The Deadline Has Passed
by RonChusidThe Mudville Gazette notes that it is now May 17 and that, “If John Kerry had his way, all the troops would be home now.”
The May 15 deadline has passed, but The Mudville Gazette misunderstands the point of the deadline. If the Iraqis had such a deadline their response may have been to form a government prior to the deadline. Also, not all the troops would be home, with some still remaining in the area should they be needed for purposes which affected our national security, as opposed to settling their civil war. On the other hand, if all troops were out of Iraq today, that wouldn’t necessariliy be such a bad thing. Al Qaeda would lose their major source of recruitment.
Filed under: Iraq, John Kerry | Get Permalink or trackback |
Ron
After JK set the deadline they had announced that they were getting somewhere with the forming of a government and the deadline was extended to May 22nd. I would have to look through the subsequent speeches and interviews but he’s noted this a few times.
Mudville Gazette obviously wasn’t paying attention to what JK was saying though!
Just can’t win. Certainly not the accuracy war.
Pamela,
That’s true. Kerry did say that the deadline could be extended based upon events which happened after the initial deadline. As this is all hypothetical (with the deadline never having been given to the Iraqis) I didn’t think it was worth confusing things further with this point. Besides, the Mudville Gazette could have just waited a little longer and still posted their same eroneous interpretation, so the actual date didn’t really matter (unless they actually happen to form a government in the next week or so).
Ron and Pamela,
The date IS May 22nd, which is precisely 30 days after P.M. Maliki was named, in accordance with the Iraqi Constitution. Kerry said it on This Week the day after his dissent speech. Here it is on your site:
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2732
STEPHANOPOULOS: She was talking about Iraq, and I want to move to Iraq as well. Yesterday, a new prime minister, Jawad al-Maliki, was named. He now has a month under the constitution to form a new government. You’ve said that Iraq should only have until May 15th, or the United States should withdraw its troops. Will you give him the full month that’s called for under the constitution?
KERRY: Oh, absolutely. It would be absurd not to do that. What I was doing is putting pressure on and saying that you have to have a timetable. And I still believe in that timetable. And so, 30 days now is the timetable. It’s their timetable; it’s our timetable. And it should be the same strict adherence to that timetable. They only respond to pressure, George.
If 5/22 comes and goes and there is no government, that REALLY is a disaster. From Iraqi blogs I have read, if Maliki can’t settle all of the ministries, he will name himself the temporary minister of Defense and Interior, the two most in dispute.
One more point — 5/22 is the date in Kerry’s amendments which included having all troops out of Iraq 12/31/06.
So that is D-Day.
Beechmom,
Again this is true, but with all the errors in the basic principle in the post I’m referring to I didn’t think it matters to quibble over the date. After all they could post the same thing a week later and still be making the same basic errors, which are more significant than them not being aware that Kerry moved the date back a week in response to the naming of the prime minister.
Ron,
If we are going to argue the misinformation in the article, why not have the facts to counter with?
Ginny,
That’s wny I linked to Kerry’s orginal call for the deadline so if anyone’s interested they could see how Kerry’s proposal differs from their characerization of it. (I planned to stick with differences from the original proposal and not bother nit picking over the fact that Kerry moved the deadline back a week).
Noting the problem with their ultimate interpretation is far more meaningful than a rebuttal merely saying that they would by out next week, not on May 15, due to the change in date.
So I guess there ain’t no joy in Mudville!
Thanks for the laugh, bb.
Ron, I think the issue is not an either – or argument, but to have a full understanding of what was meant, what happened and decide what you need to use in whatever discussion you get into.
You made a good case for the first. Beachmom added a piece that might be useful in disseminating the truth. I don’t see the point of negating the usefulnes of it. It goes against the reality that you can’t reach everyone with a one size fits all minds rebuttal.