<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Maliki Comments a Blow to McCain</title>
	<atom:link href="http://washingtonindependent.com/506/maliki-comments-a-blow-to-mccain/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://washingtonindependent.com/506/maliki-comments-a-blow-to-mccain</link>
	<description>National News in Context</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:34:14 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: groucho</title>
		<link>http://washingtonindependent.com/506/maliki-comments-a-blow-to-mccain/comment-page-1#comment-2756</link>
		<dc:creator>groucho</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:35:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=506#comment-2756</guid>
		<description>The recent turn in the debate over the &quot;success&quot; of the surge now reveals the clear way in which both sides are talking past each other.  The surge was promoted by President Bush as a response to the call last year for prompt withdrawal.  The claim was that, if we just sent in more troops and pacified the country, we could then withdraw. But now Bush/McCain admit that the real goal of the surge was to pacify the country enough so that Americans would stop complaining about our casualities and support permanent occupation.  Of course, the opponents of the invasion have claimed all along that permanent occupation was the real goal. So at least we have the (modest) satisfaction of this admission.  But it does seem unfair for McCain and his allies to claim that the surge worked when they did not tell us that the only goal was to keep us there rather than to get us out.  Obama should continue to insist that the surge was a failure if it does not permit our withdrawal--the original goal.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The recent turn in the debate over the &#8220;success&#8221; of the surge now reveals the clear way in which both sides are talking past each other.  The surge was promoted by President Bush as a response to the call last year for prompt withdrawal.  The claim was that, if we just sent in more troops and pacified the country, we could then withdraw. But now Bush/McCain admit that the real goal of the surge was to pacify the country enough so that Americans would stop complaining about our casualities and support permanent occupation.  Of course, the opponents of the invasion have claimed all along that permanent occupation was the real goal. So at least we have the (modest) satisfaction of this admission.  But it does seem unfair for McCain and his allies to claim that the surge worked when they did not tell us that the only goal was to keep us there rather than to get us out.  Obama should continue to insist that the surge was a failure if it does not permit our withdrawal&#8211;the original goal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: spencer_ackerman</title>
		<link>http://washingtonindependent.com/506/maliki-comments-a-blow-to-mccain/comment-page-1#comment-2755</link>
		<dc:creator>spencer_ackerman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:46:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=506#comment-2755</guid>
		<description>I know!!!! It&#039;s almost like Goldfarb is, like, &lt;i&gt;stupid or dishonest&lt;/i&gt; or something.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know!!!! It&#39;s almost like Goldfarb is, like, <i>stupid or dishonest</i> or something.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ajm8127</title>
		<link>http://washingtonindependent.com/506/maliki-comments-a-blow-to-mccain/comment-page-1#comment-2754</link>
		<dc:creator>ajm8127</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:13:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=506#comment-2754</guid>
		<description>&quot;Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told Germany&#039;s Der Spiegel magazine, &#039;U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.&#039;&quot;&lt;br&gt;--&lt;br&gt;Obama has stated that he could &quot;refine&quot; the withdrawal based on conditions in Iraq.&lt;br&gt;--&lt;br&gt;So, how can McCain&#039;s weblogger Michael Goldfarb, write about the Obama-Maliki withdrawal plan as being &quot;an unconditional timeline we reject not only as being dangerous but unfeasible.&quot; That is clearly not the case.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told Germany&#39;s Der Spiegel magazine, &#39;U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.&#39;&#8221;<br />&#8211;<br />Obama has stated that he could &#8220;refine&#8221; the withdrawal based on conditions in Iraq.<br />&#8211;<br />So, how can McCain&#39;s weblogger Michael Goldfarb, write about the Obama-Maliki withdrawal plan as being &#8220;an unconditional timeline we reject not only as being dangerous but unfeasible.&#8221; That is clearly not the case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: groucho</title>
		<link>http://washingtonindependent.com/506/maliki-comments-a-blow-to-mccain/comment-page-1#comment-485</link>
		<dc:creator>groucho</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=506#comment-485</guid>
		<description>The recent turn in the debate over the &quot;success&quot; of the surge now reveals the clear way in which both sides are talking past each other.  The surge was promoted by President Bush as a response to the call last year for prompt withdrawal.  The claim was that, if we just sent in more troops and pacified the country, we could then withdraw. But now Bush/McCain admit that the real goal of the surge was to pacify the country enough so that Americans would stop complaining about our casualities and support permanent occupation.  Of course, the opponents of the invasion have claimed all along that permanent occupation was the real goal. So at least we have the (modest) satisfaction of this admission.  But it does seem unfair for McCain and his allies to claim that the surge worked when they did not tell us that the only goal was to keep us there rather than to get us out.  Obama should continue to insist that the surge was a failure if it does not permit our withdrawal--the original goal.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The recent turn in the debate over the &#8220;success&#8221; of the surge now reveals the clear way in which both sides are talking past each other.  The surge was promoted by President Bush as a response to the call last year for prompt withdrawal.  The claim was that, if we just sent in more troops and pacified the country, we could then withdraw. But now Bush/McCain admit that the real goal of the surge was to pacify the country enough so that Americans would stop complaining about our casualities and support permanent occupation.  Of course, the opponents of the invasion have claimed all along that permanent occupation was the real goal. So at least we have the (modest) satisfaction of this admission.  But it does seem unfair for McCain and his allies to claim that the surge worked when they did not tell us that the only goal was to keep us there rather than to get us out.  Obama should continue to insist that the surge was a failure if it does not permit our withdrawal&#8211;the original goal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: spencer_ackerman</title>
		<link>http://washingtonindependent.com/506/maliki-comments-a-blow-to-mccain/comment-page-1#comment-486</link>
		<dc:creator>spencer_ackerman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=506#comment-486</guid>
		<description>I know!!!! It&#039;s almost like Goldfarb is, like, &lt;i&gt;stupid or dishonest&lt;/i&gt; or something.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know!!!! It&#8217;s almost like Goldfarb is, like, <i>stupid or dishonest</i> or something.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ajm8127</title>
		<link>http://washingtonindependent.com/506/maliki-comments-a-blow-to-mccain/comment-page-1#comment-487</link>
		<dc:creator>ajm8127</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=506#comment-487</guid>
		<description>&quot;Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told Germany&#039;s Der Spiegel magazine, &#039;U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.&#039;&quot;
--
Obama has stated that he could &quot;refine&quot; the withdrawal based on conditions in Iraq.
--
So, how can McCain&#039;s weblogger Michael Goldfarb, write about the Obama-Maliki withdrawal plan as being &quot;an unconditional timeline we reject not only as being dangerous but unfeasible.&quot; That is clearly not the case.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told Germany&#8217;s Der Spiegel magazine, &#8216;U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.&#8217;&#8221;<br />
&#8211;<br />
Obama has stated that he could &#8220;refine&#8221; the withdrawal based on conditions in Iraq.<br />
&#8211;<br />
So, how can McCain&#8217;s weblogger Michael Goldfarb, write about the Obama-Maliki withdrawal plan as being &#8220;an unconditional timeline we reject not only as being dangerous but unfeasible.&#8221; That is clearly not the case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
