Iraqi PM says U.S. Military can go anytime.

[scottinnj]

Story Here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/14/iraq.military.ap/)

It seems that PM Malaki is getting a bit arrogant and is responding to the U.S. Military's report that the Iraqi Army and police force are not nearly ready to do the job without U.S. support.


I say, let's take him at his word. Time to go. I mean it, how much more evidence do we need? All polls done with the Iraqis point to them wanting us out, now he wants us out so let 's just get the hell out of there!

[furie]

i say we leave iraq and go into iran. this way when we're forced to come back in 5 years, our troops won't have to go that far.

[DarkHippie]

not to be dramatic, but If they want our military to go, and we keep our military there, isn't that an occupation?

[ChrisTheCop]

If the Lleeder of their country says they dont need us, I think even GW can take this as an opportunity to save face and get out.

for example: "even though, by western standards, the country has a long way to go, especially given where we initially had hoped the state of things in Iraq would be at this juncture... the leaders in Iraq believe that they are ready to move on by themselves. We whole heartedly support them in their efforts, and look forward to our continued friendship with this great country."

(cue the sound of a large moving truck burning rubber).

I hope we take this opportunity.

[Sarge]

We have the perfect opprotunity to leave. Hopefully President Bush wont let it pass. He has said that this is not an occupation, he can prove it by leaving now that the Iraqi government says that they can handle it. Lets hope the next mission is named, "Operation Feets Dont Fail Me Now".

[prothunderball]

The White House isn't going to let them get away with that. let the spin begin.

<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070715/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq">Aide: Iraqi PM's comments misconstrued</a>

[LiddyRules]

Didn't Bush say that if the Iraqis said to go we'd go?

[epo]

Didn't Bush say that if the Iraqis said to go we'd go?

Bush says alot of things...

[DarkHippie]

The White House isn't going to let them get away with that. let the spin begin.

<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070715/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq">Aide: Iraqi PM's comments misconstrued</a>

Thank God, for a second i thought we might do something intelligent

[Crispy123]

Devide the troops between Afghanistan and Turkey or Afghani/Pakistan and Korean Peninsula. Sandwich Iran and maintain troop levels in the Middle East.

[foodcourtdruide]

not to be dramatic, but If they want our military to go, and we keep our military there, isn't that an occupation?

Hey stop taking things for face value! We're pretending to be at war for the good of the Iraqi people, remember?

[Recyclerz]

Bush says alot of things...

True dat. Remember "If you're not with us, you're against us"?

Now, in addition to not going after al-Qaeda in Pakistan for fear of upsetting our "ally" Musharraf and the nuclear house of cards that is Pakistan, we now find out that half the Sunni insurgents (and a higher % of the suicide bombers) are streaming in from the House of Saud. With "friends" like these ...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saudi15jul15,0,3818698,full.story?coll=la-home-world

I guess that slogan only applies to Democrats.

[Yerdaddy]

True dat. Remember "If you're not with us, you're against us"?

Now, in addition to not going after al-Qaeda in Pakistan for fear of upsetting our "ally" Musharraf and the nuclear house of cards that is Pakistan, we now find out that half the Sunni insurgents (and a higher % of the suicide bombers) are streaming in from the House of Saud. With "friends" like these ...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saudi15jul15,0,3818698,full.story?coll=la-home-world

I guess that slogan only applies to Democrats.

I'm not buying that article. It says: Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said." It also says: "It is apparently the first time a U.S. official has given such a breakdown on the role played by Saudi nationals in Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgency."

The word "apparently" is a bit of a giveaway as it's a word that journalists aren't supposed to use. It translates as "I think this, but I didn't check it out." I used it in my articles when I didn't know something but my deadlines didn't allow me time to check the story. This is a feature piece meaning he's got more time to write it than a regular news piece. I think he knew that military officials have been giving these breakdowns for years.

For example, last year the breakdown included 2% Saudis. The year before it was 19%. Now it's 50%, according to this bad journalist's sources. It's possible, but the fact that he says he's the first person to get this information and the piece focuses on Saudi Arabia gives me the impression that he wanted the article to be a stronger piece condemning Saudi Arabia and didn't want to include the fact that all the proportions of "captured foreign insurgents" are constantly changing. Anyway, I know Anthony Cordesman has produced at least one report on Saudi role in the insurgency listed here (http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_experts/task,view/id,3/), I just can't look at it now because there's nothing to read PDFs with in Cambodia.

The article does cite opposing views on the Saudi government's role in aiding or trying to prevent the insurgents crossing the border and the source saying the government is involved is a Shiia politician, probably sympathetic to Iran and against the Saudis because of the Sunni/Shiia Cold War the Iraq war has ignited. They should have quoted a more objective source.

I'm not saying it's not true, but this bad piece of journalism makes a really poor case.

As for the "With us or against us" - I think the second phrase should have been added to it: "... and we'll tell you which one you are." Right away Syria and Iran said "with you" and the White House checked it's clipboard and said "Sssssorrryyyyyy. "Against." The correct answer was "against us. Ssssssorrrryyyy."

[FUNKMAN]

Bush and corporate leaders have to figure out how to remove the military but still be able to get in on all the 'oil money' that will go towards rebuilding the country

[Friday]

Bush and corporate leaders have to figure out how to remove the military but still be able to get in on all the 'oil money' that will go towards rebuilding the country

shitty journalism aside, this is really the bottom line.

The US Govt cannot just up and leave at this late point in time. The exit must be business savvy and politically ...er... smart. But mostly business savvy.

[Yerdaddy]

Re. us leaving Iraq: If Maliki wanted us to leave he would say he wanted us to leave. He's more likely trying to shore up one of his patrons, the Bush administration, when the main pressure on US leaving Iraq is determined by Iraqi failures rather than successes. So he's trying to talk up his government's successes which would help Bush keep US soldiers in the country.

Second, we aren't going to pull all of our troops out for at least a decade. We would be giving terrorists free reign to operate in the soon-to-be failed state, threatening any Iraqi government, Saudi oil fields, all of our Muslim allies, as well as ours and European security, and that's not going to happen even if a Democrat takes the White House.

But Bush may decide to take credit for Operation Blame the Iraqis and Leave, drawing down or "redeploying" American forces for the sake of Republican electoral hopes, and comments like this from Maliki would aid that process. It's an open question though that won't be really known until the President comes up with a "new" plan when the miitary reports on the surge in September.

[A.J.]

How about a "thank you"?