A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:47:05 GMT

??

Speachless.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

James Jonah Jameson — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:49:57 GMT

Oh snap, Time Withdrawal. Thanks President Obama. Bush needs to take McCain on a fishing trip in Chicago. But wait, news flash, neither one of them know where Chicago is.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Andrea, New York City — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:50:51 GMT

YO! What about 16 months? Out by 2010.

Obama is SO on target about this foreign policy stuff.

GO OBAMA/08

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

CE, Athens, Ga. — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:50:59 GMT

So, are Bush and the Republicans trying to "one up" Obama? It seem to be their method of operations of late.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Nashville_fan — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:51:23 GMT

Whatever floats your boat folks . . . let me translate:

President Obama will withdraw the troops in 2009, just like he said he would.

Got that pundits?

P.S. I think that saving 10 BILLION dollars a month by leaving Ira qwill got ALOT FURTHER than that 18 cents a gallon that the McCain campaign wants to gut from the roads and bridges budget, don't you? Why is common sense so hard for the media to process?

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Pander, Picayune MS — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:52:04 GMT

So Bush doing exactly what Obama said needed to be done...

How's McCain going to take credit for the idea on this one? Riding on the coattails of Obama's ideas has been his forte of late.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Pete - Albany, NY — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:52:50 GMT

Hey, doesn't this mean we're...*gasp*...SURRENDERING?

Oh, that's right, it's only a surrender if a Democrat does it!

Looks like Senator Obama had a pretty good idea after all.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Scott in South Texas — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:54:14 GMT

At this point in the Bush administration, everything they do is for political reasons designed specifically to help McCain. Politics before country.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Brad, NY, NY — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:54:26 GMT

Interesting. I wonder what other Obama ideas Bush and McCain will pass off as there own.

Also, doesn't this make Obama ahead of the curve on foreign policy again?

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Lou Christie/Rain Man — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:56:09 GMT

"a general time horizon"??????

Beyond the blue horizon
Waits a beautiful day
Goodbye to things that bore me
Joy is waiting for me

I see a new horizon
My life has only begun
Beyond the blue horizon
Lies a rising sun

I think they meant blue horizon, not time horizon. No?

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Matt, Idaho — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:56:07 GMT

Call it what it is. A timetable.

And its withdrawal under less than optimal circumstances. The Nation is in shambles, the government is corrupt and the people do not have rightful shared control of their own nation's oil revenues. The Country is ripe for the rise of a new dictatorship, because violence and martyrdom, not diplomacy, was the theme of the decade.

A failure never smelled so sickly sweet.

Way to go, G'-dub. At least this gives Obama more credibility, and your grandpa... er... McCain... less.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

James C., Arizona — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:56:07 GMT

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

kenn — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:57:08 GMT

What difference will it make your enimies dont care about timelines withdrawl or anything for that matter just killing americans and christians all around the world get used to it pussies,when do you sign up for AFGANISTAN SEIRRIA and all OBAMMA supporters ? WHEN never chicken hawks just like the tough guy in the whitehouse now easy to talk of war when never fighting in one isnt it OBAMMA WANTS YOU sign up and we can ship you off to fight his war in afganistan and when he crosses the border PAKISTAN what cat got your tougne better than a fundelmentlist MUSLIM REMEMBER the SCORPION he kills the frog while riding on his back across the river when the frog says now we both will die why did you do that the scorpion replies BECAUSE IM A SCORPION things dont change just because you do LEGACY is what you have people still remember slavery how can they forget BERUIT in the 80s or the shah of IRAN easy for us we dont remember yesterdsys pop star nevermind the wrongs committed in our names ENJOY afganistan you got what you wanted now start FIGHTING democrats your boss is calling you ask not what I did for my country but wht the OTHER guy can do for ME.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Ira, Freehold, NJ — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:59:02 GMT

Looks like Bush is following the Obama talking points and following his advice. I can live with that until Election Day. The country is bound to get a whole lot better.

Now let's wait for the McCain flip-flop on this issue. I can see hear it now....the success of the surge has allowed us to get to this point...blah blah blah.

If this does not prove to everyone that Obama has the foreign policy credentials, national security credentials, etc. nothing will.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

James C., Arizona — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:59:22 GMT

A General Time Horizon!

OMG -- we're letting the enemy know that!!!

I guess the stay, stay, stay McCain will have to disagree strongly with the President after all he is commiting to a surrendor right?

So, could someone tell me the difference between a "Time Horizon" and a "Flexible Timeline"?

I guess a "Time Horizon" is a fuzzy enough plan with no real mean or strategy. Oh that's why the President supports it, because it is really not a plan at all, just like everything else!

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Mox — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:59:25 GMT

And this means what?? Obama is a third Bush term .He has showed us that they are working togeather and the Dems are under the bus with everyone else. Anything for the Glory of the Bomma.There will be no time line there shouldnt be. I am not a philly lawyer but even I know you dont tell enemy what your doing unless your Obama I guess.One religion, ruler of country, faith, and ruleer of world. shoreing up that base now oversees. Obama likes to brag so much will tell the world what he is doing. Dont give him any secreats he cannt handle it.Now he has voted to put into law the way to eavesdrop on us all. He is voteing against his stand before cause Hillary stood in his way of takeing over. Not being elected he is selected not elected. He is so not good for this country in any way.Keeping the protesters away from cameras he does good . Makes people think all is golden around him. Trust me it isnt.You just dont see it so what will we see on his trip?? Nothing bad for sure it will be covered up.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

A Charles, LA, CA — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:59:31 GMT

LMAO, is Bush playing Bill to McCain's Hillary??? He's sabotaging McCain on average about every 3 days. Honestly, what is McCain supposed to say now? In effect, the whole argument for choosing McCain has gone out the window. Obama is ahead of him on Afghanistan & the economy.

Next Bush will be saying "A vote for McCain is a vote for me".

McCain, dude I feel for you.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Single Mother for Obama, Seattle, Wa — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:59:34 GMT

Wow, the repugs really do listen to Obama...in this week alone more troops for the forgotten war and now a "general time horizon". I say, they're a little afraid that Obama is right so often that if they make some changes perhaps McCant will be elected. NOT!!!

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Scott LaRoque — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:59:44 GMT

Once again that Obama guy was able to get the jump on everyone with the right call.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

NoMcCain — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:59:50 GMT

Gee, maybe President Bush/Cheney isn't as dumb as I thought. He's paying attention to the smartest guy in the race, Senator Obama. And as a result, President Bush/Cheney is throwing Senator McCain under the bus.

lol

Obama 08

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Gary Schear, bozeman Montana — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:01:08 GMT

Obama is already getting results and he hasn't even been elected yet.

Hey FirstRead!
Maybe you could talk a bit about the "status of forces" agreement being the first time in US History that a mutual defense treaty will be concluded without the approval of 2/3 of the Senate?
Ah, why bother. Congress doesn't seem to care.
One last satisfying wipe with the Constitution as Bush leaves town. They must have saved a fortune in toilet paper.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

GP Chicago — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:01:30 GMT

This is like saying "I didn't say yes, I said affirmative"

And is it just me or is bush pretty much reading Obama's playbook and implementing great ideas to save his miniscule reputation? First it was Afghanistan (engaging pakistani border), then it was diplomatic convo with Iran, and now setting a timeline(lets call it what it is) for troop withdrawel from Iraq.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

RJS, Indianapolis — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:02:53 GMT

Wow, Obama's not even POTUS yet and he's setting foreign policy. Awesome.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Terry, Great Plains — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:04:49 GMT

Talk about PLAYING POLITICS. How convenient that Bush can negogiate this right before Obama's trip. Of course this agreement was never going to the Senate for ratification. If a Democratic President played this game he would be skewed in the press. Of course the run up to this trillion dollar mistake was bought into by many in the mainstream press. The truth is Bush will do anything to try to save his legacy. Regretfully for all of us that train has left and he ranks below Herbert Hoover and U.S. Grant.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

In favor of Timelines--For Bush — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:05:14 GMT

Thank God there's a mandatory timeline for removing this idiot from the grounds of the White House.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

GP Chicago — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:05:47 GMT

kenn,

Check into rehab buddy, you're having flashbacks again.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

C.K. Steele Fort Lauderdale, FL — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:06:12 GMT

First Read,

Is it possible that you can expound on what this means? What exactly would be the penalty for staying in a sovereign country past the UN Mandate? Is it legal for a President to bind the US to a long term agreement without the consent of Congress?

I hope that someone can answer those questions but right now it seems like Mr. Bush has managed to win another one. Instead of showing some leadership and a strategy, it seems as if he is content with punting the football and leaving it to the "generals on the ground". President Obama can't get into office soon enough to begin to repair this admistration's damage.

On another note, I now know who the "Nation of Whiners" is. It is the McCain camp and the GOP (by proxy) who are complaining about Obama's overseas trip. I think they will be crying all week. We want equal time! It's not fair because we didn't think to invite the press with us! How dare foreigners actually LIKE Americans! He's an elitist because people actually care to see him! Waaaaaah! It's a photo-op! Well Barack didn't go to [insert country here] so it shows that he doesn't understand foreign policy!

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Pete — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:07:48 GMT

This is unbelievable that people actually think this is happening because Obama said so. Wake up people-the whole point of the surge was to get us to the point where we could do this. Obama and his mindless bunch of followers may want to take credit for this, but this was the goal in the first place.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Vote Senator Obama for true withdrawal from Iraq — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:08:20 GMT

In my opinion, this is another grand political posturing by the republicans. This is Bush's way to help McCain by taking the wind out of Senator Obama's anti-war argument. They will "talk" about withdrawal and then say "we are doing what Senator Obama is doing, so there is no reason to vote for him"
This is a flagrant attempt by the republicans to regain control of an election that is clearly moving out of reach for them. How sad that the war (people's lives) is just a manipulation tool for the greedy, self-serving repukes!

McCain, if in office, will not withdraw from Iraq, he will have a "change of mind", as he has on so many issues. McCain lies - remember the football frontline fiasco? He can not be trusted!

This ploy is evidence of the vile republicans serious desperation.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

John Hummel, Tampa, FL — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:08:25 GMT

Today: But it's not a timeline! Really - it's not. We're not actually saying *when* we'll leave, just that we will leave soon.

One week from now: OK, we have a date set, and it's about 2 years from now. No, this doesn't coincide with Senator Obama's 16 month withdrawal plan. This is totally different because, uh, we say so!

How is it that the more time goes on, the more the Bush administration listens to Senator Obama? Obama said he would fire missles into Pakistan to kill al Quaeda, and after every Republican said that was a bad thing, the Bush administration started firing missles at terrorists in Pakistan.

Obama says we should take more troops from Iraq and put them into Afghanistan - and the Pentagon suggests to the White House that they need to remove troops from Iraq because the real front on the war on terror - Afghanistan - needs them.

Huh. And I thought that Obama was the one without experience or knowledge of how to run wars.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Vote Senator Obama for true withdrawal from Iraq — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:09:10 GMT

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Ron Indiana — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:09:43 GMT

Well, well, well. McCain wants to stay there 50 years, have US bases there, and the Iraqi government wants us to go home. A few years ago McCain said that if the Iraqi government wants to leave, we should leave. Somehow I bet Obama's plan to get our military out of there in 16 months is about right. Since McCain has flip-flopped on both sides of this issue, I wonder which side he will take? Stay for years, or go because we have been asked to go. My bet is he will call it a Victory and decide it's time to come home. Since there is no definition or criteria of "Victory" McBush can call it whatever.
Obama's judgement is right on.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Obama/Bush 08 — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:10:24 GMT

Obama Bush good team do you feel silly now??Bush's 3rd term is Obama surprise!!

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Vote Senator Obama for true withdrawal from Iraq — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:10:40 GMT

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

R.Merrell — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:10:51 GMT

John McCain, Bush's loadest and strongest supporter, has already set his "time horizon": Another 100 years. Afterall, what would Bush-McCain and the Republicans do without war, war and more war? Try to fix the U.S. health care system, repair our crumbling infrastructure, invest in energy research, improve education? No way. Continuing Bush's War in Iraq is priority #1 for McCain and the Republicans. They have no plan, they have no vision. They wear their little flag pins but they really have nothing but contempt for America and democracy. Without war they're completely lost.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Mark, Salem, CT — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:11:08 GMT

Bush is not purposely sabotaging McCain.

Bush is concerned about his legacy as being the worst president of all time.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

J. Ellis, Virginia — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:15:02 GMT

The Bush Administration is such a bunch of slight of hand magicians. They do exactly what Sen. Obama has suggested they do about the troop withdrawal and then try to make us believe that was the plan all along. Once again, Obama is right on the money.

Why is there no mention of Bush making arrangements with the Iraq government paying restitution to the US for the loss of life and treasure during this fiasco of a war? John McCain let it slip that this war was all about the oil, wasn't it?

Oh, but we weren't supposed to figure that one out.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Diane from Illinois — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:15:25 GMT

Looks like Obama is now Bush's adviser on Foreign Policy. He's been right all along. Can hear McCain now......we wouldn't be where were are today without the surge......blah, blah, blah. This plus the sudden "idea" to begin talks with Iran......hmmmm, seems like President Obama is getting started ahead of schedule!

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Obama CHANGE you can believe in DAILY! — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:15:30 GMT

Excuse me. The talk recently was they wanted a withdrawal date. Now, we're talking "general horizon timeline". That's a huge difference, folks. And, a general timeline does not fit with Obama's adamant stance they will be out in 2009. It's a sad day to me when the US runs surrenders again like they did in Vietnam. The Obamatots are worried about our "image" in the world. When we left Vietnam, we were the laughing stocks of the world, just like we will be this time if we leave there without the country being secure. And, as somebody pointed out above, when will all you Obamatots be signing up to go to Afghanistan and fight? Oh yes, your Messiah isn't getting us out of war; he's continuing war. I love it, too, when he said we can two more brigades there to step it up and end the war there. The Russians had 130,000 troops there for a very long time, and they LOST. The British were there for years and LOST. But, the Messiah is going to bring peace to that region? I did not agree with the war in Iraq because I do not believe in being the aggressor. I also disagreed with the war because that region has been at war since the beginning of time. And, yet, we think we're going to change it. It's just as ludicrous to think that Stinky is going to bring peace to Afghanistan and Pakistan region AND going to destroy Al Qaeda AND get Osama AND he's going to do it with only 20K more troops. And, as much as we might not like the war in Iraq, I did hear an authority speaking that we need Iraq secure or Al Qaeda will just run there. Then, Stinky will have to take us back there to fight again. As Bill Clinton said, what a fairytale!

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Lee-- Dallas, TX — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:15:46 GMT

The Phantom President stricks again. McBush follows what Barack says again with regard to foreign policy; air attack against Pakistani (Baracks idea), sending more troops Afghanistan (Baracks idea), using strong diplomacy with Iran (Baracks idea), time table for Iraq (Baracks idea).

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Reggie — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:15:51 GMT

Can we say President Barack Hussein Obama?
The Bush Administration has now reversed itself on two of the three major strategic issues of American Foreign Policy to mimick the positions of Mr. Obama: Iraq (time to go) and Iran (time to talk). The military's highest ranking generals are calling for a major redeployment of troops TO Afghanistan so this one's next.
Do open minded and reasonable people have any more questions about this man's ability to conduct the responsibilities of Commander-in-Chief?

By the way, how come no one is talking about the President's constitutional responsibilities as Chief Diplomat and Statesman? Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran is NOT diplomacy at its finest!! (Just a thought)

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Nelson, Knoxville, Tenn. — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:16:21 GMT

Let the truth be told. I think Sen. Obama deserves credit for his forthrightness on most of this issues. Early this week it was meeting with Iran, yestarday, it was dipmatic office in Iran, and today it is 'Timetable' even though you will not call it what it is. Chuck, you and your team should give credit to the man that have seen this ahead and called for it which is Barack Obama. Not doing so will be no other thing than Bias or possibly because your wife gets paid by the Mccain Campain.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Ira, Freehold, NJ — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:16:41 GMT

His arrogance to think that he knows how to run Iraq better than the commanders is ridiculous.
Kathy P, Southbury, CT (Sent Friday, July 18, 2008 11:22 AM)
...............................................

President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have agreed that a new agreement setting the parameters for US-Iraqi relations after the current UN mandate expires at the end of the year should include non-binding language--"a general time horizon" and not "an arbitrary date"--about the withdrawal of US troops.

It's not arrogance, it's judgement, common sense and a superior view of world and national events.

Now, even President Bush agrees with him.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Ron Indiana — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:20:30 GMT

Now Obama and the Generals have something to talk about...a withdrawal strategy. To be as careful in getting out as we were careless getting in.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Kelly (from Pittsburgh) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:21:02 GMT

Don't be fooled Americans. The Republicans are attempting to enact everything Obama and many Democrats have been calling for in an attempt to fool you into electing them again. After reelected they will go straight back to war mongering and lining the pockets of all their corporate buddies. There will be no real change of course to get the country back on track over the long-term. They are hoping to take away the issues of gas prices and war sepnding, and hope the voters will have a temprary amnesia about how we got there. Then the elections will become about who Americans like more. White POW or "exotic" Obama. But John McCain will still stand for the same things and make the same mistakes for our future.

A 'general time horizon' for withdrawal?

Obama CHANGE you can believe DAILY! — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:23:01 GMT

When I heard Malaki was asking for a timeline, I thought that was odd because it just sets the terrorists up in their planning. I was wondering if Malaki was wanting to have some kind of leverage with the politicians and mullahs to say "they won't be here forever" instead of what many assumed that they wanted us out. I saw some interviews this week that seemed to indicate many, many are very concerned about an announced withdrawal and that if the US left now all would be lost. We're people here reading; we weren't in the talks there. We don't know what was said, how they came to this agreement or what the strategy is. It seems people here just to conclusions on what some of this international business means. It isn't a "black and white" situation; it's much more complex. Lastly, to say they're following Obama's plan, GIVE ME A BREAK. People involved in this have been doing it all their lives, not like Obama who has never negotiated the price of a pack of gum.