Maliki agrees with Obama's 16 month withdrawal plan
.jpg)
AUSTIN, Tx. -- When considering Bush's announcement that he'll accept a "time horizon" for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, it's necessary to back up a year. Only by taking something of a panoramic view can we appreciate how massive a blunder the permanent-occupation deal has proven for him.
Last fall was really the high-water mark for the surge in terms of public opinion. Yglesias has shown that polling data -- too lazy to Google that now -- never actually reflected a shift in favor of the war again, but the surge did a good-enough convincing elite opinion to consider the surge a success outside the context of the larger war. Nevertheless, the electoral picture still clearly favored a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress, both of whom would be elected on a platform of ending the war if they were to be elected at all. Bush's answer was to declare that he and Maliki had agreed on an enduring U.S. troop presence, something we'd engage in at the invitation of a sovereign Iraqi government. The surge had worked so well, in other words, that its just reward was the ownership of Iraq, all in the spirit of what the White House called "Friendship and Cooperation."
That was only the first phase of White House overreach. Immediately, the administration announced that it would not submit its long-term occupation deal to Senate approval nor Congressional oversight, a contention that was, at the least, constitutionally dubious. In order to serve the legal fiction that the permanent-occupation deal wasn't a treaty -- which the Senate must approve -- the administration said that "friendship and cooperation" meant that the U.S. wouldn't even come to the defense of the Iraqi government if attacked (too treaty-esque), which didn't exactly sit well with the members of that government. Even before negotiations began in earnest, the Bush administration succeeded in offending Congress and the Iraqi government.
When those negotiations began, the U.S. reportedly presented the Iraqis with terms so breathtaking that they'd embarrass Lord Curzon. Bush wanted unilateral control of Iraqi airspace; legal immunity for all U.S. troops and contractors; the unilateral right to arrest and detain any Iraqis his commanders desired, and for unspecified periods; and several military bases. When Maliki indicated discomfort over acting like Gaius Baltar on Occupied New Caprica, Bush gave another indication of his "friendship and cooperation" -- blackmail.
All this came in a political context that Bush was either unattentive to or dismissive of. Despite spotty media coverage in the U.S., the deal prompted a massive backlash in Iraq, where basically every organized political force not part of Maliki's government rejected it. Maliki's allies were likely to lose the looming provincial elections already; now he had given them the albatross of clear collaborationism. And something similar was at work in the U.S.: the candidate with a clear and consistent history of opposition to the Iraq war won the Democratic primary, while the Republican candidate backed an endless occupation that he said might last a hundred or even a thousand years.
Maliki has read the tea leaves and evidently realized what the rest of us considered obvious: that the only one demanding that he turn Iraq to permanent foreign domination is a president thoroughly discredited in his own country who'll be out of office in a few months. That president's replacement might very well decide on a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq, abrogating any deal Maliki was strongarmed into signing, at which point the U.S. would essentially be cutting Maliki off. Oh motherfucking shit, Maliki surely thought, if I sign this deal, my people will run my body through the streets and hoist me from a fucking lamppost. Not that the electricity works, but still.
And so Maliki flip-flopped. His newfound resiliency is born of survival -- not merely political survival, either. He has forced George Bush to accept what Bush and McCain has said for years would lead to doom, ruin, humiliation, catastrophe -- a euphemistic "time horizon" for withdrawal. On the one hand, the fact that it won't actually be a timetable is significant, since Bush, of course, won't actually end a war he wants to entrench as the natural order of the world. But on the other, the euphemism is itself important, since once again Bush's attempt at denying reality only creates a trap for McCain. If McCain embraces the time-horizons, he shatters his own previous argument that such a thing will bring national ruin and indicates a certain moral and strategic turpitude on the part of its advocates. His only solution is to magically pretend that Bush's move isn't politically motivated and hope no one laughs at him. But now Maliki evidently wants to stick it to McCain, an indicator that the Iraqi PM knows who's going to be president next January. Reuters reports that Maliki has embraced Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan.
The Iraq war is and has always been an obscenity, a filthy lie born of avarice and lust for power masquerading as virtue. This is what imperialism looks like. But the age of empire is over. The same hubris that led Bush into the Iraq disaster led him to miscalculate, again and again, over how to entrench it. But now he is impotent, unable to impose his will, and the nakedness of his attempted imposition has led the American and the Iraqi peoples to wake up and end his nightmare. May his war-crimes prosecutor be Iraqi; may his judge be American; and may he die in the Hague.
- Original article
- FILED UNDER: Guest Blogger
- July 19, 2008
Maliki is a politician.
He knows that the people of Iraq want our troops to leave, so he's going with that.
At least he listens to his people....sort of.
- Email this page
By roadgoddessJuly 19, 2008 - 10:37amI wonder if he agreed with
I wonder if he agreed with Oblahma's plan to flee a year ago when Iraq was a dangerous place? Maliki is just pandering for voters, that's what happens in a country where suicide bombers don't shape policy. Behind the scenes he is begging Bush to keep troops in Iraq, and he is praying to Allah that nobama gets his ass kicked in the election. From what I've seen in the past few weeks, it looks like Chicago has a worse crime rate than Bagdhad, maybe oblahma should have worked a little harder to reduce crime there before moving onto global issues that he has no understanding of. He couldn't even keep the bloods and the crypts from killing each other, how's he gonna stop the Shias and the Sunnis from fighting?
McCain can win this debate hands down, if Oblahma would ever show up to a townhall meeting. All he has to do is ask nobama what he would do if after the pull out was complete al Qaida comes back from Afghanistan and starts their shenanigans again, or if Iran continues to ship in weapons to militants fueling ethnic cleansing. B-HO would have no good answer, if he says he'd do nothing his centrist illusion would fade, if he says he'd go back in the libs that bought his lunch would call him a war monger. My guess is he'd say he'd do both. The American people know that McCain would be the better commander in chief. McCain knows how to win and Americans like winners, he's also the underdog, Americans like underdogs too.
- Email this page
By bannedfroggJuly 19, 2008 - 10:00pmAlthough, I am a bit
Although, I am a bit curious, if the worst possible nightmare scenario for this country becomes reality and Oblahma is elected president, and democrats expand their seat lead in congress, how will they manage to continue their policy of bowing down to republican demands? I know they have their bullshit excuses now, what would they be then? I mean for fuck's sake, they don't even demand enough respect to be able to get The Architect Karl Rove to show up to answer a few questions!
- Email this page
By bannedfroggJuly 19, 2008 - 10:18pmWhat do you mean "if"?
What do you mean "if"? Obama will become president and a gain in both houses is expected, even by GOP pundits.
I thought when "they stood up, we'll stand down", and "we stay there at the pleasure of the Iraqi government"? Clearly they want us out. Now this subterfuge of being there to help them can no longer be maintained. If bush now says he wants us to stay longer it becomes clear what this now is - a forced occupation.
-- McCain = Four more years of the same --
- Email this page
By dtaylo75July 20, 2008 - 12:50pm*And your crybaby opinion would be...?
*Someday we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject.
- Email this page
By leftysrsickJuly 20, 2008 - 12:58pmBy leftysrsickJuly 20, 2008 - 12:58pm
He's not talking about the size of your tiny dick, little guy. Relax, that secret's safe with Rev. Haggard.
George W. & George H.W. Bush - Living proof that the dumbshit doesn't fall far from the dumbass.
- Email this page
By Guy FawkesJuly 20, 2008 - 1:08pmTalk is cheap, but that's ok, so are you.
Now we know why some animals eat their own children.
- Email this page
By leftysrsickJuly 20, 2008 - 1:58pmWould you care to comment on
Would you care to comment on the CONTENT of my post? Namely that Bush promised to leave when they were willing to "stand up" and if they ever asked us to leave.
They are clearly doing that.
Should we stay there anyway?
-- McCain = Four more years of the same --
- Email this page
By dtaylo75July 20, 2008 - 2:14pm"They are clearly doing
"They are clearly doing that."
With no help from the dems, if they had their way we would have given up on Maliki a year ago. It amuses me that democrats are now trying to use success in Iraq against republicans when they fought so hard for defeat! I've noticed that Reid doesn't have much to say about the surge after he called it a failure.
- Email this page
By bannedfroggJuly 20, 2008 - 2:42pmThe question I put to you
The question I put to you is, should we leave Iraq now? It can be answered with a simple YES or NO.
If YES, I'd love to hear your case for doing this despite Bush's promises to leave when they were ready to stand up or if the Government asked us to leave.
I'm trying to stay on topic here and perhaps have an intelligent debate here.
-- McCain = Four more years of the same --
- Email this page
By dtaylo75July 20, 2008 - 4:09pmShould vs. will
Should the US leave Iraq? Unqualified "yes". The duly-elected government has asked for a timetable for departure, and no matter how anyone tries to spin it, that's a very diplomatic way of telling us to leave.
WILL the US leave Iraq? Not as long as Cowboy-hat Oathbreaker and his PNAC masters are in charge. The Oathbreaker has repeatedly stated that Iraq was a mess that his successor would have to clean up, much like the economy, the environment and New Orleans were messes he planned on leaving to his successor. That seems to be his modus operandi, held over from his failures as a corporate CEO; screw things up horribly and bail out, and if whoever took over from him couldn't clean up his mess, the company deserved to fall apart. The problem with that mentality (if the Oathbreaker can be said to HAVE a mentality) is that in this case, we're not talking about a company...we're talking about TWO nations, one of which used to be a major superpower in the world, until the Oathbreaker decided to waste its might and energy and money just to drive up oil profits.
No, like it or not, the US is stuck in Iraq until President Obama can meet with the field commanders and design a workable timetable for withdrawal. And that can't happen until January 20th, 2009, when Obama officially kicks the Oathbreaker to the curb.
It's been said before, but it's worth repeating...history is waiting for Cowboy-hat Oathbreaker with a broom and a dustpan.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith
- Email this page
By nonexistent manJuly 20, 2008 - 4:18pmNo, not quite yet. Even
No, not quite yet. Even Maliki isn't asking us to leave tomorrow or even completely, he just wants us to know that now that his country is stabilizing it's time to start talking about pulling the combat troops out, now that there isn't as much need for them. It's kinda nice to talk about leaving with victory instead of rushing to defeat.
- Email this page
By bannedfroggJuly 20, 2008 - 5:52pmHence the 16-month timeline.
What, did anyone honestly think the US would simply pack up and pull all 120,000+ troops in one go? Even though it would make the most people the happiest if that happened, both in the US and in Iraq, just looking at it logistically should show it's impossible.
It's still a very good thing to see Iraq calling for the departure of US troops. I'm willing to bet that as the drawdown progresses, violence decreases in proportion to the departures. If the insurgents' targets aren't there any more, who will the insurgents attack? NOBODY.
The only potentially destabilizing issue with the drawdown is what will happen to the various militias and factions when the US isn't paying them not to shoot at each other any more.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith
- Email this page
By nonexistent manJuly 20, 2008 - 6:00pmViolence won't go down when
Violence won't go down when we leave because there is nobody for the insurgents to attack, it will go down because there aren't any insurgents left to do the attacking.
The vast majority of the insurgents have been captured, killed, or have fled due to the fine job our military has done, despite the baby raping image that has been attempted to be put on them. Now it's time for McCain to ask Oblahma what he would do if the insurgents came back after we pulled the majority of our combat troops out and Iraqi leadership asked for more help. There is no chance Nobama would give a straight answer, he never does.
Despite the democrats best efforts, we will be able to leave Iraq in victory.
- Email this page
By bannedfroggJuly 20, 2008 - 6:21pmNo, you are wrong. There
No, you are wrong. There was no Al Quieda in Iraq prior to our invasion. And I saw a recent report on CNN about how they are now relocating to the Afghanistan/Pakistan area. Unfortunately due to our actions, recruitment efforts for the terrorists have improved dramatically. For every one we kill, two are recruited to take his place.
If we really wanted to "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here", we would have been focusing on Afghanistan from the beginning. Iraq was a complete distraction from the war on terrorism and capturing those responsible for 9-11 (remember Bin Laden?). Whatever Iraq descends into when we leave will be the same now as it would have been two years ago, and the same as it would be if we stayed there for two more years. We have done nothing to solve the CAUSE of the sectarian violence.
At least we won't be staying there for 100 years, like we would if McCain were to win.
-- McCain = Four more years of the same --
- Email this page
By dtaylo75July 20, 2008 - 7:49pmKeep beating that "100 year"
Keep beating that "100 year" drum like oblahma, it proves how dishonest you are. Anyone with a shred of integrity knows damn well what he was saying, but instead of being honest you both choose to butcher up a sound bite to construct yourself a strawman to debate instead. Is it so much easier to debate someone when you get to define their position that it justifies such cheap and underhanded tactics?
None of that changes the fact that oblahma opposed the surge that saved Iraq. He's a poll chaser, not a leader.
- Email this page
By bannedfroggJuly 20, 2008 - 8:15pmYou might want to pay attention this time.
It was MCSAME who's been pushing the "100 years in Iraq" line. But since he doesn't stand a frog's chance in a blender of getting into the White House except as an invited guest of President Obama, we don't have to worry about that, just like we don't have to worry about his fatally-flawed "economic plan" that he paid those 300 economists to sign without reading.
And the "surge" did NOTHING to "save Iraq", as you so pithily put it. What "saved Iraq" was the bribes Betrayus paid the warlords to quit taking potshots at each other. What's going to happen once the US troops pull out and those bribes quit flowing?
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith
- Email this page
By nonexistent manJuly 20, 2008 - 8:26pmBy dtaylo75 July 20, 2008 - 7:49pm
They can't get their minds around the fact that Bush policy led to terrorists being in Iraq where there were none before. This has caused a lot of death and destruction. Bush policy has led to death and destruction of many innocent Iraqis and has also helped as a recruiting tool for al qaeda.
Now Patreaus tells us the al qaeda are moving from Iraq to Afghanistan. They see opportunity there. Bt the time the US builds up forces in Afghanistan a lot of damage will be done and the terrorists (fresh with new recruits again) will move to another country. Whack a mole.
- Email this page
By f u bush2July 20, 2008 - 8:22pmThe other thing they can't
The other thing they can't get their minds around is that now IRAQ WANTS US OUT. Not "immediately", as one poster noted, true. But Obama doesn't want us out immediately either, he proposes a 16 month plan. Seems pretty in line with what Iraq wants us to do.
They also don't seem to get the fact that if Iraq wants us out, and we stay anyway, we become forceful occupiers. I've tried to get this through to them, but they keep side-stepping that particular bit of inconvenience.
What this will do is shine a light on this administrations's true motives. Once we overstay our welcome, it will become apparent the REAL reason we invaded - to own their oil and place military bases there.
-- McCain = Four more years of the same --
- Email this page
By dtaylo75July 21, 2008 - 7:31amThe key is, they are talking
The key is, they are talking about us cutting down the size of our presence now that the country is stabilized. If democrats would have had their way we would have left when roadside bombs and death squads were an everyday occurrence. Imagine what Iraq would be like right now if we would have left a year ago like the dems wanted!
- Email this page
By bannedfroggJuly 20, 2008 - 2:37pmBy bannedfroggJuly 20, 2008 - 2:37pm
It will be exactly the same no matter when we leave. The civil war will ensue regardless.
George W. & George H.W. Bush - Living proof that the dumbshit doesn't fall far from the dumbass.
- Email this page
By Guy FawkesJuly 20, 2008 - 2:40pmYou can only hope it does!
You can only hope it does! It's pretty bad that you hope Iraq falls apart only because it would be good for B-ho. Which dem said success in Iraq would be bad because it wouldn't be good for his party? I know most dems believe that, but one was honest enough to say it! It's nice to be able discuss leaving in victory, always remember that your side wanted to leave in defeat.
Iraq will not be Vietnam, no matter how much you want it to be.
- Email this page
By bannedfroggJuly 20, 2008 - 2:56pmMcCain should know loose lips sink ships.
Divulging Obama's secret trip put the next President's safety in jeopardy. It was a cold-blooded stunt, by a jealous old man. McShaim McShaim McShaim.
- Email this page
By dewbie dubaiJuly 19, 2008 - 10:33pmBy dewbie dubaiJuly 19, 2008 - 10:33pm
Well, he knows from personal experience that "no brains crashes planes".
George W. & George H.W. Bush - Living proof that the dumbshit doesn't fall far from the dumbass.
- Email this page
By Guy FawkesJuly 19, 2008 - 10:44pmBy dewbie dubaiJuly 19, 2008 - 10:33pm
That was awful. McCain has no business running for president.
- Email this page
By f u bush2July 19, 2008 - 11:26pmI thought this part happened already:
We were told the British gave control of Basra to the Iraqi's some time ago. Now it's happening again?
- Email this page
By f u bush2July 19, 2008 - 11:24pmObama hits the Middle East running
One day of on-the-ground, close observations, conversations from many vantage points, and we have an unstalled Iraq endgame. Looks like he's framed out some continued strategies in the Afghan/Bin Laden mess. No doubt involved in Bush talking to Iran. Not bad for first day diplomacy.
- Email this page
By dewbie dubaiJuly 20, 2008 - 12:00amOccupied New Caprica
Nice! LOL
- Email this page
By f u bush2July 19, 2008 - 11:29pmNot earth shattering but I like this story
I could care less about the "blessing" but they are doing a nice thing.
- Email this page
By f u bush2July 19, 2008 - 11:53pmUK 'must check' US torture denial
I would like to point out that there are many of us in the US who do realize what torture is and that the opinions of a sick and twisted administration should not reflect on all of us. Remember the same people who tell you the US does not torture also committed treason by out a CIA officer for political reasons and misled a nation to start a war for oil revenues.
Hang in there UK and the rest of the world. We will join you as a civilized nation again soon.
- Email this page
By f u bush2July 20, 2008 - 12:09amGee, why
would Maliki agree to Obama's withdrawal plan that Obama declared before Obama even went to Iraq when Maliki lives there?
Kinda shoots that McCain feined exasperation about Obama giving a speech on his Iraq policy before he even went there to see what is happening on the ground first.
As far as Bushe's alleged "agreement" with Maliki about troop presence goes, it takes a pathological believer to believe a pathological liar. Only 20% of us are pathological believers.
- Email this page
By AntillectualJuly 20, 2008 - 5:58amNot so fast...
Not so fast. Things are not as they seem here.
READ THIS, from CNN News:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/19/almaliki.obama/
.
- Email this page
By DustJuly 20, 2008 - 10:33amRight-wingers are silly.
This should strengthen Maliki's agreement with Obama on troop withdrawal timelines.
Still winning those hearts & minds...
- Email this page
By Guy FawkesJuly 20, 2008 - 11:02amPersonal Commitment of President George W. Bush
How strange is this exchange?
SPIEGEL: Large parts of Iraq's assets abroad remain frozen -- and inaccessible to creditors. Now, victims of the Saddam dictatorship want that money to go towards reparations. What will happen to this money when the UN Security Council mandate for Iraq expires at the end of this year?
Maliki: We have hired several international law firms to deal with these assets. At the moment, they are protected by UN resolutions, American law and the personal commitment of President George W. Bush -- and we want this protection to remain in place after the end of UN mandate on Iraq. We consider the claims being lodged against this money to be unjustified. Iraq cannot be punished for crimes that were committed by the dictator. This is very important to us, and a key aspect of our negotiations over the future status of US troops in Iraq.
http://sohighabove.blogspot.com
- Email this page
By DanielNJJuly 20, 2008 - 12:10pmhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=9ZXLYa4PY9E
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9ZXLYa4PY9E
- Email this page
By MadgardnerJuly 20, 2008 - 3:15pmIn a nutshell
BushSr decided to chase Saddam out of Kuwait, but did not topple his regime, because it would be a task destabling to the entire region. And that has been proven the case.
Leiberman nor McCain plan to admit error of the basic premise for directing our forces away from Afghan/ AlQuieda/Bin Laden, nor will you hear them thank Obama for bailing the country out, with an agreeable deployment timetable out of Iraq, when he was plainly against the invasion from its onset.
Just stay out from under Obama's busy foot. Watch and see how a real leader does it.
- Email this page
By dewbie dubaiJuly 20, 2008 - 3:41pmYour mind isn't so much twisted as badly sprained.
Are you always this stupid or are you making a special effort today.
- Email this page
By leftysrsickJuly 20, 2008 - 3:41pmYour mind isn't so much twisted as badly sprained.
Are you always this stupid or are you making a special effort today.
By leftysrsickJuly 20, 2008 - 3:41pm
The boy does not have one original thought in his head!
Bye, Dummy!
Here is part of the list of insults shit head has been plagiarizing:
http://www.geocities.com/insultlist/index2.html -
- Email this page
By othelloJuly 20, 2008 - 6:41pmI don't blame you for being jealous
My stomping of McCain's latest talking point was unmerciful.
heheheheheeh
- Email this page
By dewbie dubaiJuly 20, 2008 - 4:03pmJust when you thought it safe to think Iraq can't stand on own
Just when you thought it safe to think Iraq can't stand on its own :
--Pakistan Land Size : 778,720 sq km
--Pakistan Population : 159,196,336 (July 2004 est.)
--Pakistan GDP: $317.7 billion (2003 est.)
--Pakistan Main Industries : textiles and apparel, food processing, pharmaceuticals, construction materials, paper products, fertilizer, shrimp
--Pakistan Agricultural products : cotton, wheat, rice, sugarcane, fruits, vegetables; milk, beef
--Iraqi Land Size : 432,162 sq km
--Iraqi Population : 25,374,691 (July 2004 est.)
--Iraqi GDP: $38.79 billion (2003 est.)
--Iraqi Main Industries : petroleum, chemicals, textiles, construction materials, food processing
-- Iraqi Agricultural products : wheat, barley, rice, vegetables, dates, cotton; cattle, sheep
http://www.facts-about.org.uk/places-geography-iraq.htm
- Email this page
By dewbie dubaiJuly 20, 2008 - 5:48pmHow different those facts
How different those facts would have been if we had cut and run a year ago when the democrats had wanted!
- Email this page
By bannedfroggJuly 20, 2008 - 6:27pmThe Republicans didn't get it
The Republican's didn't get out of Iraq soon enough for the public to forget to blame them for the mistake of going in there in the first place.
--aaazzz111
- Email this page
By dewbie dubaiJuly 20, 2008 - 7:22pmConclusions:Timetables
- Email this page
By dewbie dubaiJuly 20, 2008 - 6:40pmYet in true fashion his lack of character shines out
And the cry recant fills the Baghdad air.
Bushie! Doin' a helluva job!
G0P Trinity: Failure, Fraud, Endless Deceit.
- Email this page
By Abou Ben AdamJuly 20, 2008 - 11:10pmEureka!!!
July 20 (Bloomberg) -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki hasn't endorsed any specific plan for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, a government spokesman said, a day after a magazine report that he backed Barack Obama's proposal.
Al-Maliki supports a ``general vision'' of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq and has not backed a plan by Obama, the presumptive U.S. Democratic presidential candidate, for a 16- month withdrawal window, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in an e-mailed statement in Baghdad today.
The tumbrels roll, trees sigh at the gentlest breeze. The dull blade of "Trickle Down" rattles in its race.
- Email this page
By RobespierreJuly 20, 2008 - 11:17pmWhat magazine was that?
What magazine was that?
Maybe the "refinement" Obama will do to his plan when he becomes president will be to fine-tune it with Al-Maliki to construct a plan that works for them but also gets our troops home in a reasonable amount of time. That's fine with me.
Obviously Obama's plan is more in line with what the Iraqi's want. Much more in line that staying there 100 years.
-- McCain = Four more years of the same --
- Email this page
By dtaylo75July 21, 2008 - 7:35amA little more
The German magazine Speigel released its tapes of the interview with Maliki, and guess what, in spite of the Iraqi government statement that Maliki was mis-translated and mis-understood, he actually did state that he backs theh 16-month timetable. The tapes were given to the NYT, whose Arabic translators agreed with the Speigel's translators.
So why did the Iraqi government suddenly back off what Maliki said to Obama, and become vague? Because the Bush regime pressured it to.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Dwight Eisenhower
- Email this page
By MichtouJuly 21, 2008 - 4:00pm