Is the quasi-endorsement of Barack Obama's withdraw timetable by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki a transformative event in the campaign? Marc Ambinder -- and his Republican source -- certianly seem to think so.
I tend to think the impact will be felt too, but perhaps somewhat indirectly. Foreign policy is the one area where the American public does not have a great deal of patience for nuance and detail -- even a detail as important as this one. At a soundbyte level, the Republican counter-spin "see, the surge worked!" -- is liable to be at least somewhat effective.
This does, however, put McCain on the defensive on foreign policy, which is especially problematic as this was one of the few issues where he had the opportunity to play offense. Getting the boys home -- which seemed like a slam-dunk winner for the Democrats six months ago -- might not have been one by November. Polling in key swing states had begun to show slight majorities opposed to a specific withdraw timetable, and unless the Republicans do an exceptionally good job of winning the spin war, this will change all of that.
7.20.2008
Obama and al-Maliki
@ 2:13 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
120 comments
Nate,
If Maliki can say a timetable is the most appropriate way to go in Iraq, then he can only say such a thing do to the surge that Obama said would not work and in fact, said would make things worse.
John McCain will not be on the defensive, if anything, his judgment on the issue is even better than before. Absolutely wishful thinking on your part, Nate. Obama should have stayed in America and concentrated on reducing the price of gasoline.
Republicans are masters of spin wars. While I'm not worried that about spin wars with Senator Obama, it is unlikely that he will win them. Much like the spin wars force feed the public, Senator Obama must do so with the truth and his long held positions.
The Iraqi Prime Minister's words do not bode well for the Republican spin of "withdrawal is surrender." And I quote...
"So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat," Maliki told SPIEGEL. "But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566841,00.html
Obama needs to keep pushing the fact that the sudden reversal in Bush's Iranian policy is a position he's long praised as the RIGHT solution. In my opinion, if Obama can shed light on the change of tone with Iran and the sudden embrace of his own Iraq policy by McCain, no amount of spin will be able to move him.
Jason, I agree with you in part. I think the McCain camp will have some success with the claim that the surge has worked, especially if there is further undercutting of the Dem argument that the purpose of the surge was to bring reconciliation within Iraq (the return of the Sunni factions to ministerial posts is a sign of that).
On the other hand, your statement that Obama should have stayed home is absolutely wrong -- from Obama's perspective -- because he needs this trip to take certain arguments by McCain et al. off the table. On his last trip to Iraq, McCain had that very confusing episode in which he mixed up Shiia and al Qaeda and needed Lieberman to wisper in his ear.
Furthermore, Obama was absolute playing his cards right by heading first to Afghanistan, to bring emphasis to his assessment and argument over the last year that immediate attention is needed there -- and not just to the military aspect but to the popular programs and infrastructure in Afghanistan.
Anything else he may accomplish from here on out on this trip is a bonus (not without certain risks, of course).
Jason,
Even if the surge has made it more possible for Maliki to demand a timetable, this still helps Obama more than it helps (or hurts) McCain.
Voters (as Nate hints at) really don't care who was right about the surge. This kind of school yard drama is left to us blogging commenting types. When McCain says that the surge allows us to set a timetable, voters hear:
"We are leaving Iraq soon."
Which is what, of course, Obama has promised and what McCain has not. Because the real issue for voters is -- "What will you (Obama, McCain) do as president." Some of this "I was right, dammit!" helps people figure out what someone might do as president, being right and in tune with the nations' desires about what should be done is more important.
McCain now is in the unenviable position of saying he would have to do what Obama has promised to accomplish for more than a year....
All told, good for Obama.
Immanentize said...
You're wrong, McCain promised VICTORY. His surge strategy was the right thing to do, and has led to the comments of withdrawal timetables.
McCain wanted to surge troops all the way back to 2005. Obama wanted to withdraw troops, victory or no victory.
One is a Commander in chief, the other is a wannabe.
Chuck Todd on meet the press said the republicans were panicked over this trip and how well it was going.
McCain and Bush are using Obama`s talking points now on Iraq. When the PM of Iraq endorses Obama`s withdrawl stance this is bad for McCain.
Jason,
Here's the funny thing: Winners of wars don't get rewarded.
George H.W. Bush won his Iraq war in 4 days. Didn't help him.
Even Winston Churchill was booted out, and all he did was win World War II.
If the war is not an issue, McCain has no other issues. The voters might have wanted him to keep us from losing in Iraq, but they sure don't want him in order to start any new wars he can win.
Of course the thing being overlooked is that 'the surge' may have been incidental to all these changes - don't lose track of the facts:
- They paid people to turn against the insurgents and to not attack outright and
- the Iraqi people finally got sick of these 'freedom fighters' killing Iraqi citizens.
And the difference still is that Obama wants us out of Iraq, no strings, and McCain wants a continued military presence.
I see this more as taking Iraq off the table unless McCain flubs and makes it clear he has no intention of removing all American troops from Iraq then its a win for Obama
Did anyone note that this means Maliki thinks that Obama will win?
Even if you grant the McCain argument that he will be viewed as 'right' about the surge (a dubious claim which may or may not play), the positive effect is canceled out by the fact that Obama is viewed as being 'right' that the war should never have been authorized or fought in the first place (and that view is very much the mainstream interpretation - as recently as last week, about 60% of Americans believe the US should have stayed out of Iraq to begin with).
With those two things being a wash, it's Obama who gets the benefit if Iraqi officials (not to mention the vast majority of the American public) say we should get out as soon as possible. If we, the American citizens, clearly want to leave Iraq expeditiously, and the Iraqis themselves clearly want us to leave Iraq expeditiously, why in the world wouldn't the advantage clearly fall to the candidate who has asserted unequivocally that we ought to leave Iraq expeditiously?
Obama wins the spin war if he attack's McCain on his desire to remain in Iraq indifinitely and emphazizes the connection between the resolution of our economic problems in reference to getting out dependency on Middle East oil.
I love the idea of "the surge worked" because it's presented as though it should come as a surprise. OF COURSE the surge worked! We put MORE troops in Iraq which meant MORE stability/less violence. But what will happen when we try to leave? That's the ultimate goal, no?
We ultimately want to NOT be an occupying military force in Iraq. So... what worked????
The surge did work better than most people expected. And most people were right. It was a low probability that came off. This site is all about probabilistic thinking!
McCain himself has said that if they want us to leave, we have to leave. It's on tape.
He backtracks on that, and he looks like a flip flopper. Not that there is anything new in that, IMO, but the MSM is only beginning to grasp the picture there.
But the truth is, if Al Maliki is asking us to begin drawing down, then we need to respect Iraq's desire for sovereignty and begin to draw down...
I am not sure we will ever know if the surge worked or not. I don't think I've seen a single objective piece that weighs the what IFs, what if there was no surge...perhaps the Iraqis would have gotten it together even quicker had we NOT sent more troops, perhaps that would have given them a stronger sense of urgency, which is what the Dems wanted. and isn't part of the reason for the downturn in violence the fact that certain insurgents agreed to stop fighting? Would that have also occurred WITHOUT the surge? Does anyone have knowledge, objective answers for that?
I have no idea how any of this will play in the general election, however. IMO, Obama has made the right calls, visit or not visit, but the Bush Administration is also quick to claim them as their own. I have no idea how this will play with American public perceptions.
"At a soundbyte level, the Republican counter-spin "see, the surge worked!" -- is liable to be at least somewhat effective."
McCain can do his "the Surge Has Worked! " victory dance all he wants. He's royally screwed!
Either people believe the surge has worked: which means it's time to get out. Or, they believe that it hasn't worked: which means that it's time to get out.
Either way, Obama wins, McCain loses. The argument that "we can't leave, chaos would follow and the terrorists win" is just destroyed by the Iraqi government asking us to leave and let them deal with it.
McCain can spin any way he likes, but the American people want OUT now and he's trying to commit us to staying for "100 years." Doesn't even matter if there's casualties or "victory" the American people and the Iraqi people DON'T WANT US TO STAY! PERIOD!
ABC/Washington Post poll June 12-15, 2008:
"Do you think the U.S. should keep it's military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored, even if that means continued U.S. casualties; OR do you think the U.S. should withdraw it's military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there?"
Keep forces: 41%
Withdraw Forces even if civil order is not restored: 55%
"From what you know about U.S. involvement in Iraq, how much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of U.S. troops remain in Iraq; less than a year, one or two years, two to five years, five years to ten years, or as long as it takes?
Less than a year: 42%
One to two years: 21%
Two to five years: 9%
Five years to ten years: 1%
As long as it takes 20%"
Obama has concluded that it's futile to try and fight the idiotic media and McCain bombast about "the surge has worked."
All Obama has to say is: "If the surge has worked, it's time to bring the troops home and I have a plan to do it. McCain has a plan to keep the troops in Iraq. You choose."
Meanwhile back in reality-land, the surge propaganda is all B.S. of course. just a more modern version of the "five O'clock follies" of the Vietnam war.
The violence is down for 2 reasons, neither of which have to do with the surge:
1. Ethnic Cleansing, especially of Baghdad by Shiites. Fewer mixed neighborhoods = fewer people to kill. Talking about this as a "success" is like trumpeting the "success" of the Bosnian Serbs of purging Muslim neighborhoods.
2. The U.S. bribed the Sunni insurgents who were attacking and killing us to switch sides, by giving them arms. They then proceeded to destroy Al Qaeda because they had really good intelligence about who and where they were.
This short term "success" comes at the long term cost of arming the very Sunni Militias who were called "terrorists" before.
There's not much point in talking about this to the American people though, with the constant media triumphalism.
Thanks, Cugel.
THat poll you cited was from a month ago, though. Quinnipiac more recently shows a slight majority of Americans favoring no timetable over those who do.
Which suggests to me how malleable Americans' positions are on this subject. It also explains why McCain has closed the gap with Obama this past week. With the War front and center, and the MSM continuing to prop the surge as a "success", it's no wonder.
THese recent developments may work in Obama's favor, if he can keep Americans' eyes focused on the bigger question of who had the best judgement over all, and that was him.
The second poll I quoted is May 30, 2008, CBS News.
Oh, and here's another little polling gem that proves how unpopular McCain's position is on this:
USAToday/Gallup, March 13, 2008:
"Which would be better for the U.S.:
Keep a significant number of troops in Iraq until the situation there gets better?: 35%
Set a timetable for removing troops and stick to it regardless of what is going on in Iraq?: 60%
Now the American people can have BOTH: "situation improvement" AND "withdrawal", it's a win-win, and for McCain a lose-lose!
He'll have to flip-flop and say he's always been for withdrawal after "victory" but not with a timetable. That won't fly with the majority of Americans OR Iraqis who WANT a timetable!
Up until this trip, I was thinking McCain was turning Iraq into a net winner for him, making it even more important for Obama to start talking about economic issues. And McCain had seized the intiative on energy, undercutting Obama's edge on the economy.
So while I don't think Maliki's statement is a game changer, it really weakens McCain's agument on Iraq.
(Now if someone could explain the McCain +7 data point on 7/17 on thracking graph....)
Although not easy to sell, the real reason that Iraq ia moving forward is because of Shia/Sunni reconciliation. This would have happened, surge or no surge.
McCain can say the surge worked but so what? There is no evidence of long term stability in the region. There will be, as there was before, a sovereign government that will have to interact with its neighbors.
There's also no guarantee that Iraq will be a long term ally of the US. Anyone foolish enough to assume that need only look back to the 1950's and Iran, How did that turn out for the US in the late 70's?
The USA is doomed to failure because it always fails to adequately study and understand history.
Bob said:
"And the difference still is that Obama wants us out of Iraq, no strings, and McCain wants a continued military presence."
That's not true. Obama's plan is to withdraw all COMBAT TROOPS within 16 months, but keep a "residual force" for such purposes as training Iraqi troops, protecting Americans and American institutions (the Embassy, etc., but perhaps also the mercenaries, I mean "contractors"?), and serving as a "strike force" to attack Al Qaida in Iraq as necessary.
Last I read, Al Jazeera was reporting that al-Maliki's office is claiming the Iraqi PM was "misquoted" by Der Spiegel.
"THat poll you cited was from a month ago, though. Quinnipiac more recently shows a slight majority of Americans favoring no timetable over those who do.
Which suggests to me how malleable Americans' positions are on this subject. It also explains why McCain has closed the gap with Obama this past week. With the War front and center, and the MSM continuing to prop the surge as a "success", it's no wonder.
THese recent developments may work in Obama's favor, if he can keep Americans' eyes focused on the bigger question of who had the best judgement over all, and that was him."
One thing we know for sure is that NOBODY'S mind is changing about Iraq at this point. It's become like the abortion debate, people talk past each other. 79% of Republicans have adopted McCain talking points "we can't withdrawal."
Well, that's shot to hell by Maliki.
The bad poll wording can get you any result:
16. Regardless of how you intend to vote, what would you prefer the next president do about the war in Iraq - Begin immediately a withdrawal of American troops with a fixed date to have them all out within 18 months OR Keep troops in Iraq until the situation is more stable and then begin to withdraw them without a fixed date for full withdrawal?
It's the "eighteen months" language that brings down the numbers of independents, because people have been bombarded for months now by the media noise machine's propaganda saying "we can't leave now or the wheels will come off."
Maliki was just negotiating with Bush. Maliki was demanding a timetable. Bush was refusing. That's why the SOFA wasn't agreed to!
Maliki was demanding not more than 2 years and preferably one year for U.S. troops to withdraw. Bush wanted an open-ended commitment.
Maliki in the Der Spiegel interview said that he prefers a long-term cultural and economic agreement, but to have a security agreement for the "short-term" i.e. one year at a time, with no commitment by the Iraqi government that U.S. forces can stay past December 2009.
That means that sometime in 2009, the next president will have to negotiate another 1 year extension, and Maliki can demand even more concessions from him.
Meanwhile Bush is putting intense pressure on Maliki's government to "repudiate" his comments. Thus, the intense spin about his being "misquoted."
It's not going to work. A timetable is what the American and Iraqi people want and that's what they're going to get.
Maliki can't totally repudiate a "timetable" without taking immediate fire from his own people, he's under immense pressure not to yield on this.
The best he can do is accept one year more of American troop presence with no commitment to have us there beyond December 2009 and punt the problem down the road another 6 months.
One thing is sure. The political pressure within Iraq for American withdrawal is NOT going to be less in six months. Obama will be lucky if he ca secure Iraqi agreement for 16 months.
President McCain would find his strategy for permanent occupation totally rejected by the Iraqi government, people and every political party of significance. It would mean a vicious and permanent war, probably immediate escalation of the violence against U.S. forces and a wider regional war with Iran.
I think there's a huge effect beyond who was right and who was wrong.
People overwhelmingly prefer McCain as a wartime president and Obama as a peacetime president. If you look at the surveys, the "who would be the better commander in chief" type of question makes that clear.
No matter what McCain and Bush want, the Iraq war just ended in a lot of people's minds. Sure, there are still troops there now, but they're coming home in the next two years. The job is done, the mission accomplished. People aren't going to worry about who's going to be better about dealing with the Iraq war, because the big decision will have already been made. This allows people who like Obama's policies but don't think he's ready to deal with a crisis to vote for Obama, because there is no Iraq crisis.
Over the next couple of weeks, I expect to see Obama's rating climb enormously simply because of this effect. And they'll keep climbing...until the next crisis. The more peaceful things are overseas, the better things are for the candidate people prefer in peacetime.
I think the McCain campaign campaign is making two mistakes on Iraq:
1) Thinking that whether "the surge is working" matters; most voters still think the war was a mistake and don't really care whether it's being prosecuted with more skill now than before.
2) Thinking that the key debate is now about whether there should be a timetable or not; the debate is instead about whether American troops should remain in Iraq indefinitely or not.
If McCain can convince people that the war is worth fighting, and that it's worth having permanent military bases in Iraq, then Iraq can be a winning issue for him.
That's why this part of the Der Speigel interview is as bad as the more-often quoted part:
SPIEGEL: Germany, after World War II, was also liberated from a tyrant by a US-led coalition. That was 63 years ago, and today there are still American military bases and soldiers in Germany. How do you feel about this model?
Maliki: Iraq can learn from Germany's experiences, but the situation is not truly comparable. Back then Germany waged a war that changed the world. Today, we in Iraq want to establish a timeframe for the withdrawal of international troops -- and it should be short.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-566852,00.html
Maliki, in other words, is specifically attacking the content of McCain's "hundred years" remark, and insisting that the comparison between postwar Germany and Iraq today is invalid.
Matthew H u could not be more wrong. Obama stated the surge would not work and would only make things worse.
Just the opposite happened. Worrying about whether we should be there or not is just being stuck on stupid.
Obama can claim he was right about going in, but when things went bad he decided on defeat and retreat.
He was wrong, wrong and wrong on the surge. Furthermore, you will hear in the next few days how the Iraqi Military does not want American troops to withdraw.
Again, Americans will look at this and say McCain was right and Obama wrong on the surge.
Anonymous at 3:55:
Iraq is not a military dictatorship. The Bush Administration needed to have an elected government there, in order to cover its ass on its pretext that the purpose of the invasion was to overthrow a brutal dictatorship and replace it with a democracy. Well, guess what? In a democracy, the elected civilian government drives policy, not the military. You can drivel on about defeat and retreat, but you really don't have a leg to stand on.
For everybody who is interested below is how Obama really though about the surge; the surge is what has now brought about true peace in Iraq
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcIeoSHTyCI
100 years vs. 16 months.
It's over.
(Now if someone could explain the McCain +7 data point on 7/17 on thracking graph....)
I'm at a loss to explain that one, as well. None of Pollster's national tracking polls from the last month show McCain with any lead, let alone +7.
Although the five random noise points at the bottom of the graph seem to be trending in Obama's favour...if in fact they represent anything at all.
"True peace" in Iraq? Perhaps you'd like to live in Baghdad for a few months, walk the streets, and shop in the bazaars. There is no true peace in Iraq. There is a reduction of violence only.
im puzzled by the +7 as well- what gives?
Without that point a lot of the trend would be different?
Also why does the trend-adjustment occur so fast.
Nevada was a +2 Obama on the 16th making a poll avg of .7 McCain-but since then Obama has lost half a point to drop to -1.2???? Why the drop- yes I know looking at national trends- but NV was polled during the supposed down turn for Obama- why does it still lose points when a current poll showed him gaining there???
Getting back on topic...
Nate:
The poll you linked to with the phrase "Polling in key swing states" is actually a NATIONAL poll by Quinnipiac, and the key text is as follows:
" Likely voters nationwide disapprove 67 - 26 percent of the job President George W. Bush is doing and say 59 - 34 percent that going to war in Iraq was the wrong thing to do.
But by a 51 - 43 percent margin, voters support McCain's plan to keep U.S. troops in Iraq without a fixed withdrawal timetable, rather than Obama's plan to begin an immediate withdrawal with an 18-month timetable."
It will be interesting to see whether these numbers change, following the statement by Maliki.
Michael,
Another thing that's interesting about that Quinnipiac polling question is that it elides three options (stay in Iraq permanently, withdraw without a fixed timetable, withdraw with a fixed timetable) into two (withdrawal with or without a fixed timetable).
The McCain camapaign continues to insist that Obama wants to withdraw on a fixed timetable "without regard for conditions on the ground and without consulting commanders in the field," which is a lie (and they know it's a lie, because just a week ago they were attacking Obama for having repeated his desire to listen to commanders in the field and to pay attention to conditions on the ground).
If those polled saw the Q-Pac question as being about "Do you think we should withdraw on a fixed timetable, no matter what happens on the ground?" then it's no wonder a lot of them said "no", even though neither presidential candidate is proposing such a thing.
If those polled thought the question meant, "Should we stay in Iraq forever, or should we have a plan to get troops home as soon as is feasible while being consistent with conditions on the ground?" then they were probably more likely to say "yes" (to a proposal Obama supports and McCain opposes).
When polling on issues, the question matters a lot.
The extensive commentary about the surge "working" or "not working", and Americans' views on us leaving aside, I wonder whether or not all these folks who are dedicated to a continued US presence in Iraq "for the forseeable future", have noticed (or care) that polls of Iraqi people have indicated they want us out, and have indicated that same sentiment since 2005 at least. Almost 40% were already saying the invasion was wrong back in 2004.
Is McCain going to follow up on his statement back in 2004 that if the Iraqis asked us to leave, that we would do so? 'Cause they've been asking for the last four years....
[pakaal]
Well, if he's not listening the American people, what are the odds he'd listen to the Iraqi people, who can't even vote for him?
That sound you hear is the sound of nails being hammered into the coffin of the present version fo the GOP. Barring any really imaginative October surprise by the GOP, this race is over. Moreover, I will now predict that the 2008 GOP is the same as the 1980 Democratic Party. This is the beginings of a coalition that will last for decades. McCain's central problem isn't just his issues, but also that he has R after his name. This dynamic hasn't changed, and only has been made worse as this election continues.
The initial coverage is superficial and will be very rah-rah for Obama. What Chuckie T said this morning is typical. He is really a hack and must serve his masters at MSNBC that have positioned themselves as the liberal alternative to Fox News in order to gain market share among the left while ceding the center and the right to Fox and CNN.
The coverage on MSNBC reaches such outrageous levels of imbalance, that it cannot be trusted to provide a balanced picture of anything other than the Democrat talking points.
The clear message that will come from Obama’s trip and what will flow from Maliki’s statement is that the Surge worked and the policy that Obama never supported and even denied up until a week or so ago was working was the reason why Maliki can now speak with confidence on the eventual pull out of US troops and that the US can participate in such discussions knowing that we will not leave Iraq in chaos.
Had Obama had his way chaos would still reign and Iraq would be in a mess.
Maliki has already begun to reverse course on his supposed statement of support for Obama. He now says his remarks were "taken out of context". He along with the Iraqi people recognize that while there will come a time for Iraq to stand on its own two feet, but they want this withdrawal handled carefully and do not want an artificial, precipitous withdrawal of the kind Obama has proposed, one that gives no consideration to current strategic and tactical considerations and is wholly designed to satisfy his left wing supporters.
Obama must tread very carefully here. No matter what Maliki meant, you can be sure that Maliki was not supporting a forced pull out of American troops because that troop presence is against Iraqi interests. Maliki will be the first to say that without the Surge, there would be no circumstances that would permit any reduction in US forces. And he will be very clear that the reduction of forces must be handled carefully and must be responsive to conditions of the moment and that an artificial timetable that does not consider the future security of Iraq but is wholly based on fulfilling a promise to the left wing of the Democratic Party (who are Obama’s masters) is helpful neither to US nor Iraqi interests. This is, of course, the very sentiment echoed by the Iraqi people, who while nationalistic are also practical and very security conscious.
McCain is not against an end to the war. He simply wants it to end with victory, which by and large means a stable and Democratic government in Iraq. That goal has been nearly achieved and McCain should receive credit for courageous support of a tactical plan that almost destroyed his candidacy. But he put country first.
Obama stubbornly stuck to his wrong judgment on Iraq and will now use the success of the Surge to claim that he is right on withdrawal. At best he is the beneficiary of luck, at worst, a political opportunist. Like a broken watch he can be right up to twice day.
The 7-17 point currently only includes one poll: Rasmussen Maine, where McCain is doing 14 points better than on 6-16 and 5 points better than on 5-14. Nate includes the tracking polls under the center date of the 3-day span. So Wed-Thurs-Fri would have been released yesterday, but the model hasn't been updated yet. There may be other state polls dated 7-17 which will be added as well. So expect the 7-17 to jump back up when the model is updated.
Pete Kent said: Maliki will be the first to say that without the Surge, there would be no circumstances that would permit any reduction in US forces.
From the Der Speigel interview:
SPIEGEL: In your opinion, which factor has contributed most to bringing calm to the situation in the country?
Maliki: There are many factors, but I see them in the following order. First, there is the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve in central Iraq. This has enabled us, above all, to pull the plug on al-Qaida. Second, there is the progress being made by our security forces. Third, there is the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias. Finally, of course, there is the economic recovery.
Sounds like Maliki thinks the main drivers of change are domestic political circumstances. I'm not saying he's right, just saying that that's what he's saying.
Oh, and Maliki hasn't said anything about his remarks yet. CENTCOM has issued a statement with the content Pete alludes to.
And it seems even that came out only after the White House leaned on them:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/20/maliki_aides_statement_came_af.html
You can tell the goopers are afraid, they are fighting each other to get to mikes and start telling their lies er..spin.
Mullens is backtracking on his themes from the last several weeks to help Krusty out, but this ones gonna hurt him.
Lilnev, you must be right and thanks for the explanation (I saw it when you posted it before) - this point will still probably end up as the first negative point in a long while.
Nate once said, though, that he's weighting single day points for Loess curve purposes, by how much polling information they carry (he never explained how) so this is not a major drag on the curve anyway.
ajb said:
"When polling on issues, the question matters a lot."
Indeed. Thank you very much for your post.
anonymous said:
"Moreover, I will now predict that the 2008 GOP is the same as the 1980 Democratic Party. This is the beginings of a coalition that will last for decades."
Please dial back such predictions! I can't count the number of times pundits claimed that one election or another was a major "realignment." It usually didn't last, long-term. So let's concern ourselves with THIS election and wait to see what unfolds later.
Isn't it stunning how the polls always seem to come out like 2:1 when the question is do you want out of Iraq as soon as possible (63% wanting out in 2 years or less in May according to the CBS poll question shown above). Even over 50% said that if the place is a chaos zone (55% in June according to the ABC/Washington Post poll question shown above), we should still bail. However, when the wording of the polling says "McCain's" plan or "Obama's" plan it's close to 1:1 and often favors McCain. People can't even see past the team they're rooting for to decide which person actually agrees with them.
Fortunately, this is unspinnably damning for McCain in my book. I guess that I just have faith that Americans can figure out that being correct about an obvious position (that adding more troops to Iraq and paying off the enemy to fight for our side improves security as measured by deaths) is simply not as impressive as being right about the whole idea of the war and being on the popular side regarding the timetable for ending it (both in the minds of the citizens of our country and Iraq and now in the words of its Prime Minister). Good job, John, you were right about the surge and wrong about everything important.
P.S. thanks Cugel for a) intelligent posts and b) citing polls that I can use as evidence when trying to sway my friends' votes. There's always a finger pointing about the "trolling" on the site, but when people actually post evidence of their assertions (something I never see in most of the right-leaning Pete Kent-style arguments... maybe there's some assumed knowledge sort of thing and they think it's a waste of space to take the time to explain why they hold the beliefs they hold and instead they just pound us over the head with their unsupported, uninformed arguments time and time again), and it's refreshing that the basis of your posts is simply interpreting the will of the American people in general as determined by their answers to a scientific poll. All you have to say in your argument is "look at what you, America, wants." In my mind, that's how I know I'm on the correct side of this debate. I just want the guy to get elected that's planning on doing what this country wants. I do not understand why a large fraction of the country is supporting a candidate who does not support their beliefs (well... I understand why, but I think we as a nation should be better than that), but I have faith that we can get the message out if we keep talking about it. Bravo.
Pete,
You're simply wrong. This is wartime vs. peacetime. When all sides now agree about what should be done in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran except for the sort of trite detail nobody cares about, then why should anybody vote for one or the other based on what they think about foreign policy?
There's also the little detail that what McCain wanted as a surge didn't happen. The so-called surge simply reversed and earlier drawdown, and wasn't the monstrosity that McCain was suggesting. The things that did work, such as building walls in Baghdad and bribing Sunni leaders to support us, didn't have much to do with the additional troops. But let's face it, nobody cares about that.
McCain's going to end up admitting that he'd go after bin Laden in the lawless regions of Pakistan even without Pakistan's support, which is what Obama already said he'd do and McCain derided. We're right now starting face to face high level negotiations with Iran which Obama said he wanted and McCain derided. And we're going to pull most of our troops out of Iraq by May 2010, which Obama said he wanted and McCain derided. Regardless of whether McCain get credit for being head cheerleader for Petraeus, McCain's lost all of his foreign talking points.
I suspect that'll do it for McCain, until the next crisis.
Lighten up everyone- let's see McCain take a lead for a bit- what's the big deal about that. Is he really going to win the TV debates in the fall? Anyway, let the best man win and all that.
The last post is brought to you by the lastest GOP tactic online.
Looking their websites, it appears that the Obama downturn may have bottom out and turned in the Gallup and Rasmussen Daily Tracking Polls.
However, other polls have seem to maintain a 6-8% Obama lead over the last few weeks.
CNN reported during its 6 PM broadcast that Maliki now claims he was both misquoted and mistranslated.
I think this was an unfortunate blip and the leak of it was odd.
It may take a couple of days for the net effect of the visit to settle in.
There are two phases: the war zone visit and his Eva Peron Miracle Tour of Europe.
They are not necessarily complimentary.
Obama may get an initial bounce from the attention and intense media coverage, but the policy implications of the war zone visit are unlikely to help him.
Craven as they are, the media will be all over Obama to show some flexibility, so they can create some news.
If he does show flexibility, he will enrage the left. If he does not he will disaffect the center which is looking for a balanced and realistic position on the war.
It remains to be seen if he can finesse this.
Most Americans will not be impressed with Obama getting adoring crowds and whipping Europeans into a frenzy. This does not address any doubts about his "Americanness" or his patriotism and will make it seem as if he would make a better UN Secretary General than President of the US.
Perhaps President Hillary Clinton can push for that should she wrest the nomination from Obama in Denver and beat McCain as Democrats were supposed to do.
But more substantively, McCain is not against an end to the war. He simply wants it to end with victory, which by and large means a stable and Democratic government in Iraq. That goal has been nearly achieved and McCain should receive credit for courageous support of a tactical plan that almost destroyed his candidacy. But he put country first.
Obama stubbornly stuck to his wrong judgment on Iraq and will now use the success of the Surge to claim that he is right on withdrawal. At best he is the beneficiary of luck, at worst, a political opportunist.
With regard to the Iranian talks, many see the recent US participation in the nuclear talks as vindication of Obama's position on negotiations. It is, if he now claims to have invented the notion of diplomacy much the way Al Gore invented the internet!
In truth Obama was all for direct head of state to head of state talks that are far from coming to fruition and what we are seeing now are the very preconditions and preparations that Obama was willing to bypass so he could get a crack at Ahmadiajad directly, apparently believing that by force of his personality alone he could turn the tide of years of enmity. He is both vain and naive in that!
The Republicans are the party with the long and successful track record of negotiating with our enemies from a position of strength and achieving worthy goals: Witness the fall of the Soviet Union, the Opening of Relations with Red China and now even under the (Neanderthal) Bush progress on both North Korean and Iranian nukes.
I have no doubt that McCain with his 20 plus years of foreign policy experience will continue this path toward progress.
I have no such confidence that a former "community organizer" (what is that exactly anyway?) from Chicago who had virtually no legislative record of note (other than to vote against the giving of medical attention to babies born from botched abortions) in the Illinois State Senate and who has spent his entire US Senate tenancy seeking the Presidency is at all prepared to deal with these issues, his Harvard and Columbia educations notwithstanding.
As Bill Clinton put it so well: "Give me a break! This whole thing is a fairy tale!
The thing you're all missing is to put these comments by Maliki in the context of the now deadlocked negotiations over the Status of Forces Agreement for Iraq.
The Maliki government has been pushing for timetables for withdrawal. He's been doing not because he wants to, he was picked because they thought he would be a pliant Bush puppet after all, but because the American occupation is wildly unpopular among Iraqis and he's under intense pressure to negotiate an end to it.
The Bush administration has been resisting, trying desperately to come up with face-saving euphemisms for "withdrawal schedule" like "time-horizon." It now appears there will be NO agreement, except to extend the security arrangements for one more year and start re-negotiating a NEW status of forces agreement in 2009.
There's ZERO chance the Iraqi parliament or people will endorse ANY agreement unless it contains clear "timetables."
Maliki: we would like to see the establishment of a long-term strategic treaty with the United States, which would govern the basic aspects of our economic and cultural relations. However, I wish to re-emphasize that our security agreement should remain in effect in the short term.
SPIEGEL: How short-term? Are you hoping for a new agreement before the end of the Bush administration?
Maliki: So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias. The American lead negotiators realize this now, and that's why I expect to see an agreement taking shape even before the end of President Bush's term in office. With these negotiations, we will start the whole thing over again, on a clearer, better basis, because the first proposals were unacceptable to us."
So Maliki's interview with Der Spiegel is entirely consistent with his negotiating position over the SOFA Agreement: no long-term security agreemment without withdrawal timetables, but a long-term economic and cultural agreement.
Wow Pete... repeat spam posting. You're really stepping up to the plate. Keep saying it. It won't make it true.
I admire your belligerence. If someone with cogent thoughts had your persistence, some people could really be persuaded. Imagine if you could flood the world with facts and information as readily as Pete Kent floods this site with unsubstantiated (and now spamming, repeated) rhetoric...
You can tell as much about both candidates and their stances by how their supporters react on a daily basis. I hope the undecided voters out there are listening with their thinking caps on.
Here's an article that further makes clear the Iraqi government position:
http://arablinks.blogspot.com/2008/07/
maliki-continues-to-press-for.html
This site contains numerous news stories from the Middle East translated from Arabic.
Maliki continues to press for a "withdrawal-schedule" despite the talks having been "scaled back"
WaPo this morning (Sunday July 13) says the Bush administration has scaled back to trying to negotiate an "interim" agreement insofar as its military presence and operations in Iraq are concerned, having finally realized the solidity of Iraqi opposition to the idea of open-ended American presence, and the difficulty of negotiating a withdrawal schedule.
Interestingly, a piece in Asharq alAwsat published in yesterday (Saturday July 12) quotes UIA leader Sami Al-Askari as having said much the same thing, in a story that begins like this:
A leader of the governing United Iraqi Alliance has says the United States has abandoned the idea of a military agreement, proposing instead the idea of a security protocol to be attached to a cultural agreement, which aims to define the relationship in economic and development and cultural areas, and meanwhile the Sadr trend continued its demonstrations...
AlAskari said there isn't any agreement currently, but discussions aren't ended either. He said that of the two agreements that have been under negotiation, one non-military ("framework agreement" or "strategic framework agreement") and one military, "the United States has abandoned the idea of a military agreement, and has proposed instead the idea of a security protocol to be attached to the framework agreement".
But Al-Askari's point in the Asharq alAwsat interview was also that the issues of withdrawal-schedule still persist, even with the new approach.
[He said] discussions between the two sides are still continuing, and he said the Iraqi government has proposed the matter of a withdrawal schedule and evacuation of the foreign troops, because that is the flip side of any agreement. [After quoting Maliki in his Abu Dhabi remarks about "withdrawal schedule or evacuation", Askari adds]: America is talking about a time-horizon for the withdrawal of those troops of five years from the signing of the agreement, and they see the horizon proposed by the Iraqi side of two to three years as a lower-limit.
And Askari spells out what is involved in the two-to-three-year proposal:
Askari said the turnover of the security portfolio for all provinces can be completed by the end of this year, and there will be a complete withdrawal of the multinational forces from the cities by the middle of 2009. And by the end of 2010 all troops will have been withdrawn, with an exception for air-cover provided by those forces to Iraq, and then in 2011 it will be possible for Iraq to have air-control as well.
Zeroing in on the question to what extent the military-presence issues could just be left out of a "strategic framework agreement", Askari said:
On the "strategic framework agreement" and whether it could be signed separately from the security agreement, AlAskari said: "In spite of the absence of problems in the framework agreement...still the [Iraqi] government does not want to sign it in isolation from a definition of the status of the American forces. He stressed the framework agreement would include commitment to getting Iraq out of Chapter 7, protection of Iraqi funds, commitment to democracy, the Iraqi constitution, and the economy, along with finding a solution to the problem of Iraq's creditors.
The journalist adds:
Observers think the parties could sign a "strategic framework agreement" by the announced deadline (end of this month) as a way of saving face, while still working to complete an agreement on the future of the American forces.
So if you put the WaPo story side by side with these comments by AlAskari, the conclusion appears to be the following: (1) The US side has given up on anything defining the American military presence by the planned deadline of July; however, (2) while the American sources are telling WaPo that the fallback position will be an interim, one-year agreement, the Iraqi side is still talking about withdrawal-schedule.
And the remarks attributed to Maliki's national security adviser Mowaffaq Rubaie by the Sunday Times this morning point this up very clearly: Referring to Rubaie, the report said:
A senior Iraqi government official said this weekend the [GreenZone] enclave should revert to Iraqi control by the end of the year. “We think that by the end of 2008 all the zones in Baghdad should be integrated into the city,” said Ali Dabbagh, the government’s spokesman.
“The American soldiers should be based in agreed camps outside the cities and population areas.
Which in essence is that same as AlAskari's outline including exit of US forces from Iraqi cities by the end of this year."
I have to laugh at anyone who still thinks that Hillary Clinton can win the Democratic nomination and the presidency. There's a good fairy tale for you.
Notice the points of disagreement from the above article:
1. The Iraqi government is talking about a complete turnover of U.S. military facilities, including the Green Zone and a withdrawal schedule.
2. The Bush administration, having failed to move the Iraqis to endorse an indefinite occupation by U.S. forces, is looking at a fall-back position of a 1 year security agreement.
3. The Iraqi government response to this is that even in the context of a 1 year agreement, there must be withdrawal schedules.
4. The Bush response to this has been to propose nebulous "time-horizons" that avoid using the term "withdrawal schedule" and can be interpreted however one wishes.
5. Maliki is close to accepting this, so he can tell the Iraqi people that the Americans have agreed to "withdrawal schedule" and the Bush administration can tell the American people "no withdrawal schedule."
Then next year the new President will have to start all over again and negotiate a withdrawal schedule.
Because no matter what Bush, McCain or Maliki might want, neither the American nor the Iraqi people are going to put up with this for much longer.
The American occupation of Iraq is coming to an end, as Maliki said "sooner rather than later."
It's past time for Obama to acknowledge the success of the 'Surge'. His continued insistence that he was right all along by opposing the surge is now hurting him. Obviously, Obama strongly opposed the Surge and he was wrong and everyone knows it. A simple acknowledgement that the Surge worked and now gives the USA an opportunity to get out of Iraq sooner, rather than later would do the trick. Evidently his extreme left wing supporters won't let him do it. The election could be decided between Monday and Tuesday of this week with how he handles this question while in Iraq. Let's see how smart they are.....
For fun, google "Pete Kent" and Obama.
It will help to understand where is coming from ;-)
Cugel wrote: "Because no matter what Bush, McCain or Maliki might want, neither the American nor the Iraqi people are going to put up with this for much longer. The American occupation of Iraq is coming to an end, as Maliki said "sooner rather than later."
It seems reasonable to guess we'll be out (sans whatever "advisors" and such we'll undoubtedly leave behind) before the end of the next presidency. Probably halfway through the term. Americans have been consistent in wanting us out, Iraqis as well, and now al-Maliki says the same.
One wonders exactly who wants us to stay in Iraq (besides al-Qaeda, who love what we've done in Iraq, it does nothing but help their side's propaganda efforts). Bush, Cheney and Petraeus? Anyone else?
Neat, so if Rasmussen continues their polling of states every 29 to 33 days, that means OH, NM, AK, CO, and possibly PA (likely next week) will be released this week. Just speculating.
I acknowledge the sucess of the surge. Can we leave Iraq now?
Thus your problem.
What does it say about Obama and his campaign when they have to pounce on inaccurate translations as their only source of positive news? The polling has gone so badly for these guys that they're desperate for anything to give them a turn-around.
Well, it ain't happening.
My prediction: The Obama campaign will use this as their main talking point for the coming week (and perhaps even longer), trying to convince America that claim that this WAS an endorsement by Maliki. America won't buy the Obama campaign's slippery reasoning and it will drop him in the polls even further.
Obama is looking less presidential by the hour.
Misquoted? Yeah, right.
What did you really say, PM Malaki?
Michael said:
"It's past time for Obama to acknowledge the success of the 'Surge'."
Except that it's a different Michael than the one who's been posting upthread, as you probably can tell. I wouldn't be talking about the "extreme left" supporters of Obama, because I don't think there are many Bolsheviks in the U.S. today.
It's pretty obvious that Maliki was NOT misquoted. Der Spiegel is a highly regarded magazine (the German equivalent of Time or Newsweek but probably better than either) and it seriously stretches credulity that they'd continue to stand by their interview if the translation was in error. Not to mention that he echoed his general support for Obama's withdrawal timetable at MULTIPLE points in the interview, not just once.
What we've also learned from this episode is that the Bush Admin has enough leverage to get less prominent officials in the Iraq Govt to issue vague unspecific retractions to try to soften the political blow, although they clumsily got this to the press via US CENTCOM (!) rather than directly from someone in the Iraqi Govt.
Also, it's sad but predictable that CENTCOM is basically acting as an mouthpiece for the Republican party.
DONATE TO OBAMA !
WE NEED YOU
ITS EASY TO DONATE ONLINE
DONATE NOW !
*** CLICK HERE ***
"It's past time for Obama to acknowledge the success of the 'Surge'."
As long as McCain acknowledges that he was wrong about the reasons and even necessity for starting the Iraq War, and wrong about the success (or lack thereof) up to the Surge, hat shouldn't be a problem. He's willing to do that, right?
When you are so wrong about so many things, as Bush, Cheney, McCain, etc. were, you don't get to demand jack squat. You get to sit there, possibly grinning sheepishly, and hope people don't either impeach you or string you up.
In the Der Spiegel interview, Al Maliki was asked which factors had contributed to a calmer situation in Iraq:
Maliki: "There are many factors, but I see them in the following order. First, there is the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve in central Iraq. This has enabled us, above all, to pull the plug on al-Qaida. Second, there is the progress being made by our security forces. Third, there is the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias. Finally, of course, there is the economic recovery."
Anyone see a menion of the SURGE there? I know I don't. I think this man would know his country best.
I am sure we'll get another "mistranslation" comment from someone here, but it IS interesting that this was never rebutted.
Wow Pete... repeat spam posting. You're really stepping up to the plate. Keep saying it. It won't make it true.
Unfortunately it will make it seem 'truer' - human natures shows that one person saying a lie 3 times is almost as convincing as 3 people saying it once. Just the way our brains work.
Pete with his strawmen, red herrings, and snide remarks does get tiring but the best way to combat that is just ignore him. Engaging him just gives him a forum to repeat the drivel again.
Actually smart of the Iraqis - they can see how the US political dialogue is developing and by saying they wanted a time table they forced the Bush and McCain camps to align with Obama. Regardless of who wins its a win for their efforts to get their country back and the foreign powers out.
I know. It's just so frustrating that it's impossible for me to ignore. I need to work on my discipline. Calling me out helps. Thanks.
Sorry, didn't want to seem to be 'calling you' on it but rather pointing it out for everyone.
I find it easiest just to skip his posts and not read them at all - his spin posts rarely have anything to do with the site at all - just let him get his McCain points and ignore him i my personal strategy.
Unfortunately human beings are not as rational as we would like to pretend they are and the repeated lies, negative campaigning, and the like are done because, unfortunately, they work.
I think all the observations here are way too Belt-way. We're too inside the loop. At the end of the day, the only story that will translate to the "American" people is that another brown (read terrorist) leader from overseas agrees with Obama. I don't buy all of the email bruhaha. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if the Bush Admin leaked this. (I don't know why I feel the need to write this, but yes, I am an Obama story and still don't think this bodes well for him.)
So "such sweet thunder" the elected leader of Iraq is a terrorist? Right.
The McCain trolls are getting desperate.
I can't speak for them, but I believe they meant to use the word "supporter" instead of "story." In that case, I believe they were venting some frustration that this is how things work.
I'm more optimistic than that, but I'm new to this liberal thing. Should I be preparing for life more like the Red Sox fan pre-2004?
oh yes my left wing brethen. for those quoting Maliki and his reasons why the surge worked. Please,I know there was never invented a Democrat that liked the American Military, but let's give credit where credit is due.
It was the Marines and Soldiers of this country that followed the tactics of a certain General by the name of Petraous, that I believe the left in this country dissed by calling him Betrayus; A certain advertisement that I believe, Barack ( The middle name that shall not be spoken) Obama refused to condemn.
So before you jump for joy by what this man says, I believe you had better remember that this man says what he says because brave Marines and Soldiers gave him the freedom to make these comments.
Leave it to the left wing in this country to start something that ultimately tries to disgrace the United States Military.
It's not Iraq, it's the gasoline stupid!!!!!!!!!! The gasoline. there has not been a death in Iraq for weeks.
We are all slowly dying from the high gas prices.
One of the primary reasons al-Maliki wants a clear timetable for American withdrawal rests upon one of the foundations of "the surge's" failure.
Namely this is that the Shiite's have no desire to enact any sort of oil revenue or political power sharing program.
This calculation by al-Maliki, that the republicans can claim credit for the surge working while Obama can claim credit for bringing the troops home while he can claim credit for keeping most of the oil wealth in Shiite hands looks on first inspection to be well timed and shrewdly played politically.
time will tell...
Paul,
He wants a timetable because there is an election upcoming in Iraq. I also wonder who in the Obama camp got to Maliki and how Der Spiegal just happened to be interviewing Maliki just before Obama made his trip to Europe. Too good to be true!!!
It think the entire thing will backfire on Obama.
The New York Times confirms Der Spiegel's story:
But the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki’s office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki’s interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama’s position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.
The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki’s comments by The Times: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”
He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”
Maliki's backtracking came only after pressure from the Bush junta:
Diplomats from the United States Embassy in Baghdad spoke to Mr. Maliki’s advisers on Saturday, said an American official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss what he called diplomatic communications. After that, the government’s spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, issued a statement casting doubt on the magazine’s rendering of the interview.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/us/politics/21obama.html?ref=world
Can't blame Maliki. The last Iraqi leader to dissent from Bush didn't fare so well.
By the way, the spreading of the ridiculous "surge" propaganda to earn McCain Points is a just a tiny bit obvious, guys.
There's no downside for Obama in this. None.
I see endless troll remarks "Maliki was misquoted" and I honestly wonder if 1/2 the people in this thread have totally ignored the articles I've posted.
You have to look at Maliki's comments in light of the Status of Forces negotiations. Everything he said is exactly the Iraqi position at the SOFA negotiations!
Of course he wasn't misquoted! He was just unaware of the political impact his words would have in the U.S. After all, it was nothing remarkable or even new that he said. It's what he's been saying for months now and exactly what his government's public negotiating position has been. Everybody who KNOWS what's going on in Iraq knows it -- it's just the general American ignorance about all things Iraqi that enables McCain and the right-wing trolls to deny it.
The US media stopped reporting about Iraq a long time ago, and now the election has descended into endless trivia.
But, it's embarrassing to the Bush administration to have Maliki repeat his ACTUAL position to the foreign press. Thus, a frantic call from the Administration to Maliki's office to demand a "clarification." Then they got permission for CENTCOM to issue a "repudiation."
Since when does CENTCOM issue statements "for the Iraqi government?" Notice that Maliki himself has said NOTHING.
But every right-wing troll has their talking point "he was misquoted."
No, he wasn't. And that's already being established beyond a reasonable doubt -- but it will also be ignored by the media and the right-wingers who will continue to pretend that the Iraqis want us there in their country.
And now no matter who wins this election, the U.S. occupation is going to end, because they just won't tolerate it much longer, any more than the American people will.
" oh yes my left wing brethen. for those quoting Maliki and his reasons why the surge worked. Please,I know there was never invented a Democrat that liked the American Military, but let's give credit where credit is due.
It was the Marines and Soldiers of this country that followed the tactics of a certain General by the name of Petraous, that I believe the left in this country dissed by calling him Betrayus; A certain advertisement that I believe, Barack ( The middle name that shall not be spoken) Obama refused to condemn."
Oh, troll-boy? Would that be the SAME Gen. Petreus (you can't even spell his name) who was called "an ass-kissing little chicken shit" by his own superior officer Admiral Fallon?
But, then he must be one of those "dirty hippie" Admirals who don't "respect our military!"
Anonymous wrote:
So "such sweet thunder" the elected leader of Iraq is a terrorist? Right.
The McCain trolls are getting desperate.
---------
I don't think the elected leader of Iraq is a terrorist. And, I don't expect any reader who is smart enough to find this site does either. But we're not Joe-six pack, who already is wondering whether Obama is the cover that was depicted on the recent New Yorker.
His name is Al-Maliki. That's close enough to equaling a terrorist to flip some dumb-ass in Ohio.
such sweet thunder said...
"His name is Al-Maliki. That's close enough to equaling a terrorist to flip some dumb-ass in Ohio."
Maybe you are the dumbass "such sweet thunder." Did you ever think of that?
Anon @11:17:
Well... if I were a news organization and a wildly popular candidate for President of the most important (who's not patriotic?) country in the world were about to visit and address my nation, I would be interested in the reporting the opinions of the leader of a country being occupied by that country. It certainly adds valuable context to any story involving Obama and the election.
So... you propose we think suspiciously toward good reporting and some refreshing honesty from a politician (no matter his political intentions or shrewdness... he and his people are in full agreement regarding American occupation)? What makes you think it was someone with Obama who "got to Maliki" and isn't it a little absurd to make that implication when the only evidence of "getting to Maliki" is Bush leveraging him into saying he was misinterpreted and mistranslated.
If you know the facts here and genuinely believe this is anything but vindicating for Obama's plan to withdraw troops within 16 months, then you are, simply put, a simpleton who draws the wrong conclusions from overwhelming evidence. Stubbornness cannot rule the day in our country. The smarter man is proving he'd make the better decisions.
Your post is ignorant of reality and a poor attempt to frame the discussion around an unimportant fact (Maliki's inspiration for *gasp* attempting to ensure the desires of his people at least in this one case... his intentions don't matter... he has the authority to demand that of us) and attempting to rouse suspicion of a fact that is the hugest check mark in the pro column of any potential candidate: wants to do what the sovereign nation of Iraq wants to do. I refuse to think the American people will elect a man who beligerently argues about who was right about the surge, while the other just points out how it's what we're being asked to do.
I do agree with you, however, that this does seem "Too good to be true!!!" Very rarely are you gifted an opportunity such as the political leader of the country you're occupying endorsing the main principle in one candidate's policy toward that nation. I've been pinching myself regarding this since I first read it. Paired with the Iran negotiations (that aren't negotiations), I'm more inspired by the improving mountain of evidence that Barack Obama is the better choice to lead our country. I could care less if it shows in the polls now. Continued exposure to this kind of stuff will lead an electorate who's clearly fed up with framing the argument and talking point media manipulation to conclude that John McCain is talking out of two sides of his mouth if he blames Obama for changing his stance on things and then in the next sentence admonishes him for being unwilling to reconsider his major underlying philosophical beliefs (that we should withdraw from Iraq and pursue the perpetrators of 9/11 in Afghanistan) after a visit to our two war zones. McCain's a stubborn old man who has repeatedly implied that he would take longer in Iraq than Obama's 16 month plan. Can we really risk electing a man who might defy the desires of a sovereign nation and its people?
Anon @10:50:
I don't think question what percent of the credit the military is due is in anyway disrespectful to the military. It's certainly not 100% due to the military that things are better in Iraq. Certainly, the Iraqi people have played some role, would you not agree? Maliki seems to think that the military force (and he actually said "our security forces," which could be interpreted as meaning only Iraqi, but I know you'll argue means American too, so I will even grant you that... he ranks it 2nd most important) is not the most important thing behind the country being more secure. Whether it's true or not, McCain is wrong in suggesting that he would say otherwise, because he did not. McCain's implication is wrong and a lie. Obama is incredibly respectful of the media and typically frames his discussion of the surge around the presumption that "of course violence goes down when our expert military increases its presence in the country." He just wants to know what actual gains were made as a result. Clearly the deaths are down, but was the point of the mission met? Was the point more security or being closer to a functioning democracy? The sad part is, we've never really been told the true mission all along, so nobody could tell you. If "eliminating the threat that Iraq poses to America" is the mission as was stated back when the notion of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was conceivable (the main argument for going to war and it's now a laughable idea), I think ignoring the wishes of their people is a bad idea.
You typed
The middle name that shall not be spoken
and I don't know if you are a willing participant or not, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I hope you're just following the trend and do not understand the impact of what you do when you type this. First off, there's clearly a movement in our country to keep the awareness of Obama's connection to Islam in the mainstream consciousness. Simply put, if you think Obama's a closet Muslim and you fear Muslims (which unfortunately, a lot of people in this country do), you are very unlikely to cast a ballot for him and would instead make an effort to ensure he's not in power in your country. Now, I'm entirely comfortable with the idea that Obama's middle name is Hussein. You could type Barack Hussein Obama all day long and I wouldn't have a problem with it. The thing is, we typically don't talk about Presidential candidate's middle names. I don't even know what McCain's middle name is and I am a very active reader of political commentary. Every time you make a deal about Obama's middle name in an effort to manipulate voters into fearing him due to manufactured connections to Islam, whether you are aware that you are participating in that movement or not, then there's only one descriptor for you: despicable. We live in a better world than that sort of thing and I hope people who are still deciding between candidates (and those of you who are McCain supporters, but would vote for Hillary) understand what side plays politics that way. I'm not saying that Obama does everything right, but he hasn't done anything outright evil lately. Using race-based fear-mongering, or even simply standing by idly while it is being employed to your advantage (one speech by McCain, or Hillary though too late for her, about how unfortunate these underground smear campaigns are and reinforcing his awareness of the healing that needs to go on in the nation and that faux-issue is off the table) is simply wrong. These smear campaigns are morally corrupt and if you are participating knowingly, I hope you are comfortable doing something that is unquestionably evil. May God (and you're the one who believes in Him... not me... see how I was just respectful of your religion while not agreeing with it by capitalizing God and Him? You could learn a thing or two from me) have mercy on your soul.
I am sorry Nate... I'll just start my own blog from now on and quit wasting space (and diverting focus) on yours. I understand this is rude to you, but I hope you understand how important it is that people read stuff like this.
I can see by the number of posts the right is in a panic.
The big picture here is that the Rethuglicans are victims of their own strong arm tactics and lack of foreign policy aptitude. The Boosh administration wanted to push through a security agreement that would mean the US would have permanent bases in Iraq indefinitely. The Iraqis did not want any part of permanent basis within their country for very good reasons. Iraq would be a target of extremists forever like Saudi Arabia was during the time US had bases in their country. You cannot blame the Iraqis they know foreign fighters would make Iraq a target for jihad as long as American troops where stationed in their holly land. Again 0bama's foreign policy team was right that our presence in Iraq is truly the biggest catalyst for violence. It also shows McBush does not have a clue the Iraqi's know that there will never be a peaceful occupation in Iraq. The whole it's not our presence in Iraq it's the casualties was all another McBush Rethuglican saying that looked good as a campaign slogan but had no basis in reality. All along the Rethuglican's plan was to keep forces in Iraq no matter how many casualties were incurred to secure the oil. Iraq will have some growing pains when Americans leave but without foreign fighters stoking the flames of war, they will come to so agreements how to govern their country.
How many times are we going to see Bush and McCain follow Obama's lead on foreign policy before everyone realizes that Obama and his team are the foreign policy experts?
First, Obama tells everyone the Iraq war would be a foreign policy disaster and it lives up to being the worse foreign policy decision in American history.
Second, Obama says the US should attack Al Qaeda in Pakistan based on actionable intelligence and Bush and McCain call him naive. A few months later the Bush administration starts attacking Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan on actionable intelligence. In fact, that is the last time the military has successfully struck down an Al Qaeda leader that actually played a part in the attacks on 9/11.
Third, McCain said Afghanistan did not need more troops back in February. Now McCain flip flops and says the military needs to send 3 more brigades in Afghanistan in a desperate attempt to one up Obama by one brigade, even though McCain does not know where the military is going to get those extra troops.
Fourth, Obama wants a timetable to get out of Iraq and now the Iraqi leaders are saying it is good time to set timetables to get out of Iraq. Even though McCain said in 2005 that we need to withdraw from Iraq when they ask us to leave, McCain is now flip flopping and saying we need to stay in Iraq indefinitely.
Fifth, Bush and McCain called Obama an appeaser for wanting to have direct talks with Iran and as the New York Times reports today the Bush administration is sending envoys to have direct talks with Iran.
Sixth, Maliki agrees with Obama's time table to leave Iraq.
McCain can claim all he wants that he was right on the McSurge. The "surge" is continuing and has not brought about the strategic political progress Americans were promised.
Before "surge" 132,000 troops in Iraq.
At peak of "surge" 160,000 troops in Iraq.
After "surge" 150,000 troops in Iraq.
The fact is that the "surge" was a misnomer for an escalation raising the total number of troops in Iraq indefinitely.
I dare say that in 5 years time we will discover that Maliki is a billionaire, and there is very little of democracy in Iraq. Will any more have been done than change the tribe on top?
It looks like McCain's & Obama's foreign policies are converging. Meanwhile the American economy is not just bad but very close to terminal.
It is the economy stupid. That is the only issue that will count in November.
"The middle name that shall not be spoken"
I don't have a problem with Barack Hussein Obama's middle name.
And I'm sure John Sidney McCain III
doesn't either.
The minute McCain supporters use their candidate's full name, I'll have no problems with their use of my candidate's middle name.
such sweet thunder said:
"That's close enough to equaling a terrorist to flip some dumb-ass in Ohio."
So, you think Ohio is full of dumbasses now that it's becoming a nice shade of blue? This state gave you eight Presidents, including our moron-in-chief, and has racked up a reputation as "the decider" in elections.
No way the Republican policy of hating America by dismantling it for the sake of satisfying their own greed and abusing our military for personal glory is going to stick with Ohioans this year.
Not to post an overly trollish comment, but I think people who read here might enjoy the humor...
Whoever comes to the conclusion that Barack Hussein Obama, the black guy who was raised by a single mother, is an elitist, but John Sidney McCain III (thank you for finding that for me... it led me to wikipedia myself and I learned a lot), the white dude who is the child of Naval royalty (John McCain I and John McCain II were both 4 star Admirals in the Navy... outranked by 5 people in the history of the Navy... George Dewey and 4 5-star Admirals from WWII) is not. I'm sorry, but if people don't start thinking for themselves, we're screwed.
They are a heroic and proud family and in Naval terms, they are as elite as you can get. But the dude who lifted himself up by his own bootstraps, the son of nobody of consequence for his advancement in life, is elitist. Laughable, yet effective. Sad commentary on how things work.
A challenge to the right... find a pair of relatives who combined have higher rank than both being 4-star military leaders. There have been 11 people to outrank the senior McCain father/son (grandfather/father in relation to the candidate), so cross-checking all the names even possible of accomplishing such a thing won't even require much ambition. I'm eager to see if there is a more elite Naval circumstance than being born as John Sidney McCain III.
To Anon @2:14:
Have you ever been to southern Ohio? Ever been to West Virginia? They're more similar than they are different. Thankfully, a lot of people live in Ohio nowhere near the south of the state, but there is a complex demographic in Ohio and I think it would be pompous to say we can anticipate exactly how they're going to vote. I'm guessing Ohio was picked as a random state and drawing the conclusion that he meant "Ohio is full of dumbasses" is evidence that you are not aware of the point of the post you are critiquing.
A lot of people are voting against their views and I'm willing to bet that crowd corresponds strongly to the people who think Obama's a Muslim (still a stunning 1 in 10 people). such sweet thunder was making light of this fact and lamenting it with a sarcastic jab at a theoretical person who might do such a thing (and if you don't think there's one racist hick in Ohio who aligns politically with Obama, but is voting for McCain because he's white, you've simply not been to enough parts of Ohio... if you've only been places in Ohio where there's an airport, you might not understand what I mean).
I know I cross the line sometimes, but at least I'm actually attacking trolls. This is a shot from a democrat (assuming based on the content) at a democrat (guaranteeing based on the content) posting an obviously pro-democrat post and he's getting ripped. Ignorant discourse from either side is a problem, so please pay attention to what you're lashing out at. Blindly attacking positions that are counter to yours is something we're all fighting against people doing, remember? If you adopt that tactic, even if it's in the interest of getting a better man elected, you are doing the country no favors. Honest, intelligent discourse is the only remedy.
Obama is right on the mark with regards to withdrawal from Iraq as "carefully as the US were careless" going in.
Many americans would be pleased the surge has worked short term in tempering the violence, and hopefully, buys the time and space needed for the Iraqi govt to assert itself extensively in rebuilding the country and it's inter-sectarian relationships.
The long term success is probably tenuous, as sectarian violence could just be one car bomb away, so to speak.
Policy wise the effort should not be just "Iraq" or "Afghanistan" or "Pakistan" - it is Al-Queda and terrorism inspired by Al-Queda philosophy - if one can describe mass and indiscriminate murder such.
Narrowing the view to "winning" in Iraq is not helpful. It is much broader than that.
Once again it becomes evident that the average IQ of McCain supporters is about the same as that of a turnip.
As annoying and repetitive these troll posts are, you can also derive some information from them. By the sheer number of troll posts in this thread you get a proof that this "quasi-endorsement" is viewed as a game changer. You also get a nice overview of the strategies that those paid trolls are recommended to follow, the special talking points and general right-wing (sorry for that beaten-to-death term, but what´s a better name?) propaganda.
The posts now saying that Iraq doesn´t matter and it´s all about the gas prices tell us that McCain´s candidacy now depends on the drilling-issue and smearing Obama, really, that´s all there is.
It is sad to see that these trolls swarmed out all across the internet and destroyed every interesting conversation. It is sad to see what they made out of Politico and the Washington Post - those comments there are simply unreadable! There is at least a bit of comfort that those that engage in such conversations and those who read political blogs are already high-information voters, so the impact of all this is rather low I would guess.
An observation out of Iraq and Afghanistan: Obama seems to be getting the pictures while McCain is getting the TV interviews. He is winning the central talking point: Obama was wrong about the Surge as a strategy and blindly refused to even acknowledge that it worked until further denial became untenable.
It is clear that without the Surge Obama's timetable would make no tactical or strategic sense and it is the Surge that has made it possible for US troops to begin a careful withdrawal, responsive to conditions on the ground. Something Obama's fixed time table that dates back from the pre-Surge period has consitently ignored.
Obama will lose the PR war on this.
He has long since been boxed in.
Pete,
ROFLMAO
Pete Kent, your 8:17 post has one MAJOR error in it. The surge wasn't a strategy, it was a tactic (and frankly, paying the Iraqi militias not to kill our troops is a pretty feeble "victory" to be crowing about anyway). As it now stands, the US has no real strategy in Iraq, apart from staying there indefinitely. This notion about withdrawing responsive to conditions on the ground is a lie, Pete Kent. McCain is in favor of establishing permanent US bases on Iraqi soil, so in essence the US will never leave that country, apparently even if we're asked to leave. Since we allegedly invaded Iraq in order to root out WMD's, what would be the purpose of setting up military bases there?
I know there was never invented a Democrat that liked the American Military
It's evident that this writer doesn't know much about the military. One third of the membership of the American Legion is Democratic.
The number of your saying stuff like "by the number of posts we can tell the right is in a panic," How inane. As if a few dozen posts by inconsequential bloggers who propbaly have no ties to anyone anywhere are a reflection of "the right" you give "the right" more credit than it deserves. These as all posts on here are, are opinion pieces. I come on here just to BS a little bit. The liberal bloggers on this site appear so full of self-importance that the tenor of blog on 538.com must be a reflection of the entire political world.
So Obama has good news today. Its politics. Its not going to change much in the race. The whitehouse is already beginning some withdrawals.
Although I believe we will completely pull out, I think it will be the stupidest foreign Policy move we have ever made. Iraq sits right in the Middle of Mesopotamia, a perfect place to have a permanent Military prescence much like Germany, Puerto Rico, South Korea. Its strategically so important, that we need permanent bases there. At least 100 years needed. Not occupation, but cooperation.
Obama's cut and run and let the region destabilize again does not make sense at all. Obviously we do not need 130,000 troops, but having a prescence in an Islamic state and making that state a permanent Ally is the only thing that makes sense. We should do the same in Afghanistan after the Surge takes place there and it is under control. (Although Afghanistan is a different beast with its much more unwieldy terrain.)
I know I am in the minority on this, but we need better strategery.
Higgly, under no circumstances should the US have permanent military bases in Iraq. Given that the impetus behind our unilateral invasion was the alleged WMD's, turning around and leaving all of our troops there as the de facto rulers of Iraq would be a jaw dropping bait and switch. When I mean de facto, I mean de facto, given that the Iraqi "government" would simply be viewed as a US puppet. Kind of like when we propped up the Shah of Iran back in the 50's. How did that work out in the long run?
Higgly said:
So Obama has good news today. Its politics. Its not going to change much in the race. The whitehouse is already beginning some withdrawals.
It does change the race. That's why lots of GOP strategists jaws hit the floor on SAT. And as a NB: Most of the brigades coming home had to because they reached the end of their tours. There just wasn't anyone to replace them because of how tapped out the Army and Marine Corps are. This makes sense when you remember that the "surge" was nothing but a rejiggering of deployment schedules. Giving the administration credit for bringing those brigades home is like giving a chess player credit for moving out of check.
Although I believe we will completely pull out, I think it will be the stupidest foreign Policy move we have ever made. Iraq sits right in the Middle of Mesopotamia, a perfect place to have a permanent Military prescence much like Germany, Puerto Rico, South Korea. Its strategically so important, that we need permanent bases there. At least 100 years needed. Not occupation, but cooperation.
There's one small problem. None of the three countries you mention are like Iraq. Bases in Germany and Puerto Rico were spoils of war. No government existed in those regions after we conqured them. A state of war still exists between the two Koreas, which is why for all the other issues we sometimes have with South Korea, they never seriously ask us to leave. The Iraqis are making quite clear that they want nothing to do with a continuing large-scale US presence.
Furthermore, you're distorting BHO's position. He's adovcating a phased withdrawl that is sensitive to security concerns from both the US and Iraqi perspective. Seeing as the locals want us gone yesterday, there's really no other option. At the end of the day, it's up to the Iraqis to run Iraq - not CENTCOM, DOD, or the GOP.
Obama talks vaguely about maintaining a residual military force to keep the peace and Al-Qaeda at bay. Some here suggest that only McCain wishes to have a permanent military presence in Iraq.
Obama's obfuscation will become clear once he is forced to put some meat on those bones. Some say the number he would leave behind is as large as 50,000. In the near terms that sounds about right to me, if we are going to consolidate our gains and stabilize the country.
Where will they be housed at Motel 6? He too will need permanent bases in Iraq.
At least McCain is honest about his plans, while Obama is forced to lie to keep peace with his Grand Vizier, George Soros, the shadowy billionaire who reminds of no one else than "Dr. Evil."
More bad news for Obama in latest Rasmussen tracker. He is at his lowest levels of support in a long time and edges McCain by just one point.
In the unleaned vote 17% remain undecided. How will the inexperienced "community organizer" (can anyone explain to me what that is?) from Chicago close the gap?
His policies are proving to have been failures: he opposed the Surge that has created the conditions for victory in Iraq and withdrawal with dignity and security, and he stubbornly refuses to support proven drilling and nuclear technology to help us get out of the grip of foreign oil.
He will look articulate and cool in the debates with McCain, but McCain has wisely been practicing for months in unrehearsed give and take and is ready to throw just the right lobs at Obama that will capture the headlines and doom Obama’s candidacy (“there you go again!”).
Even if McCain underwhelms he will have met expectations.
Where is the breakthrough coming?
A joint appearance with Al-Maliki and representatives of Hamas and perhaps the PLO in front of a crowd or roaring Frenchmen giving their endorsement?
Ya never know!
The big news today will be how Iraq actually spins. It may take until he get in front of the Big Three anchors in Europe and they pepper him with questions about the degree to which he learned anything from General Petreus and our other commanders there.
I cannot wait to see him pick carefully through his words, walking the tightrope.
Meanwhile McCain back home has a simple narrative: I pressed for the Surge even though it almost cost me the nomination, I put country first and we prevailed. Now the Surge has worked despite the strenuous objections of Sen. Obama and the Democrats and they now only begrudgingly are willing to face facts. Without the Surge Senator Obama would not even be in a position to talk about troop withdrawal.
Consistency versus sophistry.
The Eva Peron Miracle Tour will look tired and Obama will come to both jet and poll lag.
The PUMAs may be sharpening their claws.
It may be the only chance the Democrats have to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
It is fun watching your posts get more shrill and dishonest "Pete Kent." McCain changes his stance as needed and has simply resorted to following Obama's lead for focusing on Afghanistan.
McCain is ans has always been very inconsistent. The "Straight Talk Express" is really the "Flip Flop Flyer"
How much does the McCain campaign pay you to spam boards with your lies? Just asking!
Jim S. said:
"I'm guessing Ohio was picked as a random state and drawing the conclusion that he meant "Ohio is full of dumbasses" is evidence that you are not aware of the point of the post you are critiquing."
Keep on guessing, because I've lived in Ohio for 54 years and was involved in the Ohio political arena for 30+ years. This state is a microcosm of the nation as a whole. Yes we have dumbasses, but they are distributed around the state and not, as a whole, any larger a percentage than any other state or the nation as a whole.
I am also well aware of Ohio's demographics and voting patterns, including the people of southern and southeastern Ohio whom I've interacted a great deal with over the years. I am well aware of the degrading point the poster was making, including an inferred slam on Appalachians. An inference you obviously agreed with by your response.
The nation will not benefit as a whole by keeping stereotypes alive. The real dumbasses have been the members of the Republican political machine that strangled this state while manufacturing employment in all parts of Ohio moved south or overseas.
Pete,
That's the spirit. Never say die!
Sorry if this has already been posted. Can't help feeling that if Obama had said it we'd be hearing about it 24/7:
"I think it's serious. . . . It's a serious situation, but there's a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border," said McCain, R-Ariz., said on "Good Morning America."
" Although I believe we will completely pull out, I think it will be the stupidest foreign Policy move we have ever made. Iraq sits right in the Middle of Mesopotamia, a perfect place to have a permanent Military prescence much like Germany, Puerto Rico, South Korea. Its strategically so important, that we need permanent bases there. At least 100 years needed. Not occupation, but cooperation.
Obama's cut and run and let the region destabilize again does not make sense at all. Obviously we do not need 130,000 troops, but having a [sic] prescence in an Islamic state and making that state a permanent Ally is the only thing that makes sense. We should do the same in Afghanistan after the Surge takes place there and it is under control. (Although Afghanistan is a different beast with its much more unwieldy terrain.)
I know I am in the minority on this, but we need better strategery."
Spoken like a good little Imperialist! We need their oil so lets occupy their country! After all, we NEED it. It's right in the heart of the Middle East. We need bases there. It's "strategerific."
And, what if the Iraqis don't like it? Hmmmn? What if 80% of the Iraqi people want us gone TODAY (as opinion polls indicate)? Who cares, right?
"Cooperation" not "occupation"! What a lovely concept! They'll just lie down then and let U.S. oil companies take over their oil?
Oh, but what if they want to fight us "for 100 years?" How much blood and how much money are we willing to throw at this? Until we go bankrupt and the Chinese finally stop buying U.S. Treasury bonds and hold out their hand and say "You owe money. You pay now!"
Good thinking! Well worthy of Bush!
It's rare that you see explicit war-mongering, Imperialism and approval of a genocidal war all rolled up in one vicious little package like this.
Sentiments that either Hitler or Stalin could easily have appreciated! "How many divisions does the Pope have?"
Generic Synthroid.Buy Synthroid without prescription
Order Cipro online.Buying Cipro.Purchase Cipro
Buy Glipizide.Order Glipizide.Cheap Glipizide.
Buy Inderal.Order Inderal.Purchase inderal.Cheap Inderal
Buy Cheap Imitrex.Discount Imitrex
Buy Flonase online.Purchase Flonase
BUY OXYCONTIN ONLINE.ORDER OXYCONTIN
Discount Diovan.Cheap Diovan.Order Diovan
Discount Bontril.Order Bontril.Bontril 100mg
Cheap Elavil.Generic Elavil.Order Elavil
Order Flomax.Cheap Flomax.Generic Flomax
"Endorsement" of Obama's withdrawal plan, huh? I don't think so.
Maliki's statements were for a domestic audience that (of course) doesn't want to rely on the U.S. for protection forever.
That's internal security by around 2012 and external security by around 2020.
That's all.
John Peterson:
How much of the readership of Der Spiegel do you think is Iraqi? Domestic audience my ass!
God, that is stupid. The more I think about the Obama "spin" on this, the more it bothers me. First of all, an Iraqi spokesman later said Maliki's comments were "misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."
Plus, the only reason anyone is in a position to talk about removing troops now is because of the surge that McCain advocated and Obama was against. Obama claiming that Maliki and the Iraqis are on his side now is a political contortion of monumental proportions. Obama would have been happy to leave Maliki and the Iraqi people for dead. What an ass.
A little bit of background on the Spiegel-Interview:
1. Maliki will officially visit Germany this week. He was initially expected to arrive in Berlin tonight, to meet the Chancellor tomorrow; however, now reports say he will do the visit "in the middle of the week" (whatever this means, and whatever is the reaon for the delay). In any case, it is quite common for foreign heads of state to give an interview to the Spiegel prior to visiting Germany. In fact, a good part of the interview was on Maliki's expectations towards German support.
2. According to the Spiegel, the interview was already held last Tuesday, i.e. before Bush and Maliki last Thursday agreed to rather speak publicly about "time horizons" than about specific schedules for withdrawal. As the Spiegel puts it: "It is questionable whether Maliki, after the aggreement with Bush, would have used the same words on Obama's vision of bringing home American troops within 16 months. However, this is what he had said towards the Spiegel".
3. In my opinion, it would have been good journalistic style for the Spiegel to immediately publish alongside with the interview the fact that it had been already taken last Tuesday. As to why they did not do so, I can only speculate. One plausible explanation is that they used it as an opportunity to promote Spiegel Online abroad (they have for several months been running advertisements for the english version of Spiegel Online on CNN Europe / Middle East). It may as well be that the German Foreign Office has not been too amused by being by-passed in the discussion on Obama's Berlin visit, which apparently went directly between the White House and the Chancellor's office, and decided that it was time for a bit of pay-back.
4. In any case, the interview is authentic and indicates that Obama's plans are more in line with the Iraqian government's thinking than are McCain's plans.
Back to the future . . .
Nate started this discussion with the following question:
"Is the quasi-endorsement of Barack Obama's withdraw timetable by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki a transformative event in the campaign?"
The crux of Maliki's statement is found in three words in the following sentence in the context of the time and withdrawal issue:
Maliki: "Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic."
Being more realistic?
A quick and simple way for the Obama camp to transform this into a positive is to maintain the high ground on this issue by accentuating who is being "realistic" about the the future steps to be taken and who is not being "realistic."
The majority of sensible people do not wish to dwell in the past.
Keep the discussion on Maliki noting who he sees as being realistic. It is quite apparent that Maliki does not see the Bush administration's previous plan as having been realistic. And in turn, by McCain dwelling on the past position of "the surge has worked" and "we must stay till victory is achieved" becomes a moot point to the issue of a "realistic" time frame. The majority of people wish to go forward and want to hear what is going to work in the future, not what has worked or not worked in the past.
If the McCain camp wishes to continue to argue the position of the surge has worked, all that the Obama camp needs do is to keep accentuating the way forward and quote the words of Maliki, "Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic."
~JQP~
@ Silly as it Seems . . .
John Peterson said...
"God, that is stupid. The more I think about the Obama "spin" on this, the more it bothers me. First of all, an Iraqi spokesman later said Maliki's comments were 'misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.'"
And of course we all know that when a government figure says something and then has a correctionor modification issued soon afterward, that correction or modification is always 100% true.
Come off it John, that one doesn't pass the giggle test.
God, that is stupid.
Yes, if by "that", John Peterson means himself.
The more I think about the Obama "spin" on this, the more it bothers me. First of all, an Iraqi spokesman later said Maliki's comments were "misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."
Anyone who isn't a blithering idiot knows that they said that only because the Bush administration pressured them to say that -- it was simply a lie, and Maliki has reiterated his position since then.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment