Three days and three translations later, the shock waves from the alleged Nuri al-Maliki “endorsement” of Sen. Barack Obama’s timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq have been tempered by a statement from the Prime Minister’s office making clear that the German magazine Der Spiegel got it all wrong. In their rapture at the thought that their golden boy had conquered Sen. John McCain on the one issue on which he holds a distinct advantage over Sen. Obama, national security; many media outlets, bloggers, commentators, and pundits of the left declared the remarks to be the death of the Republican presidential campaign. The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder said:
“This could be one of those unexpected events that forever changes the way the world perceives an issue. Iraq’s Prime Minister agrees with Obama, and there’s no wiggle room or fudge factor. This puts John McCain in an extremely precarious spot: what’s left to argue? to [sic] argue against Maliki would be to predicate that Iraqi sovereignty at this point means nothing. Obviously, our national interests aren’t equivalent to Iraq’s, but… Malik [sic] isn’t listening to the generals on the ground…but the “hasn’t been to Iraq” line doesn’t work here. [awk]
Mr. Ambinder must have been in a bit of a hurry to get that post up, so we’ll forgive the capitalization, spelling, and grammatical errors. As it turns out, however, he could have taken his time. We now know that Maliki did not endorse Obama’s withdrawal timeline. The headline writer at Der Spiegel did. What Maliki did was call for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq as early as possible. That’s no surprise announcement from an elected head of state with political considerations, and it is certainly no surprise from Maliki, who has been calling for an end to the occupation almost since he was sworn in.
Maybe that’s why Ambinder left open the possibility that Maliki would revise his remarks. “Will Maliki retract his words?” he asked. Well, Maliki did. But so far, Ambinder has not.
First, here’s the latest version of what Maliki actually said via the New York Times. [without the grains of salt]
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.”
There are an awful lot of qualifiers in there, but Ambinder has the analysis all wrong. He says that the Maliki quote is a big deal and that it puts McCain in a “precarious spot.” That’s very shallow thinking. Even if Maliki’s remarks were an explicit endorsement of Obama’s position on withdrawals, it would still be a victory for McCain.
Obama opposed the surge. He said that he was “not persuaded” that an additional 20,000 U.S. troops would have any impact on the level of violence. He campaigned on his opposition to the surge in the primaries. And he said that the surge was not succeeding. Indeed, Obama’s entire campaign is based on his supposed superior judgment, which is based his opposition to the Iraq war from the beginning; although he was not in a position to have to take a meaningful vote on the war at the time. For Obama to now claim vindication for his arbitrary timetable based on the remarks of a man would would not be able to make such demands were it not for the success of the very strategy that Obama opposed, is a bit much. Obama did not all of a sudden become the man with the plan in Iraq because the elected leader there sought to curry favor with his constituents and a potential future American president by paying a lip service compliment to the latter’s public position.
It was McCain who advocated for the surge long before it was announced, angering many on the right with his routine and unnecessary attacks on former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who McCain sees as responsible for all things that have gone wrong in Iraq. It is McCain who has campaigned on his belief that withdrawals must be conditions-based, not arbitrarily ordered based on politics. And it has been McCain who has often remarked that he would rather lose the election than lose the war. McCain stands to benefit from any positive news from Iraq. Maliki’s call for a timetable for withdrawal, had it happened, would have been the end result of the strategy McCain authored, championed, and stood by. Ambinder’s read of Maliki’s remarks was a bit wishful.
Besides, it didn’t happen. Maliki’s spokesman says that the prime minister’s remarks were, “misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.” We don’t know whether the spokesman read Mr. Ambinder’s take before offering his comments, but he may as well have.
Which brings us back to Ambinder’s, as yet, still uncorrected error. One hopes that Maliki’s spokesman’s characterization of the prime minister’s comments will make its way into the Atlantic’s pixels. When it does, it will almost certainly contain no errors, as Mr. Ambinder seems likely to take his time with this news item.
You Missed the Point
ispeedtoo Monday, July 21st at 1:56AM EDT (link)Please consider this point after five years of fighting they, that is the Iraq government is going on the offensive on two fronts.
1) Kick out the trouble makers
2) Kick out the Americans.
We gave them a Democratic government and now they are going to turn the tables on the USA and use this government to first ask us to leave and then if we do not they will scream to the UN and World Court that we are violating their sovereignty and demand Reparations and CASH more CASH then the USA treasury holds.
Remember the Iranian Thing in the Seventies well get ready for the Iraq thing if we do act fast!
It is time to get out and get out NOW!
Ambinder has already addressed the retraction,
CrabCakes Monday, July 21st at 7:18AM EDT (link)albeit briefly and dismissively. His post is short, so I might as well quote it in full:
Think deeper
Mark Impomeni Monday, July 21st at 8:02AM EDT (link)So, by your logic, if the the U.S. ever leaves Germany, than the Nazis have won and World War II was a waste of time?
The U.S. is not going to be in Iraq as an occupying force forever. I would argue that it is not one now. That was never the plan. The plan was always to stand up a democracy that would be one day be strong enough not to need the U.S. Now that’s happening, as intended.
———————–
Damn the Obama! Full speed ahead!
Half-hearted admission
Mark Impomeni Monday, July 21st at 8:04AM EDT (link)That’s hardly an admission that he was wrong, which he was.
———————–
Damn the Obama! Full speed ahead!
Up is down and down is up
jdmbamd2 Monday, July 21st at 8:34AM EDT (link)I wonder about Obama’s grasp of reality. More troops in Iraq will not help the situation (wrong!) Drilling for more oil will not help the situation (wrong!).
Why does Obama continue to make these forecasts of the future which contradict common sense??
I think that's a matter of perspective.
CrabCakes Monday, July 21st at 8:58AM EDT (link)As of now, it’s a he-said/sie-said* between Maliki and Der Spiegel. He buys Der Spiegel’s version; you buy Maliki’s. Until an Arabic transcript or recording of the interview is released (either by Maliki or Der Spiegel), all we have is Der Spiegel’s translation and the corroborating translation of the NYTimes.
To judge from this morning’s AP story, the Iraqi government doesn’t seem to have received the memo that timelines are bad, though.
*I’m really, really proud of this pun.
there's also an AP report
pilgrim Monday, July 21st at 9:11AM EDT (link)The Associated Press has this article There is a Baghdad Barack Obama probably won’t see
Believe and spin what you will, but neither you, Obama, nor I for that matter can know for certain what is happening with the hearts and minds of folks currently in Iraq.
It is a great advantage to a president, and a major source of safety to the country, for him to know that he is not a great man.Calvin Coolidge
No, CrabCakes.
Mark Kilmer Monday, July 21st at 9:22AM EDT (link)There is no way in which anyone who read the interview could come away with the conclusion that Maliki had supported anything Obama had said. He backed a conditions-on-the-ground withdrawal and suggested that the 16-months might be a good starting point for a discussion.
Further, he implicitly credited the Surge for his country reaching the point where 16-months could be considered reasonable. Obama vehemently opposed the Surge.
This was a case of a lazy media leaping at the mere dropping of Obama’s name, even when Obama’s point was rejected in Obama’s context.
Thanks for that link, pilgrim.
CrabCakes Monday, July 21st at 9:25AM EDT (link)It’s easy to forget that, like in America, opinion and government opinion are not necessarily the same thing.
How widespread Maliki’s “as quick as possible” opinion is in comparison to the “slow is better” opinion expressed in this article is impossible for any of us to determine. I imagine that the provincial elections in October will give us some insight into the broader public opinion in Iraq.
Just admit that you were wrong, Cakes
Jack_Savage Monday, July 21st at 9:35AM EDT (link)And “move on”.
For the record, this is pretty funny:
“He buys Der Spiegel’s version; you buy Maliki’s. Until an Arabic transcript or recording of the interview is released(either by Maliki or Der Spiegel), all we have is Der Spiegel’s translation and the corroborating translation of the NYTimes.”
Let’s see - Maliki’s actual statements, particularly those after this “story” came out, or an enhanced version of an Arabic translation by two entities whose records of fairness are pretty clear…let me think…
If evidence comes to light that proves one side or the other right,
CrabCakes Monday, July 21st at 9:52AM EDT (link)I’ll be happy to admit that Der Spiegel, the NYTimes, Ambinder, and my own initial hunch are all wrong. All it would take is a release of the original interview (Arabic and all) to settle the question.
As of now, we have two (or three) translations that all seem to say the same thing: Shorter occupation is better, timelines are not bad, and Obama’s 16 months sound about right. We also have a press release saying that that wasn’t what Maliki said/meant.
I see two options:
1) Der Spiegel is right. Maliki did say essentially what they said he said, but then he backpedaled and denied it.
2) Der Spiegel mistranslated Maliki, put words in his mouth, and the Times backed them up on it.
Someone is lying (or at least fudging quite a bit) on what happened. I’m saying that I don’t have enough evidence to definitively say either way which of the two it was, but my hunch is that Maliki backpedaled after his remarks made a bigger splash in the U.S. than he expected. To assume otherwise is to assume that Der Spiegel and the Times colluded to intentionally misrepresent Maliki’s original remarks.
Here is where that benign analysis breaks down
Jack_Savage Monday, July 21st at 10:28AM EDT (link)This:
“As of now, we have two (or three) translations that all seem to say the same thing: Shorter occupation is better, timelines are not bad, and Obama’s 16 months sound about right.”
is being reported as this:
“Al Maliki endorses Barack Obama for President, would feel very comfortable with his leadership, agrees wholeheartedly and entirely with the plan Obama has put forth on his website, is eagerly looking forward to the implementation of that plan, and wants to see the devil Bush and the Americans leave as soon as possible.”
And soon, this false narrative will be a KnownFact, and we all know how, and we all know why. That’s the point.
I still don't understand
Pentagon16 Monday, July 21st at 10:41AM EDT (link)When Maliki claimed we needed more US troops and that he would lead a victory against Al Qaeda along with President Bush I don’t remember Ambinder shouting “See MALIKI is agreeing with Bush- they must be right!!”
I don’t remember leftists quoting Maliki when he states that Iraq is a free country, that Joe Biden is a MORON who came up with the chopping Iraq into three parts, and that Iraq has now beaten Al Qaeda senseless and defeated them on the battlefield. I don’t see the leftists shouting how Maliki won in Basra, won in Mosul, won in Maysan, won in Sadr City and proved Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama wrong.
It was Maliki who stated that Iraq would win the war- it was Obama who stated Iraq was a lost cause…
perhaps someone from the McCain campaign might be bothered to point these inconvenient truths out to the American people?!
“Small town folks get bitter after which they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment”- Barack Carter Obama
If that's your beef, then fair enough.
CrabCakes Monday, July 21st at 10:41AM EDT (link)Actually, the shocking thing to me was that Maliki seemed to be disagreeing with Bush and McCain about timelines and speaking positively about Obama’s Iraq policy at all.
I have been assuming that Maliki would rather have a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq, although obviously some factions in Iraq disagree. If I had to assume that he was in anyone’s camp before this last weekend, I would have bet McCain’s.
If I gave the impression that I thought Maliki was a hardcore Obama supporter, I’m sorry. I certainly don’t think that. What I do think is that Maliki’s talking about timelines hurts McCain’s narrative that we need to stay longer to ensure peace and Obama’s timelines are dangerous. After all, if the president of Iraq can talk about timelines, why can’t the President of the United States?
Before this weekend, the debate was between what McCain said (and the Iraqi’s wanted) and what Obama said (despite what the Iraqi’s want). By speaking positively at all about Obama’s 16 months and timelines, Maliki undercuts a bit of McCain’s strong suit, making it less clear that McCain’s plan is what the Iraqi’s want.
That this morning, after seeing the brouhaha at the mention of timelines this weekend, the Iraqi government said “out by 2010 is a good idea,” shows that Maliki isn’t going out of his way to do McCain any favors, even if he isn’t rooting for Obama.
Since you love Maliki so much
Pentagon16 Monday, July 21st at 10:49AM EDT (link)I am sure you were claiming two years ago that Maliki was a democratically elected leader of a free and Federal Iraq who must be supported.
I am sure you were supporting the troop surge to stabilize Iraq. That you were demanding your fellow leftists to vote for complete funding of the war effort to support Maliki.
When Maliki gave interview after interview claiming he was winning, that the Iraqi government would be desroying Al Qaeda- you were supporting Maliki and doing your best to convince the left that Maliki needed to be given the money and the support of US Forces.
When Maliki states every week that the SURGE worked, that Iraq is stable, that they have defeated Al Qaeda, we know that you support all these claims, that you have always wanted a free and stable Iraq and that you supported American troops who brought that about.
Because since you are claiming Maliki needs to be listened to now, it would make you the worst kind of hypocritical shill if all along you have been lambasting Maliki in the last few years.
Surely that is not you?
“Small town folks get bitter after which they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment”- Barack Carter Obama
I never said I loved Maliki, and just because he says something doesn't mean it's right.
CrabCakes Monday, July 21st at 11:10AM EDT (link)But for the record, my positions, current and past:
1) I opposed the Iraq War from the start. I didn’t buy that Saddam had WMD (although Powell did almost convince me), I didn’t view Saddam as an imminent threat, and I believed that Iraq had too tense of a history to transcend their ethnic/religious factions. I assumed the Shiites would basically take payback on the Sunnis for the atrocities under Saddam’s watch. I was right about the first two. I was almost right about the third; it looks like they have a real possibility of ultimately proving me wrong on, though–and that’s a good thing.
2) Maliki was and is the democratically elected leader of the sovereign nation of Iraq. I don’t think “he must be supported” (i.e. our troops answer to President Bush, not President Maliki), but if the democratically elected sovereign government of Iraq asked us to leave (which they haven’t), we should.
3) I opposed the surge and expected it to fail. As of now, it has blown away my expectations. Although violence is still higher than I think gets reported in the media (car bombings still happen every day), there’s no denying that it has drastically reduced. For it to be a complete success, when the surge ends the violence should stay down, and Iraq should remain democratic. If Sadr takes over via a coup, for example, the surge would have merely been an expensive way to force the insurgents to wait us out. Unlike six months ago, I don’t think that that scenario is the most likely one now.
4) I have never supported cutting off funding. If Congress wants to limit the President’s power, they should repeal the AUMF. If they are unwilling to do that, then they should give the President the funds to do what they authorized him to do.
So there are my positions, past and present. I doubt you’ll get that kind of honesty from many. And for the record, I’m not saying that anyone should or shouldn’t listen to Maliki about whose strategy for Iraq is better (or anything else for that matter). I was only concerned with the political implications of Maliki talking about timelines and 16 months.
Let me ask you this
Jack_Savage Monday, July 21st at 11:11AM EDT (link)If that narrative isn’t the goal of the Obama camp / MSM, why did you post your diary, and defend the narrative in every comment?
Seems like you guys are coming in after this thing is pretty much over, and trying to make us believe you were right all along. Obama may get away with it, but the hell to pay will be after he is elected, much to the regret of all.
I wasn't trying to defend a narrative.
CrabCakes Monday, July 21st at 11:19AM EDT (link)I was trying to defend Der Spiegel’s claim that Maliki did say essentially what they said he said. I said, before his retraction, that such a statement was bad for McCain and might necessitate some “bus-throwing-under.” After the retraction, I said that no “bus-throwing-under” would be necessary. I did argue, however, that it was a real retraction and not simply a “mistranslation.”
That doesn’t change the fact that Maliki, for the first time, broke with Bush and McCain, and seemed to side with Obama. Given Maliki’s loyalty in the past to Bush, it was surprising. If he makes a habit of it, it may make McCain’s life difficult.
My diary Saturday was concerned solely with the best way for McCain to handle the apparent support that Maliki was expressing for something like Obama’s plan rather than for something like McCain’s plan. My argument now is simply that Maliki really did say what Der Spiegel said he said. He retracted it, though, so political damage should be minimal.
interesting
Pentagon16 Monday, July 21st at 11:47AM EDT (link)Wonder why leftists don’t quote Ali Al-Dabagh, Petraeus or Crocker, or any of the rest of the elected Iraqi Parliament. Do some on the left not understand that Maliki is a Prime Minister who leads a Parliament?
It’s good to see an Iraqi government spokesman explain that Prime Minister Maliki’s comments to Der Spiegel, in which he seemed to endorse Barack Obama’s 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, “were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.” According to CNN:
“Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.”
That is, in fact, the position that Senator McCain (whose campaign I advise) has been pushing all along. He has been arguing for a “conditions based” withdrawal as opposed to the fixed timetable demanded by Obama. If Iraqis are ready to assume all responsibility for security by 2010, then it would be perfectly fine to withdraw most U.S. troops, and no doubt President McCain would do so. But it’s dangerous to commit to such a rigid timetable when it’s impossible to envision what the situation will look like at that time. Officers in the Iraqi Security Forces, who have a closer day to day view of the situation than does the Prime Minister, are not sanguine that a turnover by 2010 will be possible.
A recent Washington Post story contains this quote :
We hope they will stay until 2020,” said Brig. Gen. Bilal al-Dayni, a commander in the southern city of Basra, where about 30,000 Iraqi soldiers patrol the streets after a major offensive in March against extremist militias.
That matches the views of Iraq’s defense minister, Abdul Qadir. Earlier this year the New York Times quoted him as follows :
The Iraqi defense minister said Monday that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able on its own to defend Iraq’s borders from external threat until at least 2018.
And that also matches the view of General David Petraeus. He was just asked by Andrea Mitchell of NBC News: “Is 16 months a reasonable time to get U.S. troops out and turn it over to Iraqis?”
Petraeus replied:
It depends on the conditions, depends on the missions set, depends on the enemy. The enemy does get a vote and is sometimes an independent variable. Lots of different factors I think that would be tied up in that. The dialogue on that and the amount of risk, because it eventually comes down to how much risk various options entail. That’s the kind of discussion I think that is very important as we look to the future.
General Petraeus would never inject himself into domestic politics, so you have to pay careful attention to his pronouncements to glean his views. Sometimes what he doesn’t say is as important as what he says. Note that he most assuredly did not say that, given recent security improvements, we could withdraw all U.S. combat forces within 16 months with minimal risk.
Obviously if Iraq’s government decides it’s time for U.S. troops to leave, leave they will. But despite Maliki’s ambiguous comments, Iraq’s government has made no such decision. All they’re demanding is a nebulous “time horizon” for an eventual departure. To judge when such a withdrawal would be prudent, it is better to rely on professional military opinion–Iraqi and American–for a true assessment of the security situation rather than listen to the rhetoric of politicians who are forced to navigate the political currents. Especially when their words may lose something in translation.
“Small town folks get bitter after which they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment”- Barack Carter Obama
So your point is
Rod_Patrick Monday, July 21st at 1:00PM EDT (link)any of the following:
The main point of Malixi. The Interest of the New Iraq Alone. Who cares about hte interest of America any way?
The main political strategy of Obama. Stealing Other People’s Idea.;
The Main Point of Obama. Lack of Foresight by throwing away the opportunity to permanently position America’s interest, which is to establish a cordon to control against any future rough nations in Middle East.
The Main Character of Obama and his people like you who are all guilty of intellectual dishonesty.
I think your point is actually “points”, which are all of the above.
Enjoy your caravan with Obama who is only thinking of this political ambition putting all the sacrifices made in Iraq under his bus. Your Maliki has shown his true color; he is just like your Barack Obamaselfish, who will lie again and again just TO GET POLITICAL VOTES: one who would steal credit for the sweath of other people, especially thos paid the Victory in Iraq by their own lives and dignity.
To keep you sane after this election, my friend, I hope that Maliki wins in October and your Obama will still remain as your Democratic candidate up to November. You know, Obama can still be replaced by Hillary, given the growing number of disgruntled Democrats. You know that the coronation of your Obama is still in August at Denver.
By the way, thanks to your Obama and all his spinning and pandering since June. It is now so easy to get many of the moderate Democrats and the MSM-labeled Reagan Democrats (consists almost half of the independents) to vote for McCain. One only has to stress 4 main “lines” (and not just a tiny point):
What’s the relation of the last item on this issue: The core principle of the Communists and Socialists in the 21st Century is the pacifism and appeasement. Study your party mates. Read their websites. I’ll give you the URLs of the two: (1) http://www.cpusa.org & (2) http://www.dsausa.org
You must visit these websites. They won’t harm you. They are your party members too. What? Are you ashamed of your comrades? Beware. You might be committing sacrilege. You now the fact that it wasthe Chicago DSA which really gave you your “icon” whose name is BO. That’s why Communists love your Barack so much. Because they created him. Your Obama’s foreign policy is 100% certified pure policy of the Socialists.
Now, all the above brings me the idea of UNITED SOCIALISTS STATES OF AMERICA (USSA) under the Obama Presidency.
With the FISA Bill position flipping by Barack and the Fairness Doctrine your Pelosi/Reid… expect your bright future:
Finally, while so high in Cocaine, you have a bonus from BO:
You will have a free copy of Bruce Sprinsteen CD, your hero of Cold War, with “Born in the USSA” revival (with proper revisions) as its carrying single.
What a beautiful World of Change under Barack!
PS:
Goodluck! Please don’t waste your time replying. It’s time for you to contemplate!
Oh, I see now
Jack_Savage Monday, July 21st at 2:03PM EDT (link)“My diary Saturday was concerned solely with the best way for McCain to handle the apparent support that Maliki was expressing for something like Obama’s plan rather than for something like McCain’s plan.”
You were just trying to be helpful. No problem, and I am sure the McCain campaign appreciates that, as do we.
I won’t waste any significant time discussing the curious substitution of the word “plan” for the word “timetable”, both here on RS and other places this story has been hashed out. I am sure the intentions of the MSM and Obama supporters are good. Still, it seems a little sloppy when something of this magnitude is concerned. You yourself have gone to great pains to discuss Obama’s “plan”, of which the timetable is but a small part.
I know my writing is boring, but if you'd read to the end of my diary,
CrabCakes Monday, July 21st at 2:14PM EDT (link)you’d have found.
And UPDATE 1 read:
And UPDATE 2:
I’m a politics guy. I have my opinions on policy, but I mostly keep them to myself unless asked about them. I certainly have no real desire to engage in policy debates. I like the sport of the thing. The exciting part of this whole story to me was McCain’s appropriate reaction to potentially harmful news. The entire “Maliki really didn’t say that” debate was a rabbit trail. What Maliki said (and might possibly say in the future) are important for the McCain campaign, however, so it was a rabbit trail I was willing to chase to establish the facts on the ground.
I understand what you are saying
Jack_Savage Monday, July 21st at 2:48PM EDT (link)But why THIS rabbit trail? Why substitute the word “plan” for “timetable”? If, for example, a story came out that said “Jesse Jackson Says McCain Leads Strongly Among Blacks” would you give it a second thought? Of course not, because no one would believe it except for those most detached from reality.
But along comes a story, and subsequent commentary, that strongly infers that Al Maliki endorses Barack Obama and Obama’s “plan” for Iraq, and the cheerleaders for Obama automatically get in line with the high leg kicks, led by the news anchors. The story and the narrative that follows is, on its face, extremely unlikely.
I like the sport of the thing, too. But I tire of my fighter taking on the other fighter, the ref, and the judges. That is not sport to me. That is a fix.
You follow the “sport”, I have to focus on the fix. It is not easy to see sometimes.
I don't really have a dog in the "plan" vs. "timetable" fight.
CrabCakes Monday, July 21st at 3:00PM EDT (link)That’s probably because I don’t see Obama’s “plan” as any more than his “timetable” to get us out. I’m not aware of anything more specific that he’s put forward (other than the obvious “continuing relationship” crap).
As I see it, Obama’s “plan” is to pull troops out in 16 months. McCain’s “plan” is to “let the facts on the ground” determine when troops come out. In short, timetable vs. no timetable. I’m sure I’m missing a nuance that is important to McCain supporters, because I’ve gotten whacked for misusing “plan” by several over the last couple of days.
By the way, you are dead right about McCain having to take on the refs, the sportcasters, etc. The Obamamania that’s leaked into the press is a bit disturbing; the Times’ refusal to run McCain’s piece is just the most egregious example of a pervasive tendency. Don’t get me wrong, I want him to win, but I also want a good, close fight.
You have made my point
Jack_Savage Monday, July 21st at 4:19PM EDT (link)“That’s probably because I don’t see Obama’s “plan” as any more than his “timetable” to get us out.”
EXACTLY.
And it is really not even a timetable - it is more like a “get out, the sooner the better, facts on the ground be damned.” Which really isn’t a plan at all, is it?
I believe you when you say you do not have a dog in the fight of “plan” vs “timetable”. I also believe Obama doesn’t have a plan, despite the pontification you posted from his website. He seems to be incapable of serious thinking on most any policy matter, and this one is just too durn hard to say anything other than “get out”.
Iraq War supporters get riled about this for one reason - we have been there before. Not the quagmire bit, but the leave a country without even taking our toothbrush bit. You seem like a smart fellow, so I would ask you to read John Kerry’s testimony to Congress back when he advocated an immediate end to the Vietnam War. Specifically, I would ask you to look at what he said would happen to those left behind when we pulled out, and compare that to what actually did happen.
Liberals have simply been on the wrong side of every significant foreign policy debate for the last half-century. There is no reason to believe they suddenly know what they are doing now.
Here’s to a good, fair fight.