Iraqis want a time schedule for withdrawal?

That’s what you’d believe after a cursory glance at this story in the Washington Post this morning. Under the headline “Iraqi Lawmakers Back Bill on US Withdrawal“, the Post announces;

A majority of members of Iraq’s parliament have signed a draft bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels. The development was a sign of a growing division between Iraq’s legislators and prime minister that mirrors the widening gulf between the Bush administration and its critics in Congress.

Oh, my! Then why are we there, if the Iraqis don’t want us there? But, wait! Read a few paragraphs down to;

“We haven’t asked for the immediate withdrawal of multinational forces; we asked that we should build our security forces and make them qualified, and at that point there would be a withdrawal,” said Bahaa al-Araji, a member of parliament allied with the anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose supporters drafted the bill. “But no one can accept the occupation of his country.”

(Emphasis mine)

Oh, well, that’s no shocker that Mookey (Butterball) al-Sadr wants a time-scheduled withdrawal, is it? That way he can rest his militia up on the French Riviera and then have them locked and loaded when the last C130 leaves Baghdad airport.

So what’s the Washington Post trying to pull here? I guess they’re running a screen for the Democrats – the Democrats know that if they keep sending pre-vetoed legislation to the president, they’ll start looking like Gingrich’s Republicans in the 90s when they tried to force Clinton to spend responsibly and the public will start blaming Democrats for prolonging the war.

In comes the pinch-hitting press to cover for the Democrats. Take the heat off the Democrats by implying that the Iraqis support a timed withdrawal – and try to keep from mentioning al Sadr who has called the presence of American an occupation.

Nice try, WaPo.

Category: Media, Terror War