More From Iraqi Government Official On U.S. Troops Leaving By 2010
The Associated Press adds some more detail about the quote we noted below from the Iraqi government official saying he wants the troops out by 2010:
Al-Dabbagh said the government did not endorse a fixed date, but hoped American combat units could be out of Iraq sometime in 2010. That timeframe falls within the 16-month withdrawal plan proposed by Obama, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day as part of a congressional fact-finding team."We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq," al-Dabbagh told reporters, noting that any withdrawal plan was subject to change if the level of violence kicks up again.
We'd like still more direct quotes, please. The paraphrase here says the government wants the troops out by 2010. But the direct quote isn't quite as conclusive.
Either way, however, this is very significant. As TPM alum Spencer Ackerman puts it:
"There's nowhere left for McCain to go here. Either he endorses a timetable for withdrawal, which he has consistently said would be a disaster, and cedes his only big issue to Obama -- and more importantly, concedes that Obama's judgment is sound -- or he deliberately ignores the concerted, expressed wishes of the Iraqi government in order to prolong an unpopular war."
Pretty much, yeah.












Comments (73)
McCain is screwed. His moron neocon spokesman won't be able to spin this, even with a well trained press core (well, potty and obedience trained I should say).
July 21, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you sure? I was watching a lot of gloating tonite on Olbermann and then Abrams...won't the Administration just turn Maliki into an al Queda sympathizer or Iranian puppet and say, Obama's with the Terrorists and Extremists and McCain is with Petraeus and the forces of peace and stability? I'm just wary abt BO becoming too closely aligned with someone whose position threatens long-term Republican plans in the region.
July 21, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
His new argument is going to be "the surge made this possible," but it's not going to get him anywhere.
There are two judgments people care about: how we got in to begin with, and how we get out.
Beyond that, it's the economy.
http://strategy08.wordpress.com
July 21, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain campaign's response: "The surge is working. The surge is working. The surge is working. The surge is working. Obama was wrong. Obama was wrong. Obama was wrong. Obama was wrong."
That's how he responded to Meredith Viera's questions this morning.
No matter what the situation, or question, the answer will be "the surge is working and Obama was wrong".
But whatever. Jonathan Chait still has a crush on McCain.
July 21, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem McCain faces is simple: he and his wingnut fellow-travellers have defined "defeat" and "surrender" and "capitulation" in so many ways that pretty much no plan short of "stay forever" can't somehow be matched up to a previous scenario they described as "surrender". They've abstracted their idea of "victory in Iraq" out of all reality.
July 21, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree to a certain extent, but the nuts gave themselves an out by saying "if they ask us to leave, we'll go". That way they can define victory as having accomplished Iraqi take over without it looking like we're slinking away with our tails between our legs.
July 21, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
"That way they can define victory as having accomplished Iraqi take over without it looking like we're slinking away with our tails between our legs." So than you're admitting that Obama's policy is to "slink(ing) away with our tails between our legs."...?
July 21, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Slinking tail-tuck, surrender, defeat, etc.
That is how the McCainiacs are trying to portray it. But you know that.
The truth is we need to redeploy out of Iraq and into Afghanistan to fight the real war on terrorism. That is what Obama has been saying, and that is what the Bush/McCain gang has been forced to admit.
July 21, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ironic thing is, I believe McCain secretly planned to declare victory immediately after he was elected and to start removing troops from Iraq himself. Obama just beat him to the punch, saying, well, you claim Iraq is stable after the surge...Great--then it's time to go!
This is clearly what Obama was going for when he grilled Petraeus and Crocker in the Senate last year:
They had to either admit that the surge was not a complete success or admit that the military had acheived everything it could--that any additional progress would be political and Iraqi--and it was time to start drawing down.
As Obama said recently, how can it be surrender if we are handing over control to a sovereign nation that is our ally?
July 21, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's fun trying to imagine how they spin this.
If I were them, I'd give up the incredibly strained argument about how the Iraqis really agree with McCain's refusal to have a plan, because when they plan for 2010, they mean "2010 consistent with conditions on the ground." Unlike Obama, who means "2010 or bust."
I just don't see that flying for more than five seconds. A date is a date, and all plans are dependent on future events.
Nah. I'd go straight to "We are concerned that the Iraqi government may be attempting to meddle in the US election, and that Barack Obama may be undermining the policies of our sitting president."
Brace yourself for allegations of collaboration and Dolchstoss. I don't see any other option for them.
July 21, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ummmmm, how about Maliki has connections to Iran, and we all know how bad Iran is...so we can't trust anything Maliki says?
July 21, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you implying that the surge hasn't been a success? Treason!
July 21, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that sounds logical..."Are you with Obama and Maliki and Iran or with McCain, Petraeus and THE TROOPS?"
July 21, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he only knew how to use the internets, he wouldn't find himself being embarrassed with such tiresome regularity
July 21, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/2"
July 21, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/2
I don't know how to make a link. just trying. sorry.
July 21, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I only knew how to use the internets, I could show you this article in the NYT opinionator. One more try.
July 21, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
With one of McCain's big stances withering away beneath his feet we can expect a string of Terror Alerts [tm(2008) BushCo,Inc.] beginning sometime in mid-September.
July 21, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. McCain has not said that he would not have troops out in 16 months What he said is that it would be determined by the status on the ground. As Iraq pushes for the U.S. to pullout and stability is at an acceptable level McCain would pull the troops out. For all we know he might have them out sooner. He rightly suggests that the determination should not be based on an artificial timetable.
Obamites achilles heel is that they persist in claiming that McCain WANTS to keep troops there. He will quite easily show that claim to be wrong.
Imagine if Roosevelt and Truman had decided to pull troops out of WWII based on public pressure and a timetable rather than victory.
A fixed timetable is absurd and points out the naivete of Obama as Commander in Chief.
Hillary Clinton remains the best candidate for president.
July 21, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
We need to cut this guy some slack. Marching orders haven't yet trickled down. The trolls probably don't yet realize that they need a new argument, since the Iraqis have now suggested a timetable with a date that is no more, or less, "fixed" than Obama's.
Refresher course:
Iraqis and Obama -- have a timetable with a specific date.
McCain -- has no timetable or date
They'll get better -- give 'em 24 hours.
July 21, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I can waste my time on your comment. Trying to link again. Superheros never give up.
July 21, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect avatar. Imagine Cagney as C in C. I can just see Obama on top of the tank yelling "Top of the world Ma" right before he immolates everything in sight.
Bwahahaha
July 21, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
right. cause the problem with obama is he would start an unnecessary war.
get some air.
July 21, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pakistan.
July 21, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's really the border *between* Iraq and Pakistan that we need to worry about.
July 21, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck Pakistan. We should have taken them out instead of Iraq. They ARE state sponsors of terror.
July 21, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean another flip-flop by flippety floppety hippety hoppety McCain?
July 21, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many people think of cats the same way they think of rats.
July 21, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. McCain has argued for a South Korea/Japanese type presence in Iraq. 100 years comment
2. McCain has always resisted pulling out of Iraq. Just last week he argued that we had succeeded in Iraq but that we had to stay because that success could be fleeting. Or something.
3. Imagine if Roosevelt and Truman had started a war of choice. The better comparison would be Vietnam and as I recall, we pulled out of there on the basis of public pressure. The lesson learned (but lost on the Bush Adminstration): you don't start wars of choice.
4. You are a liar. Obama has NEVER proposed a FIXED timetable. Underscores just how weak your argument truly is that you (and McCain) have to lie to make a point.
5. Hillary Clinton is not a candidate for president.
July 21, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor Foghat. In denial still. He must not have got the memo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/16/clinton-distances-herself_n_113094.htmlJuly 21, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
But will she accept the nomination when offered to her?
You bet.
July 21, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, didn't you get the other memo? They're going to offer it to FDR!
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/group_running_newspaper_ads_de.php#comment-2970151
July 21, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
In his current state I'd vote for him over Obama.
July 21, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which shows you don't truly support Clinton, who has asked her supporters time and again to support Obama.
It must drive Limbaugh dittoheads crazy to read all the polls showing most women giving their support to Obama! LOL.
Keep on pushing that Operation Chaos train up that hill, Little Engine. :)
July 21, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine if Roosevelt and Truman had decided to pull troops out of WWII based on public pressure and a timetable rather than victory.
A specious arguement comparing a real world war with this phony, ginned-up "War On Terror".
As Iraq pushes for the U.S. to pullout and stability is at an acceptable level McCain would pull the troops out.
Pulling troops out of Iraq, under any circumstances, directly contradicts the reason the neocons put us there in the first place: to maintain a controlling presence and influence in the Middle East. McCain will never pull troops out.
He will quite easily show that claim to be wrong.
How, pray tell?
July 21, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. "a real world war"? You don't believe that there is a "real" war out there with a "real" enemy?
2. McCain is not a neocon.
3. How, pray tell? His words.
July 21, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. You are not even close, per usual. Comparing the fiasco in Iraq with WWII is laughable. We can always count on you to make us laugh at you though!
BTW, McBush wants a permanent presence in Iraq, sport. Stick to the facts.
Game, set, match, championship.
July 21, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get off Playstation and join the real world.
July 21, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quit tossing Larry Johnson's salad.
July 21, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
you're right. this small band of terrorists in caves is more of an existential threat than nazi germany and the USSSR combined. it's an existential threat, i tells ya! as in, we will cease to exist.
July 21, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now we're to be an isolationist? Great.
Everything is OK....until it's not.
July 21, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
change your sheets. and look up existential.
July 21, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. And you believe that the terroist, Al Queda threat is not a threat to our existence. So we should not address it. which is to be isolationist.
Look up Trout Mask Replica.
July 21, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fogu2- I feel sorry for you and all those Hillraisers. The hallways you roam these days don't lead to any doors. I'm sure, the main reasons for supporting Hillary, apart from your affiliation to her persona, included her policies and her democratic principles.
But, it's sad you remain abandoned, with no one really trusting or seeking your support, in vacuum. You're forced to support McCain, though you were against his positions and policies from the start. Personalities have become a lot more important than your personal reasons for support.
Sorry dude, probably it sucks to be frozen in time and space unwilling to let go, unwilling to remember why you engaged in political discourse when it all started.
In reality no one cares you're still pissed off, I'm sorry you have reached a point of self-sacrificing your own interests abd political prefernces.
I understand it sucks to be you right now and I'm truly sorry.
July 21, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not support McCain. Save your breath. If you don't care, can't comment.
But you can't help yourself.
July 21, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course you do! Methinks you doth protest too much.
Foghat’s Achilles’ heel is that he is a Limbaugh “Operation Chaos” troll. His unquestioning support of McCain, and his unlimited ability to ignore contradictory evidence about McCain, reveals that he actually supports him and not Clinton as he claims.
July 21, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/07/you-cant-mistra.html
watch the video, Greg!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25782385#25782385
Here's the quote:
We are not talking about the timetable which is being used for the election. We are looking for a real timetable that Iraqis set.
When is that timetable?
Well up to 2010.
July 21, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well it looks like Maliki has endorsed Obama for president.
I just saw a GREAT pic of Obama with Patreus in a helicopter. Obama is wearing sunglasses and looks fantastic!
July 21, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Khadafi looked great too!
July 21, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It just burns, doesn't it?
That picture is on the front page of Yahoo News.....
July 21, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yahoo!
The 'smiles all around' say it all...
July 21, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
They sure do. The smiles all around from everyone he is meeting.
Funny. I don't recall McCain getting the same kind of response. Weird, that.
July 21, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is typically greeted by people offering tubes of Preparation H. When he gives a "thumbs up," it is the signal that he needs more squeezed onto his applicator.
July 21, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you see the best gaffe from McBushSame yet? Irak has now a border with Pakistan...
I am wondering how more gaffes, does McBushSame need to make before the American people realize that McBushSame is not an expert in foreign policy...Any takers?
July 21, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody tempted to vote for McCain probably flunked geography too, so no harm done.
July 21, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
let's see:
maliki has adopted obama's iraq plan
mcWar has adopted obama's afghanistan plan
bush has adopted obama's iran plan.
i believe this is called leadership.
July 21, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep ,,certainly looks that way. Obama hasn't been sworn in and he is already taking the country back on the right track. What other suggestions does Obama have that the President or McCain could use????
July 21, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush is not taking Obama's ideas, Bush always said that the US would leave if Iraq asked us. And if it wasn't for the surge Obama voted against, we wouldn't be able to withdraw!!!
Finally you Obamabots are realizing that Obama is TRULY becoming Bush's THIRD term. If you want real change vote for McCHANGE!!!
July 21, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right; at this rate, by the time of the election, Bush's policies will be closer to Obama's, so vote for McCain if you want to change - back to Bush 2003-2007!
July 21, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
NBC says Obama will make VP choice public any day now and conjectures Hillary as the one. But if gratitude retains its conventional meaning, the next vice-president will be al-Maliki.
July 21, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two defining headlines right now:
1) On the MSNBC web site
"Iraq echos Obama pullout time line.
Statement follows candidate's meeting with Iraqi prime minister."
2) On the British Guardian newspaper web site
"Iraq backs Obama troop pullout plan.
Government spokesman ends confusion over Iraqi PM's comments on presidential candidate's timetable."
Game, set, and match. It was amazing today that the McCain campaign conference call was still trying to breathe life into the "mistranslation" memo put out by the U.S. military. It's time for McCain to concede the pullout issue to the Iraqi people, and move on to the issue of what to do in Afghanistan.
July 21, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Touche!
July 21, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The story is picking up steam. The fact that the statements were made following the meeting with the congressional delegation will certainly draw interest. What was discussed? Did Obama give the Maliki government enough political cover to confidently come out with this endorsement of a timeframe for withdrawal?
Let's see how this gets covered by the major news networks tonight. If this gets a lot of coverage, I believe we will be witnessing the crumbling of the McCain campaign.
July 21, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The story is picking up steam. The fact that the statements were made following the meeting with the congressional delegation will certainly draw interest. What was discussed? Did Obama give the Maliki government enough political cover to confidently come out with this endorsement of a timeframe for withdrawal?
Let's see how this gets covered by the major news networks tonight. If this gets a lot of coverage, I believe we will be witnessing the crumbling of the McCain campaign.
July 21, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We'd like still more direct quotes, please." You've obviously never worked in an Arab country if you are hoping any type of direct definitive statement...all you get is a little beating around the bush, then a shrug and a smile.
July 21, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was (unwisely) listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio today on the way to work and he said that he believed that the original translation (which he paraphrased as "an endorsement of Obama's campaign") was probably correct and even pointed out that the translator was an Iraqi. He then went on to mention that, in that interview, al-Maliki had expressed no "gratitude" to the United States for the successful surge. So the new rightwing meme for low-information voters (reinforced by SFCWallace's comment above) seems to be: "Sure, al-Maliki did endorse Obama's views, but he's an Arab, and we know what they're like: this is just another sign that terrorists like Obama."
The problem is, of course, that the Bush administration has been talking up al-Maliki for two years. And true, al-Maliki is probably corrupt and incompetent, and is saying what he is saying because of his own desire to be reelected, but, in that, he is reflecting what the people of Iraq want and it will be a hard sell to the American people that we should stay in Iraq longer than the people of Iraq and their leaders want us there.
July 21, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to admit, this is very interesting. The McCain camp is gonna have to do something quick, or they're burnt toast.
July 21, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still think Obama has moved the goal posts. Didn't he originally say "Out of Iraq immediately"? Then he said "Out of Iraq in 16 months". As I recall, the MoveOn crowd was not too pleased with the shift in policy.
I think it's very shrewd how the Obama campaign has dodged the whole "surge is working" meme by contrasting his new position of "16 months and out" to McCain's "100 years". The comments by the Iraqi government is just solidifying the strategy change. Brilliant.
July 21, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's original position was that he would get the troops out beginning immediately after he took office, with the goal of having all combat troops out in 16 months. That's still his position.
It would be impossible to take them all out "immediately" because you need to get the equipment out as well and you need to protect the supply lines while removing the equipment, etc. I think the uproar was when he said the 16th month goal was subject to developments on the ground, which seems reasonable enough to me.
July 21, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those crazy Iraqies! Do they need for John McCain to come down there and teach them how to properly speak Arabic? They just don't know how to say exactly what the McCain camp means!
July 21, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain will chase bin Laden to the gates of Hell, or even to the Iraq-Pakistan border.
July 21, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
But but but but...
The liberal times refused to publish his op-ed!
July 21, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's easy to see Obama is looking out to the horizon to chart where he wants to lead the country. His trip to the Middle East and Europe is publicly demonstrating his ability to reach across the isle with anyone - repugs, democrats, Europeans, and the power players in the Middle East - to build consensus and coalitions to support his vision of where he wants to go with the country.
As for McCain, he has the same "vision-problem" that Bu$h has. He also has trouble seeing the forest because of the trees so it's easy to see he has no plan where he would take the country if elected. That's why he keeps regurgitating the same ole repug leftover policies of Bu$h and the neo-cons.
July 21, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink