Home › All
U.S., Iraq agree on 'timetables' to withdraw U.S. troops
More All
- It’s Christmastime at Palm Cottage
- Rod Mackenzie, taking music by storm
- You Review Movie: John Augustine
Tell us about it
- What would you add to this story? Tell us what we missed.
- Do you have photos from this event? Documents we need to see? Share with us.
- Upload photos & videos
- More ways to get your stuff online and in the paper.
STORY TOOLS
Share and Enjoy [?]
BAGHDAD — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Thursday they agree that timetables should be set for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the battle-scarred country.
Appearing together at a news conference, Rice and Zebari also mutually asserted that a final agreement between Washington and Baghdad on a a broad document spelling out the nature of any future U.S. troop presence and Washington-Baghdad relations is close to fruition, but not yet complete.
"We have agreed that some goals, some aspirational timetables for how that might unfold, are well worth having in such an agreement," Rice told reporters after meeting with Iraqi officials, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The two sides had come together on a draft agreement earlier this week and Rice made an unannounced visit to Baghdad to press officials there to complete the accord.
Zebari, asked about fears expressed by neighboring countries over such a pact, said in Arabic: "This decision (agreement) is a sovereign one and Iran and other neighboring countries have the right to ask for clarifications. ... There are clear articles (that) say that Iraq will not be used as a launching pad for any aggressive acts against neighboring countries and we already did clarify this."
A key part of the U.S.-Iraqi draft agreement envisions the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq's cities by next June 30.
Said Zebari: "This agreement determines the principle provisions, requirements, to regulate the temporary presence and the time horizon, the mission of the U.S. forces."
U.S. military forces went into in Iraq in early 2003 and overthrew President Saddam Hussein and the war is now in its sixth year. There have been more than 4,100 U.S. deaths there and countless losses among Iraqis. The war looms as a key issue in the campaign in the United States to elect a successor to President Bush, with presumed Republican nominee John McCain accusing Democratic standardbearer-in-waiting Barack Obama of advocating too precipitate a withdrawal of U.S. forces from the country.
On the plane en route here, Rice had told reporters: "The negotiators have taken this very, very far. But there is no reason to believe that there is an agreement yet. There are still issues concerning exactly how our forces operate."
Her comments dampened speculation that agreement might be reached while she is in Baghdad on a several-hour visit, her first to Iraq since March, after U.S. and Iraqi officials said Wednesday that a draft document was done and awaiting approval from political leaders.
Rice displayed similar caution in the news conference with Zebari.
"Obviously, the American forces are here, coalition forces are here at the invitation of the Iraqi government," she said. "What we're trying to do is put together an agreement that protects our people, respects Iraq's sovereignty."
" ... But the goal is to have Iraqi forces responsible for the security of Iraq," Rice added. "That is the goal and that has been the goal from the beginning. " She said the military surge has worked and "we are making progress together in the defeat of Iraq's enemies of all stripes."
"We're not sitting here talking about an agreement to try to get out of a bad situation," Rice said, calling the agreement one that "builds on the success we have had in the last year. This agreement is based on success."
Zebari conceded that officials had hoped to conclude the pact earlier, but said that "it has taken us more time," citing internal political factors.
"Really, we are very, very close to closing this agreement," he said, "and as we said from the beginning, there is no hidden agenda here."
The foreign minister said the pact that U.S. and Iraqi officials are trying to finish will be presented to Iraq's Executive Council for review. "Time is of the essence," he said, "but, really, we are redoubling our efforts to bring this to a successful conclusion."
Followers of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr criticized Rice's visit and repeated their opposition to the security agreement. Sadr's followers control 30 of the 275 seats in parliament.
Luai Smeisem, the head of the political bureau in Sadr movement, said: "We as the Sadr movement denounce this dubious visit and such timing. We reaffirm our stance of rejecting the long-term agreement. We demand the Iraqi government, and on the highest levels, not to sign this unjust agreement and we demand the withdrawal of the government as soon as possible."
Comments
This site does not necessarily agree with comments posted below. Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. Break our rules, and we will ban you. No exceptions, no second chances. Read our privacy policy & user agreement.
Say it ain't so. The Bush administration will now "cut-n-run" from Iraq? We're now "surrendering" to terrorism? Bu-but won't the 'evil-doers' just hide in the shadows and wait for our departure to commence to their evil-doing tasks again?
I wonder what McWarmonger thinks about this developing story.
http://politicalplace.com
#1 Posted by Ironside on August 21, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)
When Barack Obama called for troop withdrawal timetables, both Bush and McCain called it reckless and demonstrated Obama's lack of foreign policy experience.
Hmm, looks like they are following Obama's plan for the moment.
Is that a flip flop?
#2 Posted by reasonableguy on August 21, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a lose, lose for McCain. If he switches his stance, he's flip flopped. If he doesn't, he'll be labeled as stubborn as Bush has been for the past 7.5 years and we see where that's gotten us.
This is an all around win for Barack Obama. He was right again!
I'm just glad to see that the Bush Administration has come to their senses.
It doesn't really matter what McCain thinks anyway. He's only going to be a former presidential candidate after the election.
#3 Posted by Ironside on August 21, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CTI.....
Barack Obama has NEVER said "everybody out now" and the rightwing propaganda machine still called his plan both a plan of "cut-n-run" and "surrender."
http://politicalplace.com
#4 Posted by Ironside on August 21, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Other articles I've read suggested any "timetables" would be based upon conditions there and not necessarily specific dates.
#5 Posted by pauls on August 21, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
During Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, both candidates Barack Obama and John McCain were posed the following question:
"What was the hardest decision you’ve ever had to make and how did you come to the decision?"
John McCain answered this by relating a choice which he had to make while being held as a Prisoner of War in North Viet Nam.
John McCain, a Naval aviator and Lieutenant Commander, was captured October 26th, 1967 when his Navy Skyhawk was shot down near central Hanoi. In March of of 1968, after cursory medical treatment for his wounds, he was placed in solitary confinement. Three months later, in mid-June of 1968, his captors offered McCain an early release. The purpose of this was to score a propaganda coup - as unbeknown to the POW's - McCain's father, four-star Admiral John S. McCain, was named to be Commander-in-Chief Pacific Command, and Commander of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater.
We've heard the story. Lieutenant Commander McCain chose not to accept the offer due to the POWs' "first in, first out" interpretation of the U.S. Military Code of Conduct. Things indeed got very 'bad' for John McCain.
But did Lieutenant Commander John S. McCain III indeed have a choice?
No.
It need not have been a difficult decision, for there was no decision to have been made.
LCdr McCain was bound by The Code of Conduct, established by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on August 17, 1955, after the Korean War. This was comprised of six paragraphs at the time McCain was a prisoner, two of which were highly applicable to this particular occasion:
III - If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
IV - If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
The Code is very clear - McCain is to accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy. He has no choice. There is no decision to make.
READ MORE HERE:
http://www.politicalplace.com/phpBB3/...
McCain's lifelong toughest decision was to follow the Military Code of Conduct. Imagine that!
#6 Posted by Ironside on August 21, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Time to admit Bush is the dumbest President we ever elected.
Obama can't do any worse.
I bet Collier country goes for Barak
#7 Posted by R_Popoff on August 21, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well CTI, thank you for asking. Here are some of my latest "original thoughts." If you'd like more just ask. I have planty.
John McCain agrees to re-enacting the draft*
http://politicalplace.com/mccain_draf...
Is John McCain the "underdog" that he claims to be?
http://politicalplace.com/mccain_unde...
Why To Vote For Barack Obama
http://politicalplace.com/why_obama.htm
We Can Not Muddle Through it in Afghanistan
http://www.politicalplace.com/muddle_...
Is John McCain Playing the Race Card
http://politicalplace.com/mccain_race...
The Rightwing's Phony Outrage*
http://politicalplace.com/phony_outra...
John McCain's Voting Record on Issues Concerning Veterans and the Troops
http://politicalplace.com/mccain_vete...
John McCain Goes Negative
http://politicalplace.com/negative_mc...
* Commentary articles that been published.
#8 Posted by Ironside on August 21, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
R_Popoff, Florida probably.... Collier County doubtful. Collier County voted 63% in favor of Katherine Harris over Bill Nelson. It'll also likely elect Rambosk for Sheriff. Most Collier voters these days seem to enjoy the status quo.
Unfortunately since the late seventies or early eighties Collier voters haven't been the most prudent. Too many Northerners have moved down and taken over this once Democratic community.
#9 Posted by Ironside on August 21, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CORRECTION to post #11:
planty = plenty
#10 Posted by Ironside on August 21, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Um, see post #13 for the correction you missed.
Beat-cha to it. Nice try though. ;)
#11 Posted by Ironside on August 21, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Can't believe anybody will vote for McCain. He evidently has incipient Alzheimers.
He graduated last in his Annapolis class. If it hadn't been for having Admirals in his family, would have likely flunked out entirely.
Then, instead of being given command of some rusty tugboat, he gets to be a Naval Aviator, normally only for the brightest graduates of Annapolis. (Admiral father?)
Promptly, crashes his plane.
Then deemed a hero for crashing and becoming a prisoner.
I thought a hero was the guy who made the enemy crash???
Later, after Navy is smart enough not to make him admiral, dumps his wife for rich sweetie to finance a new career in politics.
This nation rewards obtuseness, especially in the military.
But just can't believe anyone would take this guy serious as leader of the country.
Even Bill Ayres would be a shrewed choice....
#12 Posted by R_Popoff on August 21, 2008 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Election year posturing is what I call it. But I agree that this causes more damage for McCain as he was a staunch supporter of staying in IRAQ. The cut-and-run comments was nothing but rhetoric!
It makes you wonder if they (BUSH Administration) is pulling out to prepare for some action againstt RUSSIA and/or IRAN? Before we go there we must finish Afghanistan... things are sure a mess and the WORLD is watching.
GO OBAMA!!
#13 Posted by Lemme on August 21, 2008 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ironside,
Can you please post something other than that dam blog?
Isn't is spamming when he links that site in every post?
#14 Posted by Sanity on August 21, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Iron: Watch that post ratio!!!!
#15 Posted by cousinjed on August 21, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dixielee....
Crushed the Taliban? Crippled al-Qaeda? That's not true. al Qaeda has expanded and grown. The Taliban has control of much of Southern and Eastern Afghanistan.
Nobody is complaining "how long" the wars are taking. I personally am complaining about the Bush Administration taking their eye off the eight ball to go to war in Iraq on faulty and manipulated intelligence, deliberate misrepresentations, exaggerations, lies and cherry-picked evidence. The bush Administration has recklessly utilized our troops and compromised the integrity of our intel.
The Bush Administration’s exaggerated allegations only made the building of a coalition harder to accomplish. The United Nations was hardly going to condone an invasion anybody without solid fool-proof evidence. Nor should they! That’s something the Bush Administration failed to produce.
I wrote this on 11/30/05:
http://politicalplace.com/exploiting9...
#16 Posted by Ironside on August 21, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CORRECTIONS to post #27 (typos):
dixielee.....
Crushed the Taliban? Crippled al-Qaeda? That's not true. al Qaeda has expanded and grown. The Taliban has control of much of Southern and Eastern Afghanistan.
Nobody is complaining "how long" the wars are taking. I'm personally complaining about the Bush Administration taking their eye off the eight ball to go to war in Iraq on faulty and manipulated intelligence, deliberate misrepresentations, exaggerations, lies and cherry-picked evidence. The Bush Administration has recklessly utilized our troops and compromised the integrity of our intel.
The Bush Administration’s exaggerated allegations only made the building of a coalition harder to accomplish. The United Nations was hardly going to condone an invasion of anybody without solid fool-proof evidence. Nor should they! That’s something the Bush Administration failed to produce.
I wrote this on 11/30/05:
http://politicalplace.com/expoliting9...
#17 Posted by Ironside on August 21, 2008 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fixed link:
http://politicalplace.com/exploiting9...
#18 Posted by Ironside on August 21, 2008 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CTI, I'm through with him now. He's immature and I don't want to stoop to his level anymore. It's embarrassing.
I enjoy debating, not bickering like children. :]
#19 Posted by Ironside on August 21, 2008 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dixielee
"Don't let the facts get in the way of your thinking, it'll just slow you down. Just keep looking for that "change" that's promised, but keep an eye on your taxes at the same time."
The answer to your dilemma is Bob Barr.
#20 Posted by paul2t on August 21, 2008 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL CTI! :]
#21 Posted by Ironside on August 21, 2008 at 7:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Doctor Phillip Butler is a 1961 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a former light-attack carrier pilot. In 1965 he was shot down over North Vietnam where he spent eight years as a prisoner of war. He is a highly decorated combat veteran who was awarded two Silver Stars, two Legion of Merits, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Heart medals.
After his repatriation in 1973 he earned a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California at San Diego and became a Navy Organizational Effectiveness consultant. He completed his Navy career in 1981 as a professor of management at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is now a peace and justice activist with Veterans for Peace.
He was educated with John McCain and served as POW with him too.
This is the reason he won't vote for John McCain:
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,152...
#22 Posted by Ironside on August 21, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow. All these people hate Bush and the 4,000 lost lives in Irag. You people must hate and despise John F Kennedy for the 64,000 men he caused to be killed in Vietnam. Sending 12,000 troops to Vietnam to be killed without congressional approval.And they were drafted and forced to go, ripped from their homes and loved ones. Not the all volunteer military that we have today.
#23 Posted by nightranger on August 21, 2008 at 8:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
nightranger that's fair nuff.....
Vietnam and Bay of Pigs were two major flaws of JFK's policies. However Eisenhower was the first president to send Americans to Vietnam. The first Americans killed in Nam were on Eisenhower's watch, though JFK sent the first combat troops there and clearly escalated our involvement.
_____________________
It's was George Bush who learned nothing from Vietnam even though during his 2000 acceptance speech he said:
"A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam."
"When America uses force in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the victory must be overwhelming."
_____________________
Wow.... What a conflict to what he pledged!
Hindsight is 20/20 unless you're George W. Bush. JFK's mistakes certainly don't give George Bush a free pass.
#24 Posted by Ironside on August 21, 2008 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
nightranger, no point in exaggerating the numbers. 58,000+ KIA is plenty without doing that. ;)
#25 Posted by Ironside on August 21, 2008 at 9:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dixielee...." the Taliban are crushed"....tell that to the families of the 10 French paratroopers killed in an ambush last week in Afganistan.....tell that to the families of the three Canadian soldiers killed today in Afghanistan by an IED.....and all the rest of the NATO troops fighting the "crushed" Taliban who have become more sophisticated and stronger with equipment and arms supplied by you know who
so read the right news reports and let the facts dictate your thinking
#26 Posted by Canuck on August 21, 2008 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lets get the facts straight, John F Kennedy sent 15,500 troops to Diem in 1962 without Congressional approval to fight the Viet Cong. In 1963 he allow the CIA to plot the murder of Diem. At one point we had 542,000 American soldiers involved in this war. How can anyone hate Bush and not despise Kennedy . Please explain.
#27 Posted by nightranger on August 21, 2008 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I do stand corrected. 58,169 were killed in Vietnam, 304,000 were injured , and 2.59 million served. Makes Bush look like Mother Theresa.
#28 Posted by nightranger on August 21, 2008 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CTI-- 'wingey', week = weak? but your speeling is the least of your problems.
The Nam war was a waste, but not political at the start. Nixon won a presidential election with a promise to end the war, 30,000 troops died After he was elected.
Dix, Take your 9mm over to Iraq and releave one of our guys that want to come home. You won't have to look hard to find one. We really do need more chicken hawk warmonger Repub's there, they will change thier attitude very quickly.
#29 Posted by bossman1 on August 22, 2008 at 6:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The agreement the Bush administration has now made with Iraq will have our troops out of Iraq by the year 2011.
McCain calls Obama's plan a plan of surrender, but it's really not much different than the Bush admin's agreement.
I'd like to hear what McCain has to say about this new "timetable."
#30 Posted by Ironside on August 22, 2008 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
dixielee.and just whose blog did I copy??
its amazing how you skew the comments when you are cornered with your untruths and embellishments of the facts...have never read the New York Times in my life......you probably did not even know NATO forces were fighting in Afganistan....Fox news doesn't report that
#31 Posted by Canuck on August 22, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
dixielee where do you get your information from that proves that (p)Resident Bush has "crushed the Taliban" and " crippled al-Qaida"?
Please address what facts you have that support your claims.
#32 Posted by Ironside on August 22, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
don't look now but he has moved over to the LTTE blog....won't respond there either
#33 Posted by Canuck on August 22, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Post your comment
(Requires free registration.)