Watching 24/7 news television is a more fruitful pursuit than one might think. It makes for endurable background noise in the office.
Just now, McCain said that there are agreements between Maliki’s government and the US concerning the circumstances and timing of US forces’ departures.
He said that these are circumstances based, not date based.
The implication was clear in the way that he said this. That implication is that withdrawal must be based on mutual agreement.
In other words, the US has a veto over when and therefore, if, our forces will withdraw from Iraq. If that is not his position, he should say so, and quickly. pl
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN2136345520080721
I have not seen a Presidential candidate flail as much as IncoherentTalk Express in recent memory.
Pat, I know you give him a 55% probability and that very well may be the case when all the Republicans come back home in Nov. However, my bet right now is on Obama getting a landslide win including 50.1% of the popular vote as well the electoral votes of many so-called Red states including your dear Virginia.
Johnnie boy just can’t get out of the foot-in-mouth disease. No doubt Obama will have his fair share but if how the campaigns are run is any indication – Obama has a tighter ship IMO.
Are there such agreements?
If so, what are their terms? In the real world, if they exist, what power do the genuinely have? And why haven’t they come to light before this?
I’d not be too surprised if they exist. But do we really want to try and enforce them if they do exist? At what cost and to what end? wouldn’t that simply unify everyone against us, except the Kurds,perhaps.
One has a “through the looking glass” sense of this and the candidates’ hanging on to them.
It *could* be said that McCain’s team has a lot of experience in Iraq–unfortunately, it’s not the good kind. His foreign policy guy, Randy Scheunemann is a real piece of work. From his own company literature:
In 2002, Randy Scheunemann founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) to promote freedom for the Iraqi people. He served as pro bono President and Executive Director of CLI until its mission was completed in 2003.
…Randy Scheunemann was a key player in the U.S. involvement in the Iraq war through his role as the President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq where he coordinated the White House’s “Outside the Government” public relations campaign on Iraq while administering relationships with key Iraqi leaders in exile.
http://majikthise.typepad.com/
That last sentence seems like harmless boilerplate, until you see the picture posted with the link above: Scheunemann with Stephen Payne, the lobbyist recently caught soliciting bribes for the Bush Library…and our old friend, Ahmed Chalabi!
As the sleaze of McCain’s advisors continues to ooze, he may just have to bow to his followers’ most fervent wish, and make Chuck Norris his running mate.
FD: Are there such agreements?
Looking forward to finding the answer to that question.
For now, I have found the following paragraphs interesting. They are from Security Council SC/8879 and Annex I.
In the last para below, the Iraqis accepted the extension of the mandate of the multinational force, “provided that the extension is subject to a commitment by the Council to end the mandate at an earlier date if the Iraqi Government so requests”.
Interestingly, “mutual” is not used, and neither is “agree” or “agreement” within the correct context.
Obviously, more must be read, but for now….
Security Council SC/8879 states the following:
“[T]he Iraqi Government might at any time seek review of the arrangements, or termination of the multinational force’s mandate.”
[The Security Council …. Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations] “declares that it will terminate this mandate earlier if requested by the Government of Iraq”
Whereas, `Annex I Letter dated 11 November 2006 from the Prime Minister of Iraq addressed to the President of the Security Council’ states the following:
“Hence, the Iraqi Government requests the extension of the mandate of the multinational force in accordance with Security Council resolutions 1546 (2004) and 1637 (2005) and the letters attached thereto for another 12 months starting on 31 December 2006, provided that the extension is subject to a commitment by the Council to end the mandate at an earlier date if the Iraqi Government so requests and that the mandate is subject to periodic review before 15 June 2007.
Col. Lang:
How different is this from Wolfowitz saying that Iraqi oil would pay our war costs or that Shinseki’s troop estimates were wrong?
Kit Bond (R-MO) is reported to have said today on the Senate floor that not a single drop of oil was spilled as a result of Katrina.
Everyone gets away with it these days. Our press doesn’t fact check and we don’t teach critical thinking in our schools. And, besides whatever is said on the Senate floor is protected speech.
Regardless, is there any possibility that McCain’s intellectual faculties are fraying? Is anybody asking that question?
BTW. Whatever happened to that army 3 star who wore his uniform to church and preached to the congregation that his god could beat their god?
Col Lang,
I think you are giving the old codger too much credit. Some aid just gave him the talking point that “these are circumstances based, not date based.” as a counterpoint to Obama’s position.
Of course he believes it is up to the US to decide when to leave. As you remember Iraq didn’t have much say when the US decided to enter either. Obama continues to set the agenda, and McCain reacts.
After a meeting with former President George H.W. Bush, McCain was asked whether it was conceivable for U.S. troops to be fully pulled out of Iraq in about two years.
“I think they could be largely withdrawn,” the Arizona senator replied, citing the success of the “surge” strategy of increasing U.S. troop levels in increasing security in the country. “As I’ve said, we have succeeded”.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/22/01429/9967/323/554953
I think McCain is very confuse.
This is slightly OT, but it may be interesting for some to see how al-Dawa, the religio-political party of al-Maliki, has transformed into a main power from an underground party during the last 20 plus years thanks to the Bush administration and its supporters.
1) KUWAIT ROUNDS UP BOMBING SUSPECTS. Chicago Tribune. Jul 13, 1985.
The outlawed Iraqi Al-Daawa Party, which professes allegiance to Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was blamed for bomb attacks on the U.S. and French Embassies and on four economic targets in Kuwait in December, 1983. Five people were killed and 86 injured.
2) ‘Walk Free’ Prediction Gets Puzzled Reaction. San Francisco Chronicle.
Jul 15, 1987.
State Department officials indicated yesterday they were perplexed by
Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North’s assertion that 17 men convicted in Kuwait of bomb attacks on the U.S. and French embassies will eventually “walk free.” …. The 17 are mainly Iraqi Shiites identified as members of the underground Al-Daawa Party, which is pro-Iranian.
3) The Man Who Would Be Feared. By YOUSSEF IBRAHIM. NYT, Jul 29, 1990. [snip]
A few years ago, Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz was asked why his Government was so ruthless with its adversaries – executing, for example, all the leaders of the Iraqi Islamic fundamentalist movement known as Al Daawa, or the Call. Mr. Aziz paused and then said, ”It is because we don’t have the time.” The Baath party, he said, was modernizing Iraq and unifying a tribal country divided along religious and ethnic lines. Unlike Europe, he said, Iraq could not afford a freewheeling democratic exercise; ”reactionary forces,” he said, might drag the nation back into religious fundamentalism. It is for that reason, Mr. Hussein and Mr. Aziz have argued, that Iraq went to war against Iran in 1980.
4) Persian Gulf crisis/Released terrorists said to be fighting Iraqis in Kuwait. By PATRICK E. TYLER. Houston Chronicle, Sep 24, 1990. [snip]
A senior Kuwaiti official said the liberated terrorists include 15 whose
release had been a long-standing demand of Shiite extremists holding
American and other Western hostages in Lebanon. Early reports after the
Aug. 2 invasion suggested that the Iraqis had seized the prisoners and
taken them to Baghdad to use as possible bargaining leverage against the
United States.
Officials here were vague on details about the release of the 15
prisoners, who were convicted of staging truck-bomb attacks on the U.S.
and French embassies in Kuwait in December 1983 and whose imprisonment
sparked a series of Middle East terrorist attacks by radical Shiite
sympathizers.
Many of the prisoners were associated with the Daawa Party, a
pro-Iranian Iraqi opposition faction that launched the terrorist
campaign against Kuwait to punish the gulf emirate for its support of
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during his eight-year war with Iran.
Homer–Thanks, that was helpful.
As to secret agreements not to end the “war” seems the reverse of 1968, only this time with one difference. The Iraqi’s really don’t need us but we need them. Within 72 hours of outcome of US Presidential election being known (and that may take longer than we think while both parties seek to gain the electoral advantage in what is now clearly a largely corrupt voting system) the Iraqi’s will request US departure. We did not learn from them but they certainly learned from US. Now that they have seen modern arms and weaponary and logistics up close, I suspect it will not be long before guess who Kuwait and Gulf states are fully in play again from Iraqi initiatives. US will clearly be powerless having blown our wad so to speak on the 2003 invasion and aftermath. Why do we always pick on the warrior cultures–Vietnamese and Afghanis! Let’s just invade a cafe society. Hey, Western Europe looks like a candidate unless they wake up to the fact that tigers are still loose in the world. Once the US financial system has destroyed the world’s financial system it will be back to pre-Globalization and end to dreams of a peaceful integrated world. Unless of course the international financial system does not truly reflect the underlying economic realities—one being energy availability. McCain is about to demonstrate conclusively he is out of his depth. He needs to answer just one financial question? Bail out Fannie May and Freddie Mac or no? The answer deeply implicates oil going off the dollar and Chinese and Japanese reliance on the dollar system.
Watching 24/7 news television is a more fruitful pursuit than one might think. It makes for endurable background noise in the office.
Wow, I thought I was the only one plugging my headphones into my PC and logging onto MSNBC’s video feed to listen to Hardball and other pundit programs to help me pass the day. How naieve.
Colonel,
it’s sad to see sen. mccain showing increasing signs of dementia (early stages of alzheimers). mccain thinks that dafur is in somalia, that putin is the leader of germany, that pakistan borders iraq and so on……sooo sooo sad to watch……
if mccain is elected prez, what we’ll have is a reagan second term where the unelected aides determined policy and ran both the white house and national policies while the elected prez slowly lost his mind and all normal thought processes.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11939.html
McCain gaffes pile up; critics pile on – Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei – Politico.com