Iraq wants withdrawal timetables?
This story has been making top-of-the-hour news broadcasts all day. Every news service has been gloating how the Iraqis don’t want us there anymore. Search Technorati using the terms “withdrawal timetable” and you get a whole bunch of equally pleased anti-war types who think they finally have proof that we’re an occupying power.
Even the Washington Post gleefully publishes the ultimatum;
Speaking to reporters in the holy city of Najaf, National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie declined to provide specific dates, but said his government is “impatiently waiting” for the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops.
“There should not be any permanent bases in Iraq unless these bases are under Iraqi control,” Rubaie said.
The commenters at WaPo are peeing their Depends with glee.
AFP is positively giddy;
The United States said Tuesday it would not divulge details of talks with Iraq over a security agreement, after Baghdad threatened to reject any pact unless it contained a specific timetable for withdrawal of US-led foreign forces.
But the part they’re not quoting is surprisingly found buried in an Associated Press article;
The Iraqi proposal stipulates that, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq’s provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country.
After that, the country’s security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said.
Who else has mentioned that the withdrawals were expected from the just the cities? Who else has mentioned that final withdrawal will be subject to semi-annual review? As far as I can tell, no one. Now, AP has a couple of articles out on the same story, so I screen capped it just in case they decide to keep the disingenuous article over this one. Click the picture for a legible view;
So, we’re not being asked for a time table to withdraw from the entire country. We’re being asked to withdraw from the cities to the countryside – like we were in Germany. So it’s not really as big a deal as the media would like to make of it. AP sure makes it hard to stick to my boycott of them when they tell the truth.
Welcome Gateway Pundit readers – and thanks, Jim once again.
Category: Media, Politics, Terror War
Nice catch. I’ve been busy and hadn’t delved into the story.
Notwithstanding the fact that today was a “day from Hell” for work assignments, I did catch this announcement.
So what? People we have liberated don’t want us there anymore. Go figure? They are LIBERATED. They have a vision of Government that THEY want. That vision may, or may NOT, correspond to OUR vision! Holy crap, Batman!
My thoughts, and my encouragement, is to the Iraqi Government. Iraqis for a FREE Iraq should be supported, no matter what that portends for America’s Future. Our freedoms are preserved by acting in accordance with OUR beliefs. As long as we DEFEND freedom elsewhere, we shall preserve and defend OUR freedom HERE! If the Iraqi Government is ready to be FREE, let them go.
If they screw it up, the failure belongs to THEM.
Before World War II, we (the U.S.) tried the colonialism game. It didn’t work for us then, and it won’t work now. The Philippines are free because we rejected that political “truism.” In time, they kicked us out of our military bases. What they do with their country doesn’t involve us any longer.
Give the Iraqis their chance. My best wishes are with them. If they DO it right, the parents, siblings, and spouses of those of us who were lost will have their hopes and sorrows redeemed.
[…] Iraq Withdrawl: Not So Fast! […]