(ABCnews-political radar) ABC News’s Bret Hovell reports: Sen. John McCain responded late Tuesday to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s call for a drawdown in foreign troops from Iraq as a prerequisite for a security agreement with the United States.

McCain said he was not concerned about the call for a “timetable” for withdrawal, a concept McCain has consistently criticized.

“I know for a fact that [troop pullout] will be dictated by the situation on the ground, as it always has been,” McCain said Tuesday evening at a stop for dinner in Pittsburgh, Pa.

“Since we are succeeding, then I am convinced, as I have said before, we can withdraw and withdraw with honor, not according to a set timetable,” he said. “And I’m confident that is what Prime Minister Maliki is talking about, since he has told me that for many meetings we’ve had.”
…

This “degree” of difference has never been so great; which is why now it is a difference of kind, of identity. No longer are the two parties looking at the same object, where they can frame a compromising position on the same entity: Iraq …no longer can there be one Iraq for them. Iraq is now two; one for Bush, the other for the Iraqis. Sharing is now, it appears, supremely difficult, next to or at impossible.

This difference in the identity of Iraq, of what constitutes Iraq, how Iraq is perceived by its present powers, now MUST be a weight on the mind of any thoughtful press agent with the courage — and opportunity — to ask McCain regarding the news coming from Maliki and staff 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,” that will have “specific dates”.

Therefore, given the events today, there is a real possibility McCain will get this ‘perceptual’ question posed in post 13!

If that happens will the McCain of 2008 be same McCain of 2004?

(UPI) The Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most revered Shiite leader in Iraq on Tuesday rejected any security agreement with US, stressing such deal will affect the country’s sovereignty.

In a meeting with Iraqi national security adviser Muwaffaq Al-Rubaie who was briefing al-Sistani in Najaf on the progress of the government’s security efforts, and the talks on US security deal, Ayatollah said his country will not accept such a security deal which is seeking to justify the illegal presence of US military troops in the war-torn country.

Ayatollah Sistani’s statements came after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Monday that Iraq was seeking a timetable for withdrawal of US troops as part of its negotiations with Washington on a controversial US security pact that guarantees long-term presence of the US troops in Iraq after the UN’s mandate expires at the end of 2008.
…

This may be it. Either this is some serious-ass hardball political theater (with Sistani thrown in for counter-balance) or they are breaking with Bush.

(WP) Iraq’s national security adviser said Tuesday that his government would not sign an agreement governing the future role of U.S. troops in Iraq unless it includes a timetable for their withdrawal.

The statement was the strongest yet by an Iraqi official regarding the politically controversial negotiations between Iraq and the United States over the U.S. military role in Iraq. A United Nations mandate that sanctions the presence of U.S. troops in the country expires in December.

Speaking to reporters in the holy Shiite city of Najaf, national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie declined to provide specific dates, but said his government is “impatiently waiting” for the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops.

“There should not be any permanent bases in Iraq unless these bases are under Iraqi control,” Rubaie said. “We would not accept any memorandum of understanding with [the U.S.] side that has no obvious and specific dates for the foreign troops’ withdrawal from Iraq.”

Wow! This is a bombshell. It’s not a possibility anymore, it’s reality; and it was made in Najaf, Sistani’s domain. …Maliki’s transitioning towards Obama’s position and away from Bush’s.

I guess the reality of his cousins’ death has started to sink in.

Unbelievable. Where’s my wine glass?

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 then 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.”

Now that the prospects of there being a timetable have been introduced (out of the mouth of Maliki and his staff) in the details of a ’security “agreement”‘, will someone in the press corps. please ask this question to McCain again.

Political maneuvering and Iraq in the same sentence?

Impossible

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki raised the prospect on Monday of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington.

It was the first time the U.S.-backed Shi’ite-led government has floated the idea of a timetable for the removal of American forces from Iraq. The Bush administration has always opposed such a move, saying it would give militant groups an advantage.

The security deal under negotiation will replace a U.N. mandate for the presence of U.S. troops that expires on December 31.

“Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty,” Maliki told Arab ambassadors in blunt remarks during an official visit to Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates.

“One of the two basic topics is either to have a memorandum of understanding for the departure of forces or a memorandum of understanding to set a timetable for the presence of the forces, so that we know (their presence) will end in a specific time.”

Maliki was responding to questions from the ambassadors about the security negotiations with the United States. The exchange was shown on Iraqiya state television.

U.S. officials in Baghdad had no immediate comment. Last month Maliki caught Washington off guard when he said talks on the security deal were at a “dead end” after he complained Iraq’s sovereignty was being infringed by U.S. demands.
…

It’s very unlikely to happen, although it’d be good if it did:

Maliki is faced with Sadrist nationalists biting at this heels, the public is worn out with an American presence, Parliament has favored and still favors a withdrawal, and to top it all off, Maliki and his staff have been making claims over the past year that their Iraqi Army and police are in the pipline and Americans can “leave any time they want”.

On the other side of the equation, Obama still states on his website, in the ‘Iraq’ section, “We must send a clear signal to the Iraqi political leadership that we are leaving Iraq on a timeline.” And if Obama wins in November, that mandate will be central for his win and thus he’ll do some kind of timeline.

Finally, if Obama continues to advocate a timeline –and he will– and Maliki really means what he says about a timeline (which I doubt) one has to wonder if Bush might be willing to ‘barter’ with one with Maliki.

Think about it: If Maliki really means what he says, Bush and him can gain something politically: In Iraq, Maliki would be helping his election and party chances down the road and in 2009, and in the US, Bush would be helping GOP chances this fall.

However, in the end, all this is probably just political maneuvering for greatest advantage in an agreement … and that’s too bad.

Rest will be in Kuwait, etc as rapid reaction forces.

ie, no big change/likely identical to McCain plan so as to take Iraq off the table and focus on issues O’s better with.

Obama does have a Muslim identity, but he is not a Muslim. I don’t think he’s a Christian, either, or at least not a very good one.

obama the dem:
no brains, no balls, nobama
..

Dave Noble will be around soon to accuse you of participating in a “whisper campaign” because you cited a source that identifies Obama as a Muslim.