Iraq official presses U.S. for pullout plan – Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com: “National security adviser says any security deal must contain timetable”
Iraqi leaders are publicly demanding a timetable for troop withdrawal. Over the past seven years, when an American, however, has demanded a timetable for withdrawal the Bush administration attacks the timetable as foolish or even favorable to the terrorists. Yet, last week the Prime Minister of Iraq demanded a timetable, and the national security advisor demanded one today. Are the Iraqi leaders asking for something that will help the terrorists? I doubt it.
Consider the following typical statement from President Bush when he was at a 2005 press conference with the Prime Minister of Iraq: (emphasis added)
There’s not going to be any timetables. I mean, I’ve told this to the Prime Minister. We are there to complete a mission, and it’s an important mission. A democratic Iraq is in the interest of the United States of America, and it’s in the interest of laying the foundation for peace. And if that’s the mission, then why would you — why would you say to the enemy, you know, here’s a timetable, just go ahead and wait us out? It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.
The above quote is from 2005, but the policy has not changed; President Bush said only three weeks ago: “There should be no definitive timetable. I am confident that [British Prime Minister Brown], like me, will listen to our commanders to make sure that the sacrifices that have gone forward won’t be unraveled by drawdowns that may not be warranted at this point in time.”
If it is true that timetables help the enemy, then the Iraqi leadership is supporting a policy that helps their enemy. That is absurd. The truth is that timetables, per se, do not help or hurt the enemy. The fact that the leaders of Iraq are calling for a timetable helps to prove this point. The Bush administration, and the right-wing press, need to stop asserting such a ridiculous claim.
In fact, now that the Iraqi government has called for a timetable, we must provide one because President Bush essentially promised to make a timetable if the Iraqis asked for one. (Thank you to Michael DeCrane for reminding me of this. See also Vote No on JOE (Knollenberg))
For the Iraqis, the main goal of the timetable is the complete withdrawal of US troops. Iraqi national security advisor, Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, said yesterday, “We’re unambiguously talking about their departure.” The President promised to leave when the Iraqis asked the troops to leave:
The Iraqi government wants the troops to leave and it wants a timetable for the withdrawal. President Bush promised to leave when asked, so he is honor-bound to provide a timetable.
Finally, President Bush’s heated rhetoric about timetables is hypocritical: in 1999, Governor Bush demanded that President Clinton set a timetable for withdrawing from Kosovo.
It is not about timetables. It is about Oil. As greg pallast says, “we may not have gone into Iraq for the oil, but sure as hell ain’t leaving without it.” The Bush Crime family has no shame. They will stay in Iraq regardless of the promises they have made because they think they are above the law, International law or US law. And why should they believe any different? Congress refuses to hold them accountable.