Hey, GOPer Warhawks: Denial Is Not Just A River In Egypt
So, yesterday, CENTCOM Gen. David Petraeus said that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki doesn't want a firm timetable for US withdrawal from Iraq.
“Again, what [al-Maliki] has said is not a timeline or a timetable. He said time horizons, which, again, we think that there's nothing wrong with talking about time horizons."
Apparently, the Prime Minister didn't get the DoD approved talking points. Today, Maliki said that he prefers Barack Obama's 16-month timetable proposal.
"US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
So now, the very country that the Reichwingers supported invading - theoretically to make it free - says we should leave.
If we don't leave, then that puts the lie to said motivation, leaving just oil as the primary reason for attacking.
If we do leave, then Obama's judgment of withdrawing with all deliberate haste is proven correct.
On the menu at 1600 Pennsylvania tonight: Sunni crow, with a side of Shi'ite hat, lightly braised in Republican sweat.
“Again, what [al-Maliki] has said is not a timeline or a timetable. He said time horizons, which, again, we think that there's nothing wrong with talking about time horizons."
Apparently, the Prime Minister didn't get the DoD approved talking points. Today, Maliki said that he prefers Barack Obama's 16-month timetable proposal.
"US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
So now, the very country that the Reichwingers supported invading - theoretically to make it free - says we should leave.
If we don't leave, then that puts the lie to said motivation, leaving just oil as the primary reason for attacking.
If we do leave, then Obama's judgment of withdrawing with all deliberate haste is proven correct.
On the menu at 1600 Pennsylvania tonight: Sunni crow, with a side of Shi'ite hat, lightly braised in Republican sweat.
Advertisement
No, no, Petraeus was right! al-Maliki clearly said the word "timeframe." What do you see more often in frames, pictures of the horizon or pictures of tables? Of course al-Maliki is supporting the idea of time horizons.
I can't stand surrender monkey spin on al-Maliki's statement of support for the Decider-In-Chief.
And look at that quote again. al-Maliki says "Barack Obama talks..." Another reference to Obama inexperience and inability to do anything other than talk about the things the current goverment simply goes ahead and does.
July 19, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mister Ed, go eat your oats, al-Maliki (whose country it is, after all) cut the ground from the dual-tongued Petraeus.
July 19, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mandy, I do believe Mr. Ed was being snarkalicious. :-)
July 19, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hope you are right!
July 19, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mandy, you thought I was serious and all you could tell me to do was to go eat my oats? You are altogether too nice - after all, oats might help lower my cholesterol level.
But really, to paraphrase the poll over at DK, the only way Obama's trip could go better is if he yanked bin-Laden out of his cave. Add in Al "RockStar" Gore's surprise appearance at Netroots and it's put me in a happy, snarky mood.
You must admit my comment was only slightly more nervy than the McCain camp's actual spin on al-Maliki's comments.
July 19, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
And for dessert? GOPumpkin panic pie with melted vanilla ice cream.
July 19, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mmm. I love me some GOP panic pie.
July 19, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's judgment was to not invade in the first place, to let Sadaam stay in power. And leaving now that the surge has clearly defeated Al Quaeda and the gov't is substantially stronger does not prove that Obama was correct to say we should have left years ago. Bush said we would leave once the gov't was capable and the violence under control, that appears to be happening. Obama simply wanted to bug out and let things fall apart. Thankfully that didn't happen, despite repeated attempts by democrats to force this war to be lost.
July 20, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL...you're still here? See if you can follow this.
There was no AQI until we invaded the "I".
Had we not invaded Iraq, we wouldn't have had to "surge" to "defeat" AQI, which is responsible for *maybe* 15% of the sectarian violence there (and that's if you believe the HIGH end of DoD estimates; Andrew Tilghman makes a good case that it's actually less than 5%).
BTW, if the surge worked, why do we need a 100-year presence in Iraq? And, if the surge worked, why are we still 15,000 troops over pre-surge levels? (You may want to give Lieberman a call - you know, to get your approved talking points in order before you answer these.)
Obama's judgment was to go after al-Qaeda in the first place - which is based in Afghanistan. But here you are, saying, "Let's attack the WRONG country! They won't be thinkin' of THAT!"
Priceless. I've got a son entering kindergarten with more sense than you display.
July 21, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink