With little coverage in the US press, outgoing lame-duck-in-chief Bush has just basically surrendered in Iraq, and the only question is whether the thing that can be seen waving is a white flag or Bush’s tail between his legs. You would think that with all the noise during the presidential campaign about the need for “victory” in Iraq, that someone would notice. But no.
The Bush administration has negotiated an agreement with the government of Iraq that sets a firm timetable for the US withdrawal from Iraq — something that Bush repeatedly and vigorously vowed that he would never do, claiming that such an timetable would endanger the US and its troops. According to Peter Galbraith, a top Iran expert and former ambassador to Croatia:
The agreement represents a stunning and humiliating reversal of course by the Bush administration, which had vehemently opposed any timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
The agreement mandates that US combat forces withdraw from urban areas by the end of this coming June (a scarce seven months from now), and withdraw completely from Iraq by the end of December 2011. The agreement bars permanent American bases in Iraq, leaves a government in charge of Iraq that is decidedly pro-Iranian, something else about which Bush warned about repeatedly.
And finally, nobody noticed that Bush didn’t bother to visit the troops in Iraq for the Thanksgiving and serve them turkey.
13 Comments
They’ve already stolen all they need from Iraq. It’s like negotiating the removal of a vampire’s fangs from the completely spent victim.
of course they’re willing to leave now. they are fully satisfied, bloated, and have to digest until next time.
Political irony?
That would be liberals who complained of Bush’s refusal to set a timetable for withdrawal now complaining of Bush’s agreement to set a timetable for withdrawal.
Actually, what is ironic is the noise the right wing would be making if it were a liberal who negotiated this treaty. As you recall, they raised quite a stink when Obama said he would set a timetable for withdrawal. Now they are curiously silent.
Situations change. Nothing remains the same. And no one can disagree that the situation in Iraq has greatly improved (at least on the surface) since the surge. The time was going to come, some day, for us to leave Iraq. Even the staunchest right winger believes that. So it could be that the right wing sincerely believes the time is right to negotiate a timetable for withdrawal.
But what changed for the liberals? How can liberals justify criticizing Bush for doing exactly what Obama promised to do?
Nobody is criticizing Bush for doing what Obama promised to do. I was criticizing Bush for saying that he would *never* set a timetable for withdrawal (as recently as two months ago), attacking Obama for saying that he would, and then doing a complete flip-flop and doing exactly what he said he would never do.
You are simply wrong when you say that “no one can disagree that the situation in Iraq has greatly improved”. It is easy to find people (highly qualified people, who know the situation very well) who disagree with that. And besides, Bush (and McCain) attacked Obama for saying he would set a timetable long *after* the surge, so your argument that things have changed just doesn’t hold any water.
People say all kinds of things during election campaigns. For example, during the campaign Obama ran on the basic notion that he was the anti-status quo, anti-Clinton, anti-Bush candidate. Now that Obama holds the reins of power we are seeing from his cabinet and adviser choices how much like the status quo, how much like Bush, Obama and his fellow Democrats are becoming. Political flip-flop. Political irony.
And you say “nobody is criticizing Bush for doing what Obama promised to do”.
From the original article (above):
“Bush has just basically surrendered in Iraq, and the only question is whether the thing that can be seen waving is a white flag or Bush’s tail between his legs.”
Were liberals going to pass the same judgement against Obama for doing the same thing?
Au contraire.
Oh sheesh, I guess I have to spell it out for you. That sentence was making fun of the way the right attacked Obama for proposing the same thing. In other words, it was ironic. Get it?
I am totally happy to have a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq — but I would have been even happier if we had never gone in there in the first place.
Oh. So your website is supposed to be funny.
Ladies, gentlemen, I present to you the Successful Internet Troll (Tubeicus Trollicus). Please do not feed it, as this only encourages its bad behavior.
Irony? Ooh. Let me try….
This is the way the Obama administration begins, not with a bang, but a whimper
With little criticism in the US press, incoming equivocator-in-chief Obama has just basically surrendered to the neo-cons, and the only question is whether the thing that can be seen waving is a white flag or Obama’s tail between his legs. You would think that with all the noise during the presidential campaign about the need for retreat from Iraq, that someone would notice. But no.
Obama owed his victory in the Democratic primary contest largely to his posturing as an antiwar candidate, repeatedly raising the October 2002 vote cast by Clinton, his principal rival, to authorize the US invasion of Iraq. But instead of remaining true to his alleged principles, Obama appointed a cabinet dominated by the war’s supporters, something that he led voters to believe he would never do.
Obama, who insisted that Clinton’s foreign policy views made her unfit to be president, has now nominated her as his chief foreign policy official.
The decision represents a stunning and humiliating reversal of course by the Obama administration, which had vehemently opposed any support for neo-con policies.
Obama’s choice of national security team members pretty much guarantees that US combat forces will be involved in escalating the other war, in Afghanistan, and preparing for new and even bloodier conflicts, something else about which Obama warned repeatedly.
And finally, nobody noticed that Obama didn’t bother to invite William Ayers or Kos over for Thanksgiving and serve them turkey.
What Jon and Iron Knee should be debating is how unbelievably FUBAR’d America is today thanks in no small measure by the outgoing fool-in-chief. I chose him as The Worst President in American History four years ago. He has easily replaced James Buchanan (of Civil War fame) and Herbert Hoover (of Great Depression I fame. No President has ever taken no responsibility for anything as much as Bush. he has blamed everything on everyone else in and out of the White House.As is usual for Republicans he has underestimated the American people especially this year. Those who voted twice for him will soon be hard to find(as it’s also impossible to find voters for Nixon). Stop the war in Iraq and all thgose trillions of dollars may actually be used to help Americans out of work and out of their homes.
JON, JON, JON, you have so much to learn.
You speak of irony and write with satire.
Give your new president a chance to go where no other president has gone: Trying to clean-up the republican mess in Washington. Beware of Republicans–they are void of reason or logic.