The Iraqis Want Us Out, Alright

Sure, they want us out -- when they're good and ready for us to get out. And if we're going to respect their sovereignty, it would seem that we should respect the wishes of their legitimate government on this matter, no?

By the way, notice that the headline for this article reads, "Iraqi Leaders Call for Pullout Timetable."

Now, honestly, is the news in that article the fact that they're calling for a timetable -- or the fact that they don't want to call for a timetable until they're confidant that they're security forces are ready? Because unlike mine, I don't think their headline is intended as sarcasm.

Update: This was just reported on the Imus show as "calls for a timetable". Come on. That's just incomplete to the point of misleading -- when people hear "timetable," they think of the proposals floating around here, meaning a plan for initiating immediate withdrawal.

Comments

[Judasmac]

From the report, it seems that the timetable for withdrawal equals a timetable for adequate Iraqi security forces. In principle, I don't see what's objectionable about that. My first impulse upon reading this report was: "This is good news. Unlike American calls for a timetable, this is a sign of real progress. The Kurds and Shia, at any rate, wouldn't call for a timetable unless they saw light at the end of the tunnel." But upon reflection, the statement is deeply conflicted. It makes a great effort, it seems, to distinguish legitimate resistance from terrorism, thus implying that those who attack Iraq's still developing security forces, as opposed to civilians, are not being condemned. Can't have it both ways. But perhaps the fact that there's any joint statement at all is a good sign.

[P Malloy]

This is really reprehensible reporting. The story is about so much more than the meaningless call for a pullout some time in the future when Iraq is good and secure, which was but a minor part of the conference's resolutions. Why not highlight the denunciation of torture, the further integration of Sunnis into the political process and the Arab Leaque's assistance and recognition? Why, because it won't help further the NYT's narrative. Talk about myopic reporting.

[P Malloy]

And if you want more narrative-consistent reporting from the NYT, just look at its article on Cheney's speech. The headline is 'Cheney Sees "Shameless" Revisionism on War'. What is with the scare quotes? They already capture the notion that the shamelessness is Cheney's view by saying that he sees it. The addition of the quote marks around shameless can only be seen as Times code for "this is not our view and we want to make sure you know it".

[Exguru]

Don Imus took a flying leap to the left about three years ago, and is now heavily invested in an Iraq meltdown. He's even induced Charles and Bernard to mute their natively pro-Bush instincts on Iraq.

[Ron Hardin]

Just after 9/11/2001, Imus said, after a news report of Arab celebration of the fall of the WTC, ``We have to kill them all.'' Sadly, but seeing no alternative.

So Bush gives him an alternative that's better, and now it's too much for him.

I think he knows better in fact, but gets better guests with his current position, which is deliberately over the top.

But, like the press, he's putting his own ratings ahead of the country and the lives of those answering the call to defend it.

The terrorist position is that it looks like a losing hand but it looks like, if we just hold on a little longer, the Americans will leave, because look at what they're saying.

Bush isn't going to leave.

So it just winds up costing lives to get Imus ratings.

That is in fact costing ``our kids'' (he gives them zero credit as serious people) that he claims to care for so much.