Hmmm, eight months later than Barack Obama's proposal for withdrawing troops, but 99 years and 4 months earlier than John McCain's proposal.

http://strategy08.wordpress.com

You should bring back Horses Mouth.

Our top notch political media, at its best. Maybe they got wind of those poll results that said people viewed the press as being more favorable to Obama.

Then again, maybe the Post was just demonstrating the wankery and ineptitude that has become distressingly commonplace at that newspaper.

More worrisome in this spinning and twirling- when finally there seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel, the media are forcing us to the loose the oppurtunity to end the Iraq war by spinning it in favor of McCain.

These hacks are definetly putting country very much second to McCain victory.

"... by the end of 2010"

I'm guessing reading comprehension is not WaPo's strong suit.

Maybe the WaPO slant is seeing the horizon timetable clearer than we are....

haha - the New York Times rejected an op-ed by McCain on Iraq because it didn't offer any new ideas and mostly just attacked Obama. But that's his entire campaign premise!

I think this post is too alarmist about the Washington Post story. It is tardy on the Iraqi stand, to be sure, and it stresses the alleged eight month gap. But 2010 is 2010 -- and most voters will hear that the Iraqis want the US to withdraw by roughly the same time Obama does. This is a huge difference from making no time commitment at all.

It is time for everyone to recognize the real difference here: not about this month or that, or about "horizons" versus "timetables" (though it is easy to make the point that horizons always recede and are never reached). The real difference is between Obama/Iraqis declaring victory and leaving Iraq in the hands of its government, versus McCain desire for a permanent and very expensive military opperation there, embroiling the USA directly in Middle East wars for the long run. That is the difference. Let's debate it.

Gosh, one might even get the idea that the WaPo is trying to hurt Obama's chances.

Ed O'Keefe, editor of WashingtonPost.com was on MSNBC trying to spin this so hard for McCain that I'm not at all surprised.

He basically said that this development wouldn't help Obama much because "Americans don't care what the Iraqis say/want; they prefer to follow the military commanders who side with McCain." Un-freaking-believable!

"Borderline farce"?

I suppose as good a description as any for the Death Throes of the US War Party

At times like these I really miss "mediawhoresonline.com"...

"So spinning this as somehow counter to Obama's plan is borderline farce."

...BORDERLINE, feels like I'm going to lose my mind...

I'm not too worried about the WaPo story. This story changes every four hours, and anyone reading the WaPo in the middle of the summer is either local or well-informed. Maliki and his crew will coordinate their statements so that they appear neutral but their real sentiment is as clear as day.

Is anyone struck by the irony of the White House insisting that Iraq not meddle in the American presidential race after all we've done to their various systems of government?

all i know is...

i can't wait for The Daily Show tonight.

The WaPo is simply follwing the letter and spirit of these instructions:

Emerald City---Statement by Lt.Col Boots Deground

The White House regrets to have us inform you that remarks it sent you earlier purporting to be from the mouth of Iraqi PM Nouri "Al" Maliki reagarding the politically expedient withdrawal timeline of Barak Obama were merely mistranslations by Mr. Maliki's personal translator. Ignore any further statements by Iraqi government unless directly issued by Reconciliation Information Minister Baghdad Bob as approved by Maj. Gen. Time Horizon, CENTCOM. Thanks and have a pleasant aspirational goal."

WaPo and NYT....Emerald City---While Barak Obama was pursuing his dangerous first on the gound visit to Iraq since John McCain dared him to, McCain campaigned in this swing state city. Meeting with disaffected confectionary unionists who had supported Hillary Clinton, Mr. McCain sought to reinforce the gap Republicans have had over Democrats among white voters since before the Big Tornado in 1964, but which we just now found out about in our latest polling.

Even if the WP has correctly interpreted the statement, Obama would be off by about 7 months but McCain is off by about 99 years.

Ah, the Washington PoS. What a great newspaper for wrapping up fish, or lining birdcages with.

What the hell is wrong with MSM these days? Jason Blair was doing better writing than these boobs and he was making the crap up!

"We have been told time and again that such a withdrawal would be dangerous and actually against the wishes of the Iraqi people and government"

It drives me nuts that people who are actually against the war in Iraq aquire false facts out of thin air. While it may be true that some Iraqi government officials USED to say that it was against their wishes for the US to leave, during the whole time we have occuppied Iraq I have never seen an opinion poll that put Iraqi public opinion on whether we should leave the country ASAP at anything under 2/3rds in favor.

No one, save some rightwing nutjobs quoting anecdotal interviews with "man on the street" Iraqis, have ever said that withdrawal would be "against the Iraqi peoples wishes." This is because it has always been so demonstrably false.

http://www.iraqanalysis.org/INFO/55

We are so caught up in arguing with domestic opponents of our opinion and so US news centric that some of us not only don't bother to seek out the facts that aren't often reported in the US News, but we actually make up stories supporting the baseless assertions of those we disagree with. At no time in the last 7 years would anyone have been wrong to report that Iraqis want us gone. The fact that this poster completely invents being told "time and time again" that the Iraqi people love us in their country is even more unnerving then the fringe propogandists who actually know they are lying when they push a bogus story.

Nobody here has suggested that the Iraqi people as a whole haven't wanted us gone sooner rather than later for some time now. In fact, it has been increasingly clear for months that the Iraqi government wants some definite time past which we will have token forces if any left in Iraq and that the authorization of permanent large-scale bases being pursued by the Bush administration was DOA.

All that the quote you are responding to said is that the American people have been told the Iraqi people and government want us to stay as long as IT (whatever IT is) takes.

I agree that while it is very annoying that the media have been so compliant in Bush/McCain attempts to minimize this story or twist it into some Bizzaroworld reverse meaning, that having it on record in an unambiguous way that the Iraqi government is in favor of a relatively short time line for withdrawing U.S. forces is the message that will resonate with the U.S. public.