whats the status of the Security Deal with Iraq? Libs are trying to play that one up now

jp on August 27, 2008 at 11:22 PM

We could be looking at a firm time for withdrawl(remember,Maliki has elections coming up)because of
pressure from the tribes and Maliki’s need to keep himself and supporters in power.)
Even if 2011 is some sort of end game,it is not the 16 months that Obama originally wanted starting from Jan. 07 but now is talking about when or if he takes over.
I still think there will be some wiggle room about forces being able to stay based on conditions on the ground,you know,what Bush and the military have been saying all along
but Mr. Hope and Change has just recently flipped over to.

US sought troop presence till 2015 but agreed to 2011
Baghdad, 28 August 2008 (Reuters)
http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/35773

The United States asked Iraq for permission to maintain a troop presence there to 2015, but US and Iraqi negotiators agreed to limit their authorisation to 2011, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said.

“It was a US proposal for the date which is 2015, and an Iraqi one which is 2010, then we agreed to make it 2011. Iraq has the right, if necessary, to extend the presence of these troops,” Talabani said in an interview with Al Hurra television, a transcript of which was posted on his party’s website yesterday.

Legal basis

The agreement will provide a legal basis for US troops to remain in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of this year.

The emerging points of agreement reflect the increasing assertiveness of the Al Maliki government as it seeks to define the future of the US presence in Iraq.

They also reflect the political pressures that Al Maliki faces at home more than five years after the US-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussain.

I would love to see this Vet have center stage at the Republican convention:

Loving the Troops, Hating Their Mission
Written by Pete Hegseth , Vets for Freedom
Monday, 25 August 2008 08:43
http://iraqstatusreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=560&Itemid=4

Denver — Yesterday, I once again watched Speaker Nancy Pelosi stubbornly deny the success of the surge. Under questioning from Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press, Pelosi insisted that — despite dramatic improvements on the ground — the surge has not been successful because “the Iraqi government has not stepped up to the plate. . . . ” Her opposition, in the interview and elsewhere, is built on naming three pieces of stalled Iraqi legislation. (Hmm, can you name three pieces of stalled U.S. legislation?)

This remains the only anti-surge talking point on the Left. One problem, though: it’s no longer true — especially in light of the Iraqi government’s “surge” to autonomy, which is emblematic of their newfound political aptitude. The Maliki government has passed 15 of the 18 political benchmarks our Congress laid before it, not to mention taking on rogue Shia militias throughout the country and bringing the largest Sunni political party back into the fold. It’s not a beacon of democracy yet, but it is Iraq-ocracy.

Obama has gone so far as to insist — when pressed by Katie Couric last month — that if given the opportunity to support or oppose the surge again, he would still oppose it. So, on one hand, Obama recognizes success in Iraq. But on the other hand, he still opposes the American policy that fostered that success. In Obama’s mind, this is not a contradiction.

The reason why is that Obama won’t admit that the gains we’ve seen in Iraq are at all related to the surge. He knows things have improved in Iraq — even on the political front — but credits everything but the surge strategy and U.S. troops for those improvements. Sure, he’ll say on the stump that “our troops have accomplished every mission” and “they have performed brilliantly.” But in the very next breath, he’ll deny that they were responsible for the success (remember: “gains have been made”). It seems as if nothing good can possibly have come from U.S. military policy in Iraq simply because it went ahead without Obama’s blessing.

This is what liberals call leadership, but everyone that is in touch with reality calls this stuck on stupid.
You would have to be an absolute idiot to follow these people off the cliff.

Baxter Greene on August 28, 2008 at 1:53 AM