I wouldn't know. Why didn't you answer my question?




If they run the show, why did he say "2010" at all? Why not 2009 or 2011? If we really ran the show, he would not have expressed any deadline at all. You are contradicting yourself.




And you jumped to the conclusion that because they believe 2010 is "appropriate" that they want us out by 2010. Projecting your personal opinion as if it were objective fact.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

yes.

please provide examples.

__________________
https://www.voteforchange.com/

This appears to be the status quo.

__________________

so, because they said 2010 is "appropriate" youre suggesting they dont want us out by 2010? is that right? lol

__________________
https://www.voteforchange.com/

I read it just fine and was waiting for that sort of response.

"But a statement issued by Obama's congressional delegation, including Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), said that Maliki is now serious about demanding a time frame for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"Iraqis want an aspirational timeline, with a clear date, for the redeployment of American combat forces," the statement said. "Prime Minister Maliki told us that while the Iraqi people deeply appreciate the sacrifices of American soldiers, they do not want an open-ended presence of U.S. combat forces."

Dabbagh had on Sunday denied that Maliki had endorsed Obama's withdrawal proposal in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel. But his remarks Monday indicate that Iraq's position on a withdrawal time frame does at least closely coincide with Obama's.

Under Obama's proposal, U.S. combat troops would be gone by May 2010.

Dabbagh cautioned, however, that any timetable should be flexible enough to accommodate changing conditions, "to ensure that we won't be attacked by any enemy inside or outside Iraq."

That the Iraqi government is now specifying a preferred withdrawal date could create problems on the campaign trail for McCain, who has slammed any talk of a timetable as tantamount to an admission of defeat."

McCain doesn't want us out, PERIOD.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...0,519982.story

Also, are U saying the Iraqi government are dumb for being smart? Of course they want their back covered. Problem is, not indefinitely like McCain wants. Therefore, I submit the last sentence of the article.

"If Obama is elected, the Iraqis will be able to negotiate a deal that fits their goal of seeing the troops gone by the end of 2010."

Read the whole thing. U might learn something.

If they specifically wanted us out by 2010 don't you think they could have said that instead of suggesting a time that would be appropriate?

__________________

did you read that question before hitting the submit button?

__________________
https://www.voteforchange.com/

How can they submit something absolute when the Bush administration has consistently balked at anything remotely close to a time table? The U.S. Armed Forces have taken up residency there these past 5+ years, remember?

MOF, a few days ago the White House invented a new term over the matter.

"Time Horizon".

I ask again, what does that mean? The horizon goes on forever. Get the point?

How in the hell does that agreee with Obama at all?

It doesn't.

Stop trying to twist the irrational Obama Surrender plan into being in agrreement with the positions of rational people. Especially when using comments that cotradict what you're vainly trying to imply.



The Iraq government is not specifiying a withdrawal date in the manner the left here is trying to imply and McCain has not said he wants to stay there forever with the same amount of troops.

Pretty much nothing in this thread the left types are pulling is sensible..in fact it requires lack of thought and knowledge.
Nothing new..


Sadistic-Savior discredited most of it well enough.

Here's one from Post #6:

You repeat this lie again in Post #19:



What is your objective evidence that Bush is running the show?

You have absolutely no evidence at all that the US supersedes their authority there. None. It is an assumption you are making. By your own definition, you lied in the quote above.


I'm suggesting they believe that it is an appropriate timeframe, assuming we continue to make the same progress. That seems obvious to me. Otherwise, they would not have explicitly stated that timeframes are conditions based.



Your entire quote is based on what Obama and his people interpreted from the Iraqis. Not what they actually said.

You'll forgive me if I dont take their biased word for it. Do you have anything from actual Iraqi representatives that supports what Obama and his people are saying?



When did I even imply I thought they were stupid?



Perhaps you should take some of your own advice.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?