Thursday February 16, 2012

Iraq president tells Bush that Iran, Syria pose 'no problem'

WASHINGTON —

Iraq President Jalal Talabani told U.S. President George W Bush on Wednesday that Iran and Syria, long targets of U.S. blame over deadly unrest in Iraq, now pose “no problem.”

“I’m glad to tell you Mr President that our relations with our neighbors is improved very well with Turkey, with Syria, with Iran with the Arab countries,” Talabani said as he met with Bush at the White House.

“The relation is normal now and we have no problem with any of those countries. In contrary, many many new ambassadors are coming to our country from Arab countries,” Talabani said.

Washington has for years accused Syria of at the very least turning a blind eye to foreign fighters crossing into Iraq to battle U.S.-led forces, and has alleged Iranian support for elements that target coalition troops.

But a senior U.S. official told reporters on Tuesday, after Bush announced a modest drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq over the coming months, that Iran may have changed tack on its strife-ravaged neighbor.

“We know right now that Iran is not playing the actively unhelpful role that it has periodically in the past,” the official said on condition of anonymity, adding that Washington was watching to see whether it would last.

“It’s a tactical decision at this point by Iran, not a strategic decision” but it has been a “pattern now of several months,” the official said.

And the U.S. military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, said recently that U.S. and Iraqi leaders were taking “a wait-and-see attitude” regarding Tehran’s role.

Talabani also told Bush that “there’s no place, no inch of Iraqi land under the control” of terrorists, though some groups are still operating in Iraq.

The Iraqi leader also said he hoped that Iraqi lawmakers would break the legislative logjam that has held up efforts to craft a law governing regional elections—a step Washington says will help reduce sectarian violence by bringing more groups into the political process.

“I hope that today it will be finalized. Because the head of groups of parliament are now gathering in parliament to finalize it,” said Talabani, who also expressed hopes that Washington and Baghdad will soon reach an agreement governing long-term diplomatic, military and economic relations.

Bush said he and Talabani had discussed “the need to get a strategic framework agreement signed” and that the Iraqi leader, 74, was in good shape after what the Baghdad government said was successful heart surgery.

“The president’s health is strong, and that’s going to be very important for the people of Iraq,” said the U.S. president, who highlighted changes in Iraq since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.

“Things have changed a lot since we’ve known each other, and attitudes are completely different now that people realize the security situation has changed,” said Bush.

“It’s still difficult, but there’s no doubt that the surge has been effective, which has enabled us to take out troops,” said Bush, referring to his January 2007 order to send roughly 30,000 more U.S. forces to Iraq.

The U.S. president, whose term ends in January, said Tuesday that he was setting in motion the withdrawal of roughly 8,000 U.S. troops out of Iraq from now through February 2009.

“The Iraqis want there to be fewer U.S. troops. The United States wants there to be fewer U.S. troops. But both of us want to realize that vision based upon success,” said Bush.

Wire reports

  • 0

    Sarge

    "Iran, Syria pose no problem"

    Great.

  • 0

    ColAmerica

    And the peacenik Liberals want us to leave taht country with a president who live in a fantasy dreamworld.

    We will stay for as long as we deem the situation needs us, not some crackpot leader.

    We know how to keep the peace and create prosperity, look at Germany and Japan.

  • 0

    rjd_jr

    Oh I see, so the blind pro war fanatics now see fit to judge what the Iraqi president says huh? So Iraq prez says Iran and Syria pose no problem (and corroborated by a U.S. official above), and they accuse him of being ignorant and blind and in a fantasy world, never mind that Mr. Talabani is IN IRAQ and the blind pro war fanatics are in, ohh, computer world. Yea, they sure have the expertise to make that call.

    Iran and Syria are no longer a problem. Iraq is a safe place now. Us liberal lunatic peaniks are humbled, the war is a ravishing success. I concur, so bring home the troops, all of them. (and the cries of b-b-b-but it's not safe yet, it will be chaos if we bring them all back, in 5, 4, 3, 2,....)

  • 0

    some14some

    Bush himself is a problematic child, well who else is posing problems, is it Pakistan or Putin? Term over - time over, problem free White House for next President.

  • 0

    buddha4brains

    Psst, hey pro-war fanatics, I gotta a secret ... wars do not last forever. Now mismanagement can prolong wars (see Bush, George W.) but eventually they do wind down. Liberals may cheer, but so what.

    As for the "crackpot" Iraqi leader - well he is an important US ally. He may be varnishing the truth, but it is a signal that Iraqis want a normal existence and that has to be good in terms of ending the war.

  • 0

    adaydream

    I finally figured it out.

    We attack a country that didn't attack us and hadn't attacked anybody in over 10 years on trumped up lies. We totally destroy all the infrastructure. We turn over 3 million people into refuges. Our finest, following george bush's orders killed 100,000s of innocent Iraqi citizens. We finance all this on our grandchildren's future.

    Then when this new country says we want you out, the United States stops and say "who-o-o-o-oa, not so fast. We destroyed you and spent a lot of money doing it. We aren't leaving."

    Now if they can just understand that they are the occupiers and we stole Iraq fair and square. With victory comes the spoils. Lock, stock and barrel.

    So when do we leave? < :-)

  • 0

    CavemanLawyer

    “We know right now that Iran is not playing the actively unhelpful role that it has periodically in the past,”

    Anyone else think that might have something to do with clear talk of the U.S. leaving Iraq in a couple years?

    A solemn 9/11 to all of you. While praying or having a moment of silence or whatever you do today, try to remember that Iraq had nothing to do with it, but thanks to the president, many idiots still think it did.

    --Cirroc

  • 0

    skipthesong

    try to remember that Iraq had nothing to do with it, but thanks to the president, many idiots still think it did." In terms of geography, no, they didn't. In terms of support you know damn well most of the Muslim population felt they had every reason and had god's will and wishes that to attack the infidel country.

    Fighting Iraqis in the sense of fighting them was wrong. Fighting them in the sense of fighting the religious leadership was not.

    I say leave Iraq now. If Iran and Syria want the place, let them have it. If one this the mistake has proved is that Iraqis and all who govern themselves by religious decree should not have a democracy. Hopefully, another Saddam pops up and all will be well - no?

    A solemn 9/11 to all of you." I don't believe most JT'ers care about that.

  • 0

    cleo

    Fighting Iraqis in the sense of fighting them was wrong.

    Got no argument with that.

    Fighting them in the sense of fighting the religious leadership was not.

    Please explain how that sentiment is any different from the 'logic' of the nutbags who blow themselves up in public places, plant roadside bombs, fly planes into buildings etc because they object to the policies of GWB and, unable to get through his security, kill innocent people instead, regardless of whether those people support him and his crazy policies?

    If 'the religious leadership' is the problem, why attack Iraq - under Saddam one of the more secular of the ME states - while still walking hand-in-hand in the garden with Saudi Arabian princes?

  • 0

    Betzee

    GWB and Maliki are in similar straits, namely wanting to have it both ways. According to the American President, the surge worked but we can't leave. The Iraqi Prime Minister, by contrast, insists we can although his government has done little to push the tough power-sharing compromises that offer the only hope of sustaining the peace after foreign troops are gone.

  • 0

    skipthesong

    cleo, you took my post wrong. I meant fighting those who believe so strongly in that religion that they will kill innocents, including their own, for it because they decide who is worthy.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    skipthesong: "In terms of geography, no, they didn't. In terms of support you know damn well most of the Muslim population felt they had every reason and had god's will and wishes that to attack the infidel country."

    Here comes skippy's intolerance towards an entire 1.4 billion, whom he would gladly see dead if possible (and before you decry my remark, remember that you have admitted to it over and over, and last time I brought it up said, "So what if I do?" and went on to say how Islam has created all the world's problems). Nice way to commemorate 9/11, eh, Skip? Wishing a fifth of the world would just disappear! Sounds like... ohhhh... hypocrisy... but nothing new with you.

    I have a bit of news to back up my statement that yours is nothing but ignorant; it was not only a 'geographical' fact that Iraq and Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11, but that they did not in the least support Bin Laden or AQ! That's fact, skip... FACT. THanks to YOUR beliefs, however, that ALL Muslims took part in the atrocities of 9/11, and ALL Muslims should die, there ARE in fact now a whole lot of Iraqis who support and harbour AQ and root for Bin Laden.

    Fortunately, I can say quite clearly that while some may share the same religion as you, they may not share the same beliefs strictly by association.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    skip: "cleo, you took my post wrong. I meant fighting those who believe so strongly in that religion that they will kill innocents, including their own, for it because they decide who is worthy."

    No she didn't get it wrong at all; she called you up on the exact same point I did on my post -- that your radical statements about Islam (and worse, wanting all Muslims dead!) is just as bad if not worse than the very things you decry and blame all Muslims on.

  • 0

    cleo

    I meant fighting those who believe so strongly in that religion that they will kill innocents, including their own, for it because they decide who is worthy.

    How is that any different from GWB dropping bombs and killing civilians in Iraq and claiming that God told him to do it? He's also killed over 4,000 of 'his own'.

  • 0

    Alinsky4prez

    How is that any different from GWB dropping bombs and killing civilians in Iraq and claiming that God told him to do it?

    That's the spirit. Got to keep alive the myth that Bush thinks "god" tells him to invade.

  • 0

    cleo

    "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

    The WH in the person of Scott McClellan denied it of course... but that was before Scott accused Bush of 'self-deception' ....

  • 0

    Helter_Skelter

    our relations with our neighbors is improved very well with Turkey, with Syria, with Iran with the Arab countries

    So now we have this new united Islamic front with nutjobs like Ahmadinejad and al-Assad? We were better off when Iran and Iraq were fighting eachother. The war in Iraq was wrong on so many levels, but Iraq and Iran now considering themselves allies is the worst outcome possible. What a disaster.

  • 0

    CavemanLawyer

    We were better off

    Pretty much what it all boils down to doesn't it? Who cares how many children suffer so long as we are better off, right?

    but Iraq and Iran now considering themselves allies is the worst outcome possible. What a disaster.

    Hardly. There are many possible positive outcomes when peace breaks out. I bet an ally of Iran would have a lot more influence on their behavior toward the good than the threats and bluster of the United States. We don't even have direct diplomatic relations with Iran. Iraq might become a go-between of great value.

    --Cirroc

  • 0

    skipthesong

    Here comes skippy's intolerance towards an entire 1.4 billion" Yes, intolerant to the most intolerant of intolerants... tell us smitty, how many Muslim lead countries are actually doing something about fanatical Islam? How many Muslim leaders with clout actually came out and denounced their sort of methods of setting things? I can say there are a number of prominent Jew who have come out against Israel, there are a number of Christians who have come against the church, there are millions of American who have come out against GWB... but to date, I have yet to see, hear, or read about any Muslims with clout coming against AQ.

    wanting all Muslims dead" Show us where I said/posted that... I would like all Nazis dead, I said that.. perhaps you also noticed the similarities.... Can't wait for you local to start using Shia law!

  • 0

    cleo

    the lies being told on both sides for people who wont give a damn about you when they get to office...

    What a strange comment. Who on earth is it you imagine I am 'telling lies for'? Bush is already there, and I know he doesn't give a damn about anyone....

  • 0

    Helter_Skelter

    I bet an ally of Iran would have a lot more influence on their behavior toward the good

    Wrong. Iran is going to have a lot more influence on Iraq's behavior toward the bad. Iraq is a country of Shiite and Sunni Muslims who hate the West, probably even more now with the occupation of their country. With a Shiite majority, Iraq will embrace Iran and all that comes with it. Iran will now have its tentacles in Iraq increasing their power and influence. It will become a hatefest against the West.

    When the US pulls out of Iraq, it will leave a more dangerous situation for the West than before it invaded. So for those who consider Iraq and Iran becoming allies some sort of victory, you're sorely mistaken.

  • 0

    soldave

    Can't have the Iraq president getting on with Iran & Syria. Someone needs to go in and "liberate" Iraq from that way of thinking.

  • 0

    skipthesong

    Obama states, that it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuke weapons. Is it acceptable for them to have allies, such as Iraq? That isn't for me to decide, but it sure isn't for me to boast about either.

    Will the Shiites and Sunnis come together agaisnt the great satan? Will Iran ever stop issuing Fatwas against artists, writers and film makers or will they increase them as they gain more acceptance amongst its allies?

    Oh, smitty, why is that you think these people are so much better than I that they can find, and act on, reason to kill me simple because I am an infidel?

  • 0

    CavemanLawyer

    Wrong. Iran is going to have a lot more influence on Iraq's behavior toward the bad.

    Wrong? What you said is hardly exclusive to what I said.

    It will become a hatefest against the West.

    You mean all the good stuff we did in Iraq will be plumb forgotten?

    Well, I doubt it could compete with the hate fest against the middle-east we have over here no matter what happens. They may have a few extreme haters, but we have way more moderate haters. That is why we occupy their territory and they have none of ours.

    I don't think Iran and Iraq will become so buddy buddy so fast. There are plenty alive today who remember the Iran-Iraq war. And there are plenty of Iraqis who feel grateful to America I am sure. You know, the ones who did not lose kids and family due to the unnecessary invasion. And those who actually profited. We will be leaving people who are at least moderately pro-American in power.

    Don't assume they don't like us because they don't want our military there. The British are our bestest buddies. We have not given them a base in America yet, and I doubt we ever will. Plenty of Iraqis have good reason to dislike us. But plenty are grateful for getting rid of Saddam. Its a mixed bag not likely to turn totally against us anytime soon.

    --Cirroc

  • 0

    Helter_Skelter

    I doubt it could compete with the hate fest against the middle-east we have over here

    Perhaps you should watch a few more "Death to America, Death to the Infidel" rallies in Iran before making such an uniformed statement.

  • 0

    bushlover

    I hope he's right. For the world's sake. But hope they all realize the dangers Al Quaida pose to the world. Giving some a reason to consider being invaded should be enough to encourage shunning these extremists.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    The point is that we have the Iraqi leader telling the US what to do, but the US doesn't want to listen to the 'democratic' Iraq... which hardly makes it democratic, if they're ruled over by a military government (the US in Iraq).

  • 0

    skipthesong

    Maliki wants the US out and I do too. There is no reason we need to be there other than fighting them and it seems they have somewhat kicked our butts out so its time to accept defeat but does it end the fight?

  • 0

    Nippon5

    I think its very strange this is an argument any more. Iraq wants the US out, cool!!!!

    The US will be under a different president (but the same 535 idiots called congress) so after the new president is in (and according to the Dems its Obama, and according to the Reps its McCain) we will have a new policy right? Obama will have all the troops out of Iraq and shipped over to Afgahastan in 16 months(because he cants shut down Americas only economical system thats working (yea war is a economical stimulus)) and McCain will keep fighting until the Iraq army can take over (if that is possible) or until all terroist are killed (thats not possible as being in that region creates a flow of them)... Once America is out they will all go back to hating Israel and killing each other like they have done again and again///...

  • 0

    Sarge

    "Maliki wants the US out"

    Maliki must know if the U.S. gets out too soon, he'll be out as well.

    "the same 535 idiots called congress"

    Hee! Hey, wait! There aren't 535 Democrats in the Congress!

  • 0

    OgieDoggie

    "the same 535 idiots called congress" Hee! Hey, wait! There aren't 535 Democrats in the Congress! - SARGE

    SARGE...you were right the first time there is 535 idiots called congress...just look at their approval rating and our country right now...it only makes you THINK that they are all Democrats...Republicans now look like Democrats the way they have been spending the last four years. What happened to the Republican Party????

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

More in World

View all

View all