Democracy Arsenal

« NSN Daily Update - 7/8/08 | Main | Trading With Iran »

July 08, 2008

In 2004, McCain Admitted We'd Leave Iraq if the Iraqi's Wanted Us To
Posted by Adam Blickstein

With news coming from Nouri al-Maliki that he is leaning towards a security pact with the U.S. that would include language describing the "departure of [American] forces or a memorandum of understanding to put a timetable on their withdrawal," one wonders how this would affect John McCain's plan for perpetual troop presence in Iraq. Well, at the Council of Foreign Relations, the John McCain of 2004 gave us a pretty clear answer:

Question: "What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?"

McCain's Answer: "Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because -- if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people."

Does the John McCain of 2008 agree with this assessment?

UPDATE: According to Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, seems like a timetable will be part of any security pact:

"Our stance in the negotiations underway with the American side will be strong ... We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq," al-Rubaie said.

Again, is McCain's position the same today as it was in 2004 if Iraq's democratically elected government demands a timetable for withdrawing foreign forces from Iraq?

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c04d69e200e553aa283a8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference In 2004, McCain Admitted We'd Leave Iraq if the Iraqi's Wanted Us To:

Comments

What is the point? You are using a very hostile tone and accusing McCain of changing his position without any evidence. It is a weak position, as is that of Obama, to begin with. They both claim they would do such and such "unless" or "but". They are making vague claims to get support. If they have such great ideas, bring out a bill in the senate. That is their job, correct? I am tired of these people claiming to have all the solutions, but not wanting to act on it until they are in the Oval Office. Their job is to act now, not after an election. Our great nation is in real trouble thanks to our "leaders", and I use the term loosely.

Well matt, you would have more of a leg to stand on if when asked yesterday in several different junctures the same question, only to waffle over and over pathetically. Once even questioning the veracity of the report. Another time questioning the translation...they really weren't expecting that...lol...monkeywrench anyone? I'm sure by the time you read this matt it won't matter anyhoo. He really isn't planning anything...he doesn't have a plan for presidency like Bush...he's just hiding behind Iraq his sturdy little house of cards. What an idiot...mcsame and matt.

Matt, it appears you have not been reading or listening. What part of "I think it's obvious that we would have to leave" and "but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people." do you not understand?

I'm guessing you never heard McCain claim there is nothing wrong with being in Iraq for 100 years. Is he a liar, or does he think that things are going so horribly in Iraq that they would never ask? Or if they ask, McCain simply thinks they are children who don;t know what they are requesting?

Take a stab at that Matt, and let me know what you come up with. In any case. McCain can't get his occupations straight (or Sunnis vs Shias, or drilling...)

I agree with Matt. McCain and Hillary paid lip service to a gas tax holiday, yet neither introduced a bill? Actions speak louder than words.
I'm also tired of the flip-flop arguments. Do we really want our future president and government hamstrung by a single saying such as 'No new taxes'. The media's sound bite fixation ruins the chance of in-depth debate. BTW shouldn't changing your mind be just a 'flip'? A flip-flop would just put you back where you started!

I read the article three time and never saw anything in the article accusing McCain of changing his position. The author merely wondered whether McCain still holds the same position now that he did in 2004. It's a legitimate question considering how many of his positions Mr. Straight Talker has changed in the last few months.

I always think of the days when the republicans actually had principles and for the most part stuck by them. Among them were no deficit, no nation building, laissez faire, low taxes AND low spending, and no foreign entanglements. All of these policies have been grossly violated since 2000 and I never expect the republicans to follow them. I don't think that Bush, Mccain, or Obama will try to solve our problems in the middle east without more unnecessary warfare although this new development appears to be a great influence on the conflict. Mccain will not budge and lose the election over it.

Brilliant!

This blog Is very informative , I am really pleased to post my comment on this blog . It helped me with ocean of knowledge so I really belive you will do much better in the future . Good job web master .

The comments to this entry are closed.

Emeritus Contributors
Subscribe
Sign-up to receive a weekly digest of the latest posts from Democracy Arsenal.
Email: 
Powered by TypePad

Disclaimer

The opinions voiced on Democracy Arsenal are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.
Read Terms of Use