-Dabbagh's statement "did not address a specific error." CBS likewise expressed disbelief pointing out that Maliki mentions a timeframe for withdrawal three times in the interview and then asks, "how likely is it that SPIEGEL mistranslated three separate comments? Matthew Yglesias, a blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, was astonished by "how little effort was made" to make the Baghdad denial convincing. And the influential blog IraqSlogger also pointed out the lack of specifics in the government statement.

SPIEGEL sticks to its version of the conversation.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2008 04:05 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.

"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."

Asked if he supported Obama's ideas more than those of John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for.

"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."


Wow, the 16th month thing is looking more likely.

This is by all measures an endorsement of Obama.

Cycloptichorn


Nice try, Obama followers, but Iraq's leader doesn't actually support withdrawal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_maliki_obama_dc

Quote:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki did not back the plan of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and his comments to a German magazine on the issue were misunderstood, the government's spokesman said on Sunday.


Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement that Maliki's remarks to Der Spiegel were translated incorrectly.

The German magazine said on Saturday that Maliki supported Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months. The interview was released on Saturday.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes," Der Spiegel quoted Maliki as saying.

Dabbagh said statements by Maliki or any other member of the government should not be seen as support for any U.S. presidential candidate.

Obama is visiting Afghanistan and is set to go to Iraq as part of a tour of Europe and the Middle East.

Maliki's remarks were published a day after the White House said he and President George W. Bush had agreed that a security agreement currently being negotiated between them should include a "time horizon" for withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Bush has long opposed setting a timetable for withdrawal, and the White House said the time horizon agreed by the two leaders was not as specific as a time frame pushed by Democrats and could be adjusted based on conditions on the ground.


So now it seems that you and other Obama followers were wrong.


Not only is Der Speigel standing by their interview, in which the PM said not only once but about three times that he wanted to withdraw, we see this:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/20/maliki_aides_statement_came_af.html

Quote:
Maliki Aide's Statement Came After U.S. Call

By Dan Eggen
The statement by an aide to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki calling his remarks in Der Spiegel "misinterpreted and mistranslated" followed a call to the prime minister's office from U.S. government officials in Iraq.

Maliki had expressed support for a withdrawal plan similar to that of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama in an interview with Der Speigel. U.S. troops should leave Iraq "As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned," Maliki had said. "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."

But after the Spiegel interview was published and began generating headlines Saturday, officials at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad contacted Maliki's office to express concern and seek clarification on the remarks, according to White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.

Later in the day, a Maliki aide released a statement saying the remarks had been misinterpreted, though without citing specific comments.


We were not incorrect; the Bush admin is trying to spin all it can, to play down the outright embarrassment this will cause them. Don't be fooled by the hype.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2008 04:26 pm
mm is willingly fooled by the bush hype.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 08/18/2022 at 01:13:13