Will The Bush/McCain Administration Allow Maliki To Live In Light of Maliki's Call For a Timetable?

[Median Democrat]

The Bush/McCain administration has steadfastly denied over the past three weeks that Maliki supported a timetable for withdrawal. These comments began early this month:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/mccain-responds.html

McCain responded initially by claiming that Maliki was misunderstood or that Maliki was lying:

"Since we are succeeding, then I am convinced, as I have said before, we can withdraw and withdraw with honor, not according to a set timetable," he said. "And I’m confident that is what Prime Minister Maliki is talking about, since he has told me that for many meetings we’ve had."

Most recently, Maliki has stepped up his calls for a timetable similar to that proposed by Obama:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25774091/

The question is that in light of Maliki's increased demands for the U.S. to withdrawl will Bush/McCain permit Maliki to live. After all, if Maliki were to suffer a fatal lapse in the U.S. provided security, then instability would follow, which would conveniently allow Bush/McCain to claim once again that Obama's timetable was naive. The Bush administration has shown a remarkable willingness to torture and lie to accomplish their goals. The only thing naive would be to assume that the Bush/McCain administration would stand by and allow Maliki to echo Obama's goal to pull out American troops and allow Iraq to assert its sovereignty, which would impair the U.S.'s ability to control Iraq's oil supply.

Right now, the US is secretly negotiating a status of forces agreement with Iraq to ensure a permanent presence for the US in Iraq. However, Maliki has rejected an open ended US presense. Maliki has also called for a timetable, which Bush/McCain are either denying that he has asked for such a thing, or they are saying that Maliki is not asking for a time table, but a time horizon. You have to ask, why is the Bush/McCain administration so insistent that Maliki is not asking for a timetable even though this is what he has plainly asked for?

So, while I think its admirable for Maliki to stand up for Iraq's soverignty and call out the Bush administration for its lies, the whole reason for the U.S. to invade Iraq was oil. Remember, regardless of WMDs, Bush was planning on invading Iraq, and as Paul Wolfowitz noted, WMDs were just a convenient excuse for doing so.

[Occam Bandage]

1. Yes.

[Median Democrat]

3. So, why are they going through so much effort . . .

to deny that Maliki said what he said. We here that Maliki was being mis-translated. We also see McCain quoted in the earlier story as saying that Maliki does not want a timetable. Yet, the next day on July 9th, McCain is flipping around with this comment:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16145.html

“John McCain has always been clear that American forces operate in Iraq only with the consent of that country’s democratically elected government,” Michael Goldfarb, a McCain spokesman, told the Huffington Post. “The Senator speaks frequently with Iraq’s leaders and they have made clear that they share his belief that any timeline for withdrawal must be dictated by the facts on the ground. He met with the foreign minister and President separately within the last month…He met with Maliki on his last trip to Iraq sometime in late March.”

Goldfarb’s remarks represent a more pronounced effort to bring McCain’s position on Iraq in line with Maliki’s. McCain has forsworn deadlines for troop withdrawal — insisting that it be tied to conditions on the ground — and he did not, initially, express support the prime minister’s position.

* * *

All I can say is that I hope your faith in the good will and ethics of the Bush/McCain administration is bourne out in the end.

[Occam Bandage]

4. Because the statement is politically embarrassing.

The death of Maliki would be even more so.

[Median Democrat]

5. I Believe That Bush/McCain's Goal Is To Keep A Permanent U.S. Presence In Iraq

I hope you are correct, of course, but the past record of the Bush administration shows that any instability would be used to justify a more open ended commitment to Iraq, and it would also be used to assert that Obama's call for a timeline is naive. The Bush administration has not had a great track record when it comes to respecting the law, and not acting as though the end justifies the means. Heck, McCain advisor, Charlies Black, openly stated that he thinks that a terrorist attack on the U.S. would be helpful to McCain politicially, which is a pretty amazing thing for a McCain advisor to say in the open.

So, I do hope that the Bush administration and McCain have scruples, and that they are above creating instability in Iraq in order to support their policy goals and political arguments.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Cheney is saying "They can have all the little timetables they want"

In the mean time they have whole city/bases fully operational & secure that the pubic knows nothing about.