posted July 08, 2008 11:18 AM            

Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

The comments by Mouwaffak al-Rubaie were the strongest yet by an Iraqi official about the deal now under negotiation with U.S. officials. They came a day after Iraq's prime minister first said publicly that he expects the pending troop deal with the United States to have some type of timetable for withdrawal.

President Bush has said he opposes a timetable. The White House said Monday it did not believe Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was proposing a rigid timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals.

U.S. officials had no immediate comment Tuesday on al-Rubaie's statement.

Al-Rubaie spoke to reporters after briefing Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf on the progress of the government's security efforts and the talks.

"Our stance in the negotiations underway with the American side will be strong ... We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq," al-Rubaie said.

He provided no details. But Ali al-Adeeb, a Shiite lawmaker and a prominent official in the prime minister's party, told The Associated Press that Iraq was linking the timetable proposal to the ongoing handover of various provinces to Iraqi control.

The Iraqi proposal stipulates that, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq's provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country.

After that, the country's security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said.

So far, the United States has handed control of nine of 18 provinces to Iraqi officials.

"This is what the Iraqi people want, the parliament and other Iraqi leaders," said al-Adeeb.

The proposal, as outlined by al-Adeeb, is phrased in a way that would allow Iraqi officials to tell the Iraqi public that it includes a specific timetable and dates for a U.S. withdrawal.

However, it also would provide the United States some flexibility on timing because the dates of the provincial handovers are not set.

Some type of troop status agreement between the United States and Iraq is needed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at year's end.

Iraq's government has felt increasingly confident in recent weeks about its authority and the country's improved stability. Iraqi officials have sharpened their public stance in the negotiations considerably in just the last few days.

Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level in four years. The change has been driven by the 2007 buildup of American forces, the Sunni tribal revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and crackdowns against Shiite militias and Sunni extremists.

In northern Baghdad Tuesday, guards opened fire, wounding 13 people when a crowd seeking aid payments for the poor, widows, orphans and disabled people became unruly, Iraqi officials said.

The U.S. military said a soldier had died from injuries sustained when a roadside bomb hit a troop convoy in Baghdad.

The U.S. military says five other soldiers were wounded in Tuesday's attack in the western Baghdad neighborhood of Amiriyah.

___________

Associated Press reporters Qassim Abdul-Zahra in Baghdad and Abdul-Hussein al-Obeidi in Najaf contributed to this report. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080708/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

quote:

---

"This is what the Iraqi people want, the parliament and other Iraqi leaders," said al-Adeeb.

---

posted July 08, 2008 12:33 PM            

His statement and position is akin to..say, the bloviating Barack O'Bomber saying he wants to...and will remove all US forces from Iraq in 16 months...regardless of the consequences to Iraq, it's citizens and the Middle East region. It carries no weight.

It's the timetable which is the problem. It should be noted that security for 9 out of the 18 provinces have been handed over to Iraqi military forces. There's still a ways to go yet.

Still, minus the timetable..this statement is exactly what Bush has said from the beginning and you should pay attention acoustic because this is not the demoscat position and never was. The demoscat position has been the immediate withdrawal of all US military forces from Iraq...which would have turned Iraq over to the terrorists to establish a new terrorist base of operations in the Middle East...the demoscat plan. They tried everything to give terrorists a victory over the US in Iraq. Timetables, holding up funding, cutting off guns, bullets, tanks, armored personnel carriers, food and every other type of material needed by our military in the field. They've given aid and comfort to our terrorist enemies by singing the terrorist theme song..."Get Out of Iraq Now". They've declared..."the war is lost in Iraq" when it was not lost and US forces were killing or capturing terrorist whenever they peeked out from behind the skirts of women and from behind children they hide behind.

"When the Iraqi military forces stand up, American forces will stand down."

That's the beginning and end of the Bush message to the American people, to the Iraqi people and to the terrorists who attempted to overthrow the elected government of Iraq.

How strange acoustic that after Bush has repeated that message soooo many times, you failed to hear it...or perhaps you just didn't understand the clear unequivocal message.

posted July 08, 2008 12:53 PM            

Still praising Bush's ratings in the 30's? That's funny. The economy Bush leaves behind will be worse than the economy he inherited.

It's obviously not the sentiment of a single Iraqi, as they would not allow him to make such statements if he was not expressing the view of his colleagues. There also would have been a retort by a higher official if this guy was out of line.

posted July 08, 2008 01:11 PM            

You are entirely too hung up on what an individual Iraqi says and also the twisted distortions of reality printed in the main stream press. A press which is known by the American people to be liars and which is only seen by about 20% of Americans as being highly credible.

There is something delicious about a group..the radical lying leftist demoscat congress with a job approval rating of 9% yipping and yapping about a President whose job approval rating is 3 times or more higher than their own.

Only in the intellectually challenged minds of leftists is this not a cause to let a good laugh rip.

They who acoustic? They, meaning the elected Iraqi government? You must be totally nuts. There are factions within factions in all governments. There are also factions among all populations in every nation on earth.

Do you, for instance, believe that when Murtha elbowed his way to the front of the line before network TV cameras and declared "America has lost the war" that reflected the opinion of the government of the United States? Or, when Murtha called US Marines "cold blooded murderers of innocent Iraqi citizens"...that reflected the opinion of the United States government..or the people of the United States. If you belive this, then you are hopelessly insane...which is a pretty good definition for leftists everywhere..."the hopelessly insane".

posted July 08, 2008 02:07 PM            

quote:

---

There is something delicious about a group..the radical lying leftist demoscat congress with a job approval rating of 9% yipping and yapping about a President whose job approval rating is 3 times or more higher than their own.

Only in the intellectually challenged minds of leftists is this not a cause to let a good laugh rip.

---

posted July 08, 2008 02:39 PM            

That's against press rules. They only report the so called bad coming out of Iraq...never the good.

I think you will see a clarification coming out of the Prime Ministers office..shortly.

But, you're evading the main issue here. That's your leftist friends and your own inability to understand plain English.

"When Iraqi Military Forces Stand Up, American Military Forces Will Stand Down".

BTW, as usual, the leftist press put their lie right in their headline. That's only one of the reasons most Americans despise the leftist press in America.

"Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable By SALLY BUZBEE, Associated Press Writer"

posted July 15, 2008 03:33 PM            

Now, O'Bomber has stuck his foot in his mouth once again by declaring the Iraqi position is the same as his position...a timetable to remove US military forces from Iraq. This guy is a real amateur and totally unqualified to be President of the United States.

July 15, 2008
Obama's Op-Ed on Iraq - Premise Untrue, And a History Lesson
Patrick Casey

The story behind Obama's editorial (My Plan For Iraq") just keeps on getting better and better. The candidate's premise for his op-ed is that Iraq's Prime Minister has asked for a solid timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from his country. That, Obama claims, mimics his own stance. However, Ed Morrissey (forever Captain Ed to us) over at Hot Air pointed out that the BBC, of all organizations, has come out and informed the public about a little faux pas about Iraq and withdrawal that the drive-by media committed regarding this alleged statement by Iraq's leader.

According to our British friends, last week's statement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on his desire for US troop withdrawals, widely quoted and reported on by the BBC and the rest of the mainstream media, was mistranslated! So much for Obama's lede...

Here's what was reported last week, as recounted in yesterday's BBC article:

The prime minister was widely quoted as saying that in the negotiations with the Americans on a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate the US troop presence from next year, "the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal".

Here's Obama's opening paragraph in his op-ed yesterday (and I'm certain that it is going to be a large part of his speech on Iraq today.

The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

But here's what the BBC is reporting as the real quote from al-Maliki:

In an audio recording of his remarks, heard by the BBC, the prime minister did not use the word "withdrawal".

What he actually said was: "The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence."

That translation mistake, which the BBC says occurred in the written copy of al-Maliki's statement that was handed out to reporters, is huge. Al-Maliki wasn't saying that the sole item left to decide was the pace of US withdrawals, he was merely staking out Iraq's negotiation parameters. Many articles were subsequently written, based on that mistaken translation, about how the Prime Minister's newfound desire to negotiate and come to an agreement on only the withdrawal of forces -- essentially a switch to Obama's position -- was going to help the Democratic candidate in the fall election. I think I even remember a poll conducted on how much it would help Obama, although I can't for the life of me remember where I saw it.

The BBC goes on to say that the Iraqi government knows that although their military is getting better fast, they aren't ready to handle the security situation on their own - and the Prime Minister knows it.***What I've said before** Also, the BBC notes that the terrorists in Iraq are probably waiting for the United States to leave, so that they can launch more effective attacks in the country. 'Translated', that means that our combined forces have more than a few more targets to eliminate before a reasonable expectation of long-term security can be achieved. In other words, our work in Iraq isn't done yet.

Noting that Barack Obama is going to be visiting Iraq soon, the BBC helpfully closes their article with a message to Barack Obama and his traveling companions Senators Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed (both of whom also opposed the surge in Iraq, and have stated that there was/is no military solution to the situation over there):

But when Mr Obama visits Baghdad, as he is expected to later this month, he is unlikely to find that the Iraqi government is quite as set on demanding deadlines for US withdrawal as he would like to think.

The fact that it was the BBC who alerted us to this "translation mistake" leads me to believe that their article was preemptive - that the BBC was scared that if the mistake was noted elsewhere, they wouldn't be able to contain the damage. I think there's probably more to this story - perhaps someone in the Prime Minister's press office intended to send a different message than al-Maliki's, for the 'benefit' of Western audiences. As I don't speak or read Arabic, I can't follow up on my suspicions, but I hope someone else does.

While I can't wait to see, hear, and read the coming avalanche of corrections in the drive-by media that's undoubtedly going to be triggered by this translation revelation, I'm even more interested in Obama's. I wonder if he's going to mention it in his speech on Iraq today?

N.B.: If you'd like to see Barack Obama's positioning on Iraq shattered even more, there are two great pieces from yesterday at The Weekly Standard's website. The first, An Accelerated Withdrawal? by Bill Roggio of The Long War Journal, reminds us that the recent headlines about the Bush Administration now pushing for an accelerated withdrawal from Iraq are not true. The Administration is following, in fact, the same timetable that General Petraeus told Congress about last September (complete with a slide show for the slower members of Congress and the media!) -- a timetable that is based solely upon security conditions on the ground. Two things to think about with this particular post. First, isn't it sad that the drive-by media can't even accurately recall what Petraeus told Congress just nine months ago? Second, isn't it amazing that all the way back in September of 2007, General Petraeus was confident enough in the turn-around in Iraq that was being brought about by the surge that he was willing to go out on a limb and publicly recommend such a plan?

The other piece, "The War We're In -- Obama's disturbing op-ed" by Thomas Donnelly, is also found at The Weekly Standard's website. Donnelly offers Obama a history lesson about Iraq and the surrounding region, something that the candidate sorely needs:

Obama needs to look at a map and a history book. Iraq long has been and today remains one of the two naturally dominant powers in the Persian Gulf region, home to the second-largest proven oil reserves on the planet and a front-line bulwark against revolutionary Iran. That's where this story began: with Saddam's Hussein's ambitions for hegemony and his long and bloody war with Iran. It was a pity, as Henry Kissinger famously quipped, that both sides in that conflict couldn't lose. But neither the United States nor the rest of the world could be oblivious to the outcome; the strategic stakes were too great.

Obama should also listen to Osama, who recognized "Baghdad as the capital of the caliphate" that he aspires to recreate. "The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation," he declared in 2004. "It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate." Bin Laden had a clear grasp of the inherent balance of power in the Islamic world; he would have preferred to rule in Baghdad than Kabul.

posted July 16, 2008 11:37 AM            

I like that. It's typical leftist doublespeak. The lie is authoritative and the truth is not to be taken as authoritative.

I'm not surprised the Brown government would put out a phony statement. Brown has wanted to withdraw from Iraq for years but Brown has a problem.

posted August 10, 2008 11:18 AM            

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators are "very close" to reaching a long-term security pact that will decide the fate of American troops in Iraq, the foreign minister said Sunday.

A series of bombings, meanwhile, targeted Iraqi security forces and civilians nationwide, killing at least nine people and wounding dozens, including the commander of Kurdish forces in a town near the Iranian border.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said the Iraqis were insisting on the inclusion of a "very clear timeline" for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces, but he refused to disclose any dates being discussed.

The main sticking points have been over the authorization of U.S. military operations, immunity for U.S. troops and sovereignty issues, Zebari said, adding that both sides "are compromising on all these issues."

In videotaped remarks to reporters, Zebari said in Arabic that negotiators were "on the brink" of agreement. But he later called The Associated Press to stress the talks were ongoing.

"They have achieved substantial progress," he said. "We are very close to reaching a final agreement."

The Iraqi government has been holding firm for a withdrawal schedule — a move the Iraqis said was essential to win parliamentary approval. But U.S. acceptance — even tentatively — of a specific timeline would represent a dramatic reversal of American policy in place since the war began in March 2003.

Zebari said he hoped an agreement could be ready to present to Iraqi lawmakers for approval "when the parliament convenes ... hopefully in early September."

The remarks injected new optimism about progress in the troubled talks, which both sides had hoped to wrap up by the end of July since it is aimed at replacing a U.N. mandate for foreign troops that expires at the end of this year.

President Bush has long refused to accept any timetable for bringing U.S. troops home, but he and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki agreed last month to set a "general time horizon" for ending the U.S. mission.

The White House said discussions continued on a bilateral agreement and said any timeframe discussed was due to drastic improvements in security over the past year.

"We are only now able to discuss conditions-based time horizons because security has improved so much. This would not have been possible 18 months ago," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. "We all look forward to the day when Iraqi security forces take the lead on more combat missions, allowing U.S. troops to serve in an overwatch role, and more importantly return home."

Two Iraqi officials told The Associated Press last week that negotiators were nearing agreement on a proposal that calls for all American combat troops to leave Iraq by October 2010, with the remaining support personnel gone "around 2013."

The senior officials, both close to al-Maliki and familiar with the negotiations, spoke separately on condition of anonymity because the talks are ongoing.

Iraq's position in the U.S. talks hardened after a series of Iraqi military successes against Shiite and Sunni extremists in Basra, Baghdad, Mosul and other major cities.

Violence in Iraq has declined sharply over the past year following a U.S. troop buildup, a Sunni revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and a Shiite militia cease-fire.

But sporadic attacks have raised concerns the militants are trying to regroup.

A suicide car bomber targeted the Kurdish security department in downtown Khanaqin, 90 miles northeast of Baghdad close to the Iranian border, killing at least two people and wounding 25, including the commander Lt. Col. Majid Ahmed, police said.

Col. Azad Issa, director of the local police station, said the blast occurred in the parking lot behind the Kurdish headquarters and 28 vehicles were damaged.

Ethnic tensions have been rising in northern Iraq amid disputes between Kurds, Turkomen and mostly Sunni Arabs over Kurdish demands to annex the oil-rich city of Kirkuk into their semiautonomous region.

The Baghdad area also faced a spate of violence. The deadliest blast occurred about 8:15 a.m. in a crowded area where people wait for buses in the capital's mainly Shiite southeastern district of Kamaliya.

Four people were killed, including a woman and her brother, and 11 others wounded in that attack, according to police.

A car bomb later exploded as an Iraqi army patrol transporting money to a state-run bank passed by in Baghdad's central Khillani square, killing a soldier and a civilian and wounding nine other people, a police officer said, adding the money had been secured.

Another Iraqi army patrol was hit by a car bomb in Salman Pak, about 15 miles south of Baghdad, killing one soldier and wounding five others, police said.

The Baghdad officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to release the information.

___

posted August 11, 2008 12:02 PM            

"We have said that this is a condition-driven process, he added, suggesting that the departure schedule could be modified if the security situation changed."

Which is exactly what Bush has said all along. Conditions on the ground in Iraq will determine when US miliatry forces withdraw from Iraq.

posted August 11, 2008 05:39 PM            

What the Iraqi Foreign Minister...the one making all the statements about a withdrawal timetable really means is that a timetable would be helpful in winning the coming elections in Iraq.

But even so, you should not be deceived into thinking this agreement on withdrawal is not going to be based on events on the ground in Iraq...and what the Generals and force commanders are saying about necessary US troop levels.

"We have said that this is a condition-driven process..."

How about that acoustic. Iraq is getting ready for their second round of elections...and demoscats, including O'Bomber said the surge wouldn't work..would make things worse...America lost the war...we can't win in Iraq..blah, blah, blah.

posted August 12, 2008 12:57 AM            

quote:

---

Of course the White House is going to say it's conditions-based...acoustic

---

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.

"We have said that this is a condition-driven process," he added, suggesting that the departure schedule could be modified if the security situation changed.

It wasn't the White House who said the process was "condition driven" but rather Zebari, the Iraqi Foreign Minister acoustic.

Which brings up a point. Did you even read the updated article...or did you misread it?