- Daily Photo: Obama Jokes Around at G-20
- Blackwater gets replaced in Iraq
- Daily Photo: U.S. Marines Look Out for Taliban in Afghanistan
- Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her "Ah-Ha" Moment
- Obama Administration Sudan Envoy Headed to Region
- Daily Photo: Potential Flashpoint in Iraq
- Clinton Says New Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Depends on Diplomacy
- Exclusive: Three Israeli Airstrikes Against Sudan
- Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan
- Daily Photo: Navy Submarine Trains in the Arctic
- Alarm Over North Korea Missile Prep
- Anti-Terror Stimulus? US Offers Rewards for Top Terrorists
- Daily Photo: Pakistani Women in Refugee Camp
- Condoleezza Rice Appears on "The Tonight Show"
- Diplomat and Aid Group Sound the Alarm on Darfur Camp Situation
- auto industry rescue
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Iraq
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« Previous | Main | Next »
McCain Responds to Maliki's Call for Withdrawal Timetable
July 08, 2008 11:42 PM
ABC News’s Bret Hovell reports: Sen. John McCain responded late Tuesday to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s call for a drawdown in foreign troops from Iraq as a prerequisite for a security agreement with the United States.
McCain said he was not concerned about the call for a "timetable" for withdrawal, a concept McCain has consistently criticized.
"I know for a fact that [troop pullout] will be dictated by the situation on the ground, as it always has been," McCain said Tuesday evening at a stop for dinner in Pittsburgh, Pa.
"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."
Maliki said in a statement on Monday that the way to proceed in defining the next phase of American involvement in Iraq would involve setting a timetable for the end of combat troops in the country.
McCain has regularly contended that though the so-called "surge" of troops is succeeding -– and evidence seems to indicate that is correct -– the current level of peace is tenuous at best. He has said that withdrawing troops too soon could reverse the progress that has been made.
"He doesn’t want to give up these hard won victories in Basra, in Mosul, in Sadr city," McCain said on Tuesday of Maliki.
July 8, 2008 in Hunter, Duncan | Permalink | User Comments (42)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
.
Looks like George W McCain's campaign is imploding sooner than expected.
.
Posted by: wilder5121 | Jul 9, 2008 1:23:42 AM
Although I don't agree with McCain on his approach to the war he is no doubt a man of principle. His mantra should be, across the board, "We Act with Honor Always". I'm not sure how Obama would counter this because I do not see him as acting honorably ever, just twisting whichever way the wind blows. I'd like to see Hillary back in the race myself.
=======================================
Obama goes whichever way the wind blows
=======================================
Posted by: WestCoastMessenger | Jul 9, 2008 1:23:58 AM
READ OBAMAS BOOK and you will see he is no flip flopper actually the great thing i discovered about him in his book he has the ability to look at all side the left the right and the middle now thats the kind of president we need someone who can relate and understand ALL OF US
Posted by: angie | Jul 9, 2008 1:24:08 AM
Doesn't the Iraqi Prime Minister realize that he is an appeaser? He certainly can't be trusted to know what is best for Iraq and Iraqis.
I guess Obama's magical mind-control powers cross oceans.
Posted by: godblessusa | Jul 9, 2008 1:33:42 AM
vuzous First off, no one thinks Mulaki
wants us out of Iraq ASAP or quite yet.
He needs to do his political pandering over there also. Secondly, if Iraq does want us out it will in part be a result of the effects of the surge, which McCain supported and risked his Presidential bid on. If Obama were to win the Presidency he will be a benefactor of the results of the surge in Iraq. You will see Obama move closer then he is even today towards McCain on Iraq after Obama returns from Iraq. He's just laying the groundwork for that right now just like he started dropping hints or justifications for his backing out of public financing before he ever actually announced he was going to. I suppose you're one of those supporters who believe Obama's campaign funds consist only of small donors? The League of Women Voters,
Center for Responsive Politics and other watchdog groups sent a letter to both Obama and McCain recently asking for clarification of where their campaign funds. In the letter to Obama they indicated that something like 51% of his donors gave between $200-$1000, something like 33% gave over $1,000 and those small donors who give less then $200 don't have to be reported to the FEC, but you don't need much in regards to math skills to figure it doesn't add up to 90% small donors under $200. Also, who kept his campaign afloat before all those small donors came on board? Try Exelon, JP Morgan Chase, UBS,
Citigroup, Exxon Mobil and so on. That's all on public record and available to anyone who takes the time to look for it. I thought the point of public financing was to limit the influence of special interests?
Posted by: alpaig52 | Jul 9, 2008 2:01:29 AM
McCain flip-flops again: asked in 2004 in testimony before the CFO if he would approve withdrawing our troops if Iraq's government demanded it,
McCain said, quote: "Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because -- if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people."
And he has the GALL to accuse Obama of flip-flopping?
Posted by: Ross | Jul 9, 2008 2:09:02 AM
Ross They've both accused each other of flip flopping. Flip flopping is something you'd expect from "old politics" , pandering is something you'd expect from "old politics". Obama is supposed to be about change and new politics. That doesn't excuse any flip flopping on McCain's part but Obama promised a higher standard for himself. We aren't just talking Iraq here though- he's moved more to the center/center right on NAFTA, FISA, Iran, Jerusulem, gun control, death penalty, faith based initiatives, abortion and now Iraq within just a matter of weeks. I actually don't think Obama is flip flopping. I think he pandered to the far left to win the nomination and his supporters are among those who haven't really listened closely to what he's said or done their homework on his past experience in the State and US Senate and have turned Obama into something he never really was. He's a pragmatist, a realist,
not really certain of who he is and what he stands for and what he would stand up for- and this is becoming clearer as this campaign progresses.
Posted by: alpaig52 | Jul 9, 2008 2:23:50 AM
Obama won't leave Iraq any sooner either. Faith based initiatives sound pretty George W. By the time Obama comes back from Iraq he'll sound even more McCainish. Gun control, death penalty, NAFTA, FISA- sounds pretty Republican to me. Are you so sure Obama isn't really Bush 3?
Posted by: alpaig52 | Jul 9, 2008 2:41:24 AM
Apart from all the goofy nonsense written here by so many McCain bashers, the fact are that,
McCain criticized the execution of war for years.
Called for and supported the surge which is working.
Wants to leave Irag with a stable self sufficient government.
Wants to leave with victory and honor.
So, its a simple question really: Do you want to leave Irag in honor, with a legacy of having left a country that is stable, and self governing?
or do you just want to just "get out" and let who knows who or what take control of the country through bloody conflict, and have the whole middle east for generations blame the USA for creating a horrible outcome?
What to do want to see their? How do you want the middle east and the world to view the USA? We can have the outcome we want.......
WHAT OUTCOME DO YOU WANT?
Like many of you, I didn't think it was a good idea to go to war, but our congrass and president did, they voted to do it. SO, WE NOW HAVE THE POWER TO CHOOSE THE OUTCOME.
I WILL CHOOSE THE RESPONSIBLE POSITION OF LEAVING A STABLE SELF GOVENRNING NATION BEHIND.
THINK ABOUT IT FOLKS! LETS GET THIS ONE RIGHT! LETS BE RESPECTED WORLD WIDE AS THE SUPPORTER OF LIBERTY WITH HONOR, WILLING TO STAND UP FOR IT.
LETS STAND WITH MCCAIN AND GET THIS DONE.
Posted by: j | Jul 9, 2008 2:46:26 AM
Why are the voters complaining about McCain and Iraq?? Obama has changed his stance a half dozen times on Iraq. He does not have any ratrional plan; he keeps changing a bit day by day. Now he waiting until his Iraq trip for his next proposal. Remember, this was the Bush/Cheney War, not McCains.
Posted by: Mary | Jul 9, 2008 3:31:32 AM
Flipper!!!!When are people going to realize that the only reason we went to "war" and continue to be in Iraq is because of the oil in the region.
Posted by: jen | Jul 9, 2008 5:54:15 AM
Kojo tell me what you would do with BUSH then. Typical liberal who wants to give more rights to terrorist leaders than American citizens.
Posted by: dee | Jul 9, 2008 6:52:55 AM
So lets see ... american people want us out of Iraq ... Iraqi people want us out of Iraq ... the democrat presidential candidate of the United States wants us out of Iraq ... yet somehow we're still there.
Perhaps there's a hearing problem ... november is going to cure that.
Posted by: beaupritchard | Jul 9, 2008 8:03:14 AM
His statement is, of course, contradictory, but that shouldn't surprise anyone. He is parroting the Bush Administration on yet another issue. According to McCain, the Iraqi government can't tell the U.S. when to end its occupation. I'd still like to hear Senator McCain define his notion of "success." Because many Americans, myself included, think we never should have invaded Iraq in the first place, does success mean just getting out?
Posted by: mary | Jul 9, 2008 8:30:11 AM
beaupritchard: Thats well said Nov. is on the way coming and we will all be judges.
We are uninvited guests in Iraq. The hosts do not want us anymore. We must get out. Staying there by force, will lead into applying dictatorship, and thats what we have always been against!
Posted by: Peace | Jul 9, 2008 8:51:02 AM
in 2000. McCain said the U.S. should support toppling governments we don't like through overt and covert support. The problem with that is the new government usually doesn't do what we tell them to do either; for example iraq and iran.
Posted by: X marks the spot | Jul 9, 2008 10:25:11 AM
McCain is running for Emperor, not negotiator!
Posted by: Thomas Mc | Jul 9, 2008 12:05:24 PM
My view on ... has always been that ...
- BoO
==========
You fill in the blank. There is a phony who considers his subsidiaries all poor, less-educated, and can be fooled conveniently all the time all things. Now he also accuses them cynical for noting his inconsistencies and flip flop on a daily basis, sometimes even hourly basis.
Posted by: skinny dog | Jul 9, 2008 12:12:13 PM
angie -
It's night and day between the ways that the Obamas and Clintons raise their children.
The Clintons made certain their daughter not giving interviews nor being interviewed, and the media, for once, respected their wishes.
The Obamas, not even being nominated officially, pushed their daughters in the spot lights of Hollywood. Enjoy the ride while you can, or you won't get it after November, being dumped in the trash as all other typical losers.
Posted by: fact check | Jul 9, 2008 12:40:39 PM
Yeah. Diplomacy worked real good on Adolf didn't it. We went the diplomatic route for 12 years with Saddam and he made a mockery out of the whole world. Now to consider diplomacy, without preconditions is ludicrous, and has been proven as such through out history. I think a lot of people these days need world history classes. They just don't seem to know much about it.
Posted by: Truth Hurts | Jul 9, 2008 6:37:16 PM
Post a comment



