A HUGE Story That No One Is Talking About Regarding Bush, McCain & Troop Withdrawal

[ihavenobias]

Shouldn't this story be headline news in every newspaper and on every cable news show?

I'm referring to . I was out tonight, but I'm hoping you'll tell me that Olbermann and or Maddow talked about this.

If not, there's a good chance that no one in the MSM will say one word on this topic, which is insane.

[OhioChick]

1. That's BS.

I missed Keith and Maddow tonight, so I can't help you there.

[CherylK]

2. K & R! This story is nutso!!!

:mad: :puke:

[anigbrowl]

3. Documents please.

Some guy's rant isn't enough for me. Not saying he's wrong, but I'd rather just look at the evidence than listen to someone with an axe to grind.

[ihavenobias]

5. "Some guy's rant"..."someone with an axe to grind"?

Man, you don't know Cenk, do you? :)

At any rate: http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/09/23/maliki-timeline-2011/

[lonestarnot]

19. WTF? Axe to grind? boy are you in the wrong fucking place!

[low_phreaq]

4. Maddow: Bush extending Iraq war for political reasons (Raw Story)

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/Maddow_Bush_extending_Iraq_war_for_0924.html

<snip>
Maddow cited an interview with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, conducted last week by Iraqi state television, during which "he said when he was negotiating with the Bush administration to pick a withdrawal date for our troops to come home, they initially settled on about 15 months from now, the end of 2010. But then ... the Bush administration came back and told the Iraqis they'd actually like our troops to stay in Iraq an extra year, through 2011 ... 'due to political circumstances related to the US domestic situation.'"

"So the prime minister of Iraq says on tape," Maddow summarized, "according to our own government's translation, that the Bush administration wants to prolong the war in Iraq for an extra year because of our domestic politics."

"If you feel like your hair is on fire right now," she added, "you're not alone."
<snip>

There was also a huge DU thread. Let me see if I can find it...

[ihavenobias]

6. Awesome

Still, apparently most people haven't heard about this. The more exposure it gets the better.

[juno jones]

7. K&R!

I must have missed the original thread on this.

Funny, I was just thinking something similar might happen. Obama is shaping up to be the econimic candidate, so what do we have left to play with: the sad fact that some people think McCain knows something about the war. Hey- 'war president' worked for Bush...

[low_phreaq]

8. I couldn't find the big DU thread from a few days back, but

here are a couple related links:

EXCLUSIVE: Maliki Suggests Bush Pushed To Extend U.S. Presence In Iraq To Help McCain
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/23/maliki-bush-mccain-iraq

Bush Uses Iraq-Based Troops As Domestic Political Pawns, And Almost Nobody Notices
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/24/bush-uses-iraq-based-troo_n_128929.html

[lonestarnot]

18. K & R

[TxBlue]

9. I listen to Maddow everyday but this didn't register

kinda getting on overload with all the news these days

[matthewf]

10. Maddow did the other day. K&R

[low_phreaq]

11. Crooks & Liars

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/23/maliki-bush-pushed-for-later-withdrawal-date-to-help-mccain

[seafan]

12. This was covered at ThinkProgress on September 23.

This is so typical of the war criminal occupying the White House.



Via HuffingtonPost.


EXCLUSIVE: Maliki Suggests Bush Pushed To Extend U.S. Presence In Iraq To Help McCain

By Ben Armbruster on Sep 23rd, 2008 at 10:12 am
ThinkProgress

Last July, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said U.S. troops should be out of Iraq “as soon as possible” and endorsed Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) withdrawal plan. Obama “talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes,” Maliki told Der Spiegel magazine.

Days later, as Obama wrapped up meetings with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh reiterated his government’s stance, saying “the end of 2010 is the appropriate time for the withdrawal.”

Negotiating the post-UN mandate security agreement with Iraq, Bush argued for more time and both sides ultimately agreed that all U.S. troops would be out of Iraq by the end of 2011, not 2010, even though Bush has said previously that “if they were to say, leave, we would leave.”

Why did Bush go back on his word? A source tells ThinkProgress that White House communications staff were concerned that Maliki’s endorsement of the 2010 time line would damage Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presidential campaign. Indeed, during an interview with Iraqi television last week (according to an Open Source Center translation), Maliki suggested that the U.S. presidential elections played a role:

Actually, the final date was really the end of 2010 and the period between the end of 2010 and the end of 2011 was for withdrawing the remaining troops from all of Iraq, but they asked for a change due to political circumstances related to the domestic situation so it will not be said to the end of 2010 followed by one year for withdrawal but the end of 2011 as a final date.

In fact, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said that as part of the security agreement, Bush wanted U.S. troops to stay in Iraq even longer. “It was a U.S. proposal for the date which is 2015, and an Iraqi one which is 2010, then we agreed to make it 2011,” Talabani said.

But by endorsing Obama’s time line, Maliki indirectly slighted McCain, who has consistently and strenuously argued against setting a withdrawal date and has even said he wouldn’t mind having U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years. But Maliki’s new position has left McCain scrambling, first saying its “a pretty good timetable,” but then denying he used “the word timetable” and later settling on “anything is good.”

Despite Bush’s constant refrain that commanders, not politics, will decide the course in Iraq, it seems that trying to help his party retain the White House is more important.

UpdateThe Wonk Room's Matt Duss notes: "I would say that I'm shocked, but of course, this is the way that the Bush administration has always treated national security, as just another piece in a political game."

[jgraz]

13. Too bad this is being overshadowed by the McCain Meltdown.

[ForeignSpectator]

14. K&R

[pleah]

15. K&R

[rosesaylavee]

16. K & R

I kinda think this merits some looking into. They call this supporting the troops? Ha. Murderers.

[WritersBlock]

17. But is it an actual date change, or just a change in wording?

"Actually, the final date was really the end of 2010 and the period between the end of 2010 and the end of 2011 was for withdrawing the remaining troops from all of Iraq, but they asked for a change due to political circumstances related to the domestic situation so it will not be said to the end of 2010 followed by one year for withdrawal but the end of 2011 as a final date."

The way I read that, originally the withdrawal would start at the end of 2010, with the end of 2011 being the deadline for all troops to be out of Iraq. Now they're just saying the final date is the end of 2011.

To me, "final date" means the date the troops are all out of Iraq, but that's the whole question. Is that really what he's saying?

If "final date" = "date all troops are out of Iraq" then only the wording has changed, not the timetable itself.

Still pretty despicable even if it's just a wording change to help McCain, but without clarification on this, I would be hesitant to say they're making the troops stay an extra year to help McCain's chances in the election.

*With* confirmation on it, then by all means we should be spreading the word as widely as possible. But have we got our ducks in a row here?