As Aswat Aliraq reported today...

IHEC puts off provincial elections to year's end

A member of the Iraqi electoral commission on Sunday announced postponing provincial the elections until the end of the year rather than their schedule date in October.
"The elections were put off until December 22, whether the provincial councils law is endorsed by the Parliament or not," Hamdiya al-Husseini, a member of the Iraqi high electoral commission (IHEC), told Aswat al-Iraq - Voices of Iraq - (VOI).
U.S. officials have described the provincial elections as one of several benchmarks, along with the reduction of violence in Baghdad and approval of a hydrocarbon resource sharing law, by which they are assessing the progress of Iraq's national government.
Many U.S. officials and Iraqi leaders say new provincial elections would produce a political balance, ease resentment of disenfranchised factions, and help stabilize security.
The electoral official noted, "the electoral commission discussed the issue with the the UN assistance team," adding "it made this decision in order to run fair and transparent elections that comply with international standards."
The Iraqi Parliament has been a scene of heated debates on the provincial elections law this week and has not yet legislated any law that determines the shape of the state.
The provincial council law specifies the system of government in Iraq, and if applied, a federal system may be established in the country.
The draft law on provincial council elections proposes an open slate system, which gives voters influence on the position of the candidates placed on the party list and allows an individual voting system.

I have mixed feelings about the postponement. If they were held it would have "produce(d) a political balance, ease(d) resentment of disenfranchised factions, and help(ed) stabilize security." Personally, I think they slow-walked it in Parliament to keep their tenuous grasp on the levers of power...

On the other hand, I also find that it is imperative to "run fair and transparent elections that comply with international standards." They were right in arguing that the clock didn't afford the chance to meet the Oct. 1st goals, which I do think was the purpose of their needless 'heated debates'...

Well, Traitor Joe, had to defend his newest Bestest Friend today on Faux Spew's FNS w/Chris Wallace...

Here's a memorable exchange...

WALLACE: As we discussed with Admiral Mullen, Iraqi prime minister Maliki seemed over the weekend to endorse Obama’s plan for pulling combat troops out of Iraq by mid 2010, within two years. Now he’s apparently backed off that.(Not True!)* But, Senator Lieberman, the Iraqis clearly want us out sooner rather than later, and they would like on a timetable. Why is Senator McCain resisting that?

LIEBERMAN: Well, we — Senator McCain and I and others — want us out of Iraq sooner rather than later, but we want us out in a way that does not compromise all the gains that American and Iraqi forces have made in Iraq, which Admiral Mullen spoke to.
And frankly, we want to stay there to a victory because we don’t want all those who have served in the American uniform there to have served or in some cases died in vain.(Aargh!)
Remember this, Chris. We wouldn’t be having this discussion about how to get out unless the surge, which John McCain courageously fought for, taking on the president of his own party(Huh???), popular opinion, risking his campaign, and which Senator Obama opposed, worked.
So I think that’s the good news. I think everybody — that is, Prime Minister Maliki, President Bush, people like John McCain and I — agree the sooner we’re out, the better. But it has to be based on conditions on the ground.
Senator Obama doesn’t seem to feel that way. It looked like he did a little bit after the primaries were over. But then he, pushed by MoveOn.org and others on the antiwar left of the Democratic Party, is back to a rigid time line. And that’s not wise.

Sen. Evan Bayh promptly smacked Chris and HoJo upside the head...

BAYH: Chris, I think it's important to note that Barack Obama's judgment about these issues has been excellent from the beginning, the kind of judgment you'd want in a commander in chief, and others are now beginning to adopt his positions.

We wouldn't be discussing surges in Iraq or anything else if Barack had had his way. We wouldn't have started that war to begin with.(Ouch!)

He was right about Afghanistan. That's the place from which we were attacked. He's been calling for more troops there now for over a year. And John McCain, to his credit, has now come around and adopted Barack's point of view on that.

He has been for, as you say, a phased withdrawal from Iraq. As we heard, Prime Minister Maliki has embraced a more definitive time line, whether it's the 16 months or something else. But clearly, they want a more definitive time line.

And even President Bush now is coming up with a variety of euphemisms — aspirational goals, time horizons. I mean, it's starting to sound pretty much like a timeline to me.

So it's common sense, Chris. Any important enterprise, certainly something as important as a war — you want to have a plan. And a plan has to have some idea of what it's going to cost, what the adverse consequences are going to be and how long it's going to take.

So 16 months seems to be a reasonable goal. Let's work toward that. Let's bring this to a conclusion in a responsible way and focus on Iraq (sic) where the focus should have been all along.

It got even more heated...

WALLACE: Again, two questions, really, Senator Bayh. Why the, quote, "iron timetable" that the Washington Post talks about? And secondly, this issue — why announce your policy before you go to Iraq and talk to the generals and the Iraqis?

BAYH: A couple of things, Chris. First, General Petraeus was asked recently about whether a 16-month period was a reasonable period of time, and he said it would depend on a variety of factors. He didn't say it was unreasonable.

We've been there — will have been — 16 months from when the next president is inaugurated, almost seven years. We've spent $700 billion. Just think of all the other things we could have done — finished Afghanistan, energy security for our country — with those amount of resources.

What's really surprising is that John, a man I admire and respect, says that even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruct in Iraq, knowing all the consequences that have been adverse in Afghanistan because of our fixation on Iraq, he would do this all over again. That's what is really surprising.

So Barack thinks that 16 months from January is a reasonable period of time. Let's go for it. Let's see. Let's try and bring this to a conclusion on that time frame. If there are difficulties, we'll address them when they arise.

LIEBERMAN: Look, the fact is that if Barack Obama's policy on Iraq had been implemented, Barack Obama couldn't go to Iraq today. It wouldn't be safe. Barack Obama and John McCain saw the same difficulty in Iraq.

John McCain had the guts to argue against public opinion, to put his whole campaign on the line, because, as he says, he'd rather lose an election than lose in a war that he thinks is this important to the United States.

The reason I say Barack — if Barack Obama's policy couldn't — had been implemented — if Barack Obama's policy in Iraq had been implemented, he couldn't be in Iraq today is because he was prepared to accept retreat and defeat.

And that would mean today Al Qaeda would be in charge of parts of Iraq. Iranian-backed extremists would be in charge of other parts of Iraq. There'd be civil war and maybe even genocide.

And the fact is that we are winning in Iraq today. And you know, you can't choose, as Senator Obama seems to think, to lose in Iraq so you can win in Afghanistan.

The reality is if we lost in Iraq, which Obama was prepared to do, we would go to Afghanistan as losers. Instead, Al Qaeda has its tail tucked between its legs as it's exiting Iraq to go — to try to...

WALLACE: I'm going to...

BAYH: I have to respond to that. Barack Obama was not for losing in Iraq. Barack didn't want the war to begin with.

John McCain opposed surging troops in Afghanistan until last week.

LIEBERMAN: Yeah, but what...

BAYH: Excuse me. Was John for losing in Afghanistan? I don't think so.

LIEBERMAN: Of course not.

BAYH: And now you have Maliki, even President Bush, are moving toward Barack Obama's position on this.

WALLACE: I want to...

BAYH: His judgment was right.

WALLACE: Gentlemen, I want to — we could continue this...

LIEBERMAN: Those questions — bottom line, no question that Barack Obama was prepared to lose in Iraq.

BAYH: That's not true.

WALLACE: All right. All right.

LIEBERMAN: Forget what's right or wrong...

WALLACE: Gentlemen, you're going to have to agree to disagree. I want to move on to the whole issue of his trip this week.

Senator Lieberman, the McCain camp seems divided about whether this is a legitimate fact-finding trip or a political stunt. After McCain and the Republican Party taunted Obama for not going to Iraq, has that, in fact, backfired on them by making this an even bigger story?

LIEBERMAN: No, I don't think so. I think John McCain's challenge to Barack Obama is very important. And frankly, it says a lot more than whether McCain was right about Iraq and Obama was wrong.

It says what kind of leaders these people will be as president. Obama reached — John McCain reached a decision about what to do in Iraq based on what he saw there, what he heard — what he heard from the generals and from the soldiers, and then he had the guts to fight big interests to see — including public opinion, to see that that would happen.

Senator Obama was taking positions about Iraq to put us on a rigid time line to get all troops out by March 2008 — all combat troops. That's what he said. That would have been accepting defeat there.

And I think what it says about the two of them — this is the kind of president John McCain will be on the economy. We're in crisis. We need a president who will listen, learn, decide what's right for the country, not what's right for their political campaign, and fight for the American people to make...

WALLACE: I want...

LIEBERMAN: ... that happen.

WALLACE: I want to ask Senator Bayh about another aspect of Obama's trip.

He plans to make a big public speech in Berlin. There was first talk it was going to be at the Brandenburg Gate. They announced today it's going to be at the Victory Column, a golden column in the heart of downtown Berlin.

Why would someone running for president of the United States hold a big rally in Germany? Wouldn't it be like a candidate for German chancellor holding a rally in front of the Statue of Liberty?

BAYH: A couple of things, Chris. First, getting back to Iraq, I just have to disagree once again. Barack Obama is for success in Iraq. His judgment about this was right from the beginning.

If you agree that knowing what we know today you would do this all over again...

WALLACE: With all due respect...

BAYH: ... then vote for John McCain.

WALLACE: Gentlemen, I think we both have been there.

BAYH: But I just couldn't let Joe get away with saying he's for defeat. That's not true. He has a better path to victory. His judgment's been right about this.

Whew, too much BS from Chris and HoJo to keep track of...

Anyways, in an update on yesterday's blockbuster news, Maliki's 'office' tried to retreat from the statement... Maliki Aide's Statement Came After U.S. Call

I find it fascinating that the 'retraction' was released through CentCom's office... Coincidence...?