al Qaeda has been completely destroyed in Iraq. At least that's the news coming from foreign news sources there.
Marie Colvin of the Times of London had an answer Sunday: "American and Iraqi forces are driving al Qaida in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror."
It looks like the Democrats understand the situation better than the Republicans by a country mile. But let's go with this "we-kicked-al-Qaeda's-butt" theory, which begs the next question: when are our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines coming home?Pssst!! It might be because they left for Pakistan and forgot to turn out the lights.
"Al Qaida is not waiting for our electoral cycle or inauguration. If they have an opportunity to strike, they will strike. And that is why I think we have to take steps today, and that is why I was very pleased when Senator Obama called for much more aggressive action in Pakistan," Senator Jack Reed [Democrat] of Rhode Island said.It looks like the Democrats understand the situation better than the Republicans by a country mile. But let's go with this "we-kicked-al-Qaeda's-butt" theory, which begs the next question: when are our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines coming home?
There, Al Qaida is reconstituting itself. If they have the operational space and they have the time, they will develop plans, and it's not with respect to the new administration. It's when they think they can strike and be effective at catastrophic attacks, he said on ABC's "This Week" programme.
al Qaeda is still capable of attack. Apparently, the White House knows this. About a week ago, the White House warned that the next President of the United States faces imminent attack on American soil by al Qaeda. But I thought we kicked their butts?
Mr. McCormack, let me try to clarify. Mr. al Maliki said something about departure or withdrawal. I can see how giving us two choices would be confusing.At any rate, wouldn't it make sense to make preparations for such an impending attack by pulling in our defenses to protect ourselves? Apparently not, according to the Establishment powers that be. The news cycle will be pretty boring after the November elections, anyway, so we need some new grist!
To compound Establishment problems (not to mention that the bigwigs at the G-8 summit are finally admitting that we've been for quite some time aboard an economic train wreck in progress), Nouri al Maliki has requested a timetable for Coalition pullout from Iraq. The Bush administration has always said that if the Iraqis want us to leave, we'll leave. But in this latest incident, US representatives are sure that something was lost in the translation from Arabic to English. Here's the unequivocal English translation:
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Monday he is negotiating a deal with Washington that will for the first time set a timetable for a withdrawal of foreign forces as part of a framework for a U.S. troop presence into next year.Nonetheless, the Pentagon and the State Department are hedging on whether al Maliki could possibly be serious.
It was the first time that Baghdad's Shiite-led government has made a pullout deadline a condition for a promised new agreement with the United States for a troop presence into 2009.
'The direction we are taking is to have a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to have a timetable for their withdrawal,' a statement from Maliki's office quoted him as telling Arab ambassadors to the United Arab Emirates.
...the administration has rebuffed Maliki’s request for a timeline. Asked about the prime minister’s comments today, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman hedged on whether the administration would follow the Iraqi government’s request, criticizing timelines as “artificial“:Mr. McCormack, let me try to clarify. Mr. al Maliki said something about departure or withdrawal. I can see how giving us two choices would be confusing.
WHITMAN: [I]t is dependent on conditions on the ground. … But timelines tend to be artificial in nature. In a situation where things are as dynamic as they are in Iraq, I would just tell you, it’s usually best to look at these things based on conditions on the ground.
The State Department also hedged on whether the Bush administration would listen to Maliki. In a briefing today, spokesperson Sean McCormack said the remark may have been a transcription error:
McCORMACK: Well, that’s really the part — the point at which I would seek greater clarification in terms of remarks. I’ve seen the same press reports that you have, but I haven’t yet had an opportunity to get greater clarify as to exactly to what Mr. Maliki was referring or if, in fact, that’s an accurate reporting of what he said.