Quote Of The Day: On Obama, Al-Maliki And McCain
The Quote of the Day from Marc Ambinder:
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 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… Maliki isn’t listening to the generals on the ground…but the “hasn’t been to Iraq” line doesn’t work here.
So how will the McCain campaign respond?
Read ALL of his post…which is extremely blunt (it contains a word we don’t use on TMV but one that some TMV readers have used in a suggestion, along with the suggestion about where I need to shove my computer..)
Ambinder is correct. But never underestimate the ability of Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals and (yes) even moderates and independents to come up with a way to spin themselves out of having to admit their position has been undermined. Just as sure as gas prices will not go down to $2 a gallon this weekend, there will be a rationalization and then a lock-step use of it by partisans on the radio and on the Internet. Or, Obama will stumble and that will be used to change the subject.
But imagery matters in U.S. politics, and this represents one more day when McCain can’t show McGain.
UPDATE: McCain’s campaign responds. And Ambinder gets a second response. (See my comments above.)
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “Quote Of The Day: On Obama, Al-Maliki And McCain”
It seems to me the bigger news was the announced agreement between the Iraqi gov't and the Bush admin on “general time horizons for aspirational goals”. One could perhaps argue away Maliki's comments as one politician's politically expedient ruminations, or whatever. But the agreement indicates that it's much broader than that.
I do love that euphemism though. As I said in an earlier thread, it reminds me of George Carlin: it’s not “shell shock” anymore, now it’s “post traumatic stress syndrome”. Likewise, its not “timeline” anymore, now it’s “general time horizon for aspirational goals”. Lol!
[...] The Moderate Voice (Joe Gandelman): “…imagery matters in U.S. politics, and this represents one more day when McCain can’t show McGain. …” [...]
They should respond by Withdrawing Brigades Tomorrow.
Seriously this gives Bush the perfect opening he needs to start drawing down forces and leaving Iraq under a We win formula. If he does not jump on this then he should fire all his advisors and hire me to watch his back.
This is really something. Only a couple of years ago, when Maliki was agreeing with Bush about the need to stay there, he was lampooned for being nothing more than a puppet. But now that he comes out and agrees with Obama about the need for us to get out of there soon, he's hailed as someone who we need to be paying attention to. Let's get this straight…does his word matter, or is he still a puppet?
jchem: Let's get this straight…does his word matter, or is he still a puppet?
It appears the supporters of the “puppet” POV (which is to say those who believe Maliki says what he says at any given time out of political expedience) have switched sides. That's why I consider the bigger story to be the announced agreement between the Iraqi gov't and the Bush admin. That plus the fact that the Bush admin was unable to push a long-term status of forces agreement past the Iraqi gov't. The two combined indicate that the political forces inside Iraq are getting more confident and starting to spread their wings.
Just saw this on 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.”
Echoing statements made by the White House, eh? This is truly a fascinating story. First Maliki says something that is picked up by many liberal blogs, in the context of “It's over”, or “Need we say more”, or “The article speaks for itself”. So what is the reaction to these new comments by Maliki. Is he still worth listening to or has he already taken himself off center stage?
The bigger story to me is that this is the perfect opportunity for Bush to start pulling troops out now and taking some credit for doing what he said, drawing down once conditions are met.
One of the important differences vis a vis comments made by Maliki echoing comments made by Obama and Bush is that one of these two Americans has ruined much of his credibility and the other hasn't. This probably explains why one instance makes a more compelling story than the other.
Jchem raises an interesting question: Is Maliki a puppet or a sovereign leader? I think we've seen a bit of both in these statements. Maliki the sovereign leader says, “It's time for US troops to go. Obama says leave in 16 months and I think that's great.” Maliki the puppet, after much arm-twisting from the White House, releases a statement THROUGH CENTCOM that vaguely claims to be mistranslated (but doesn't say how) and then makes some incomprehensible point about conditions and horizons.
This about long-term strategy. McCain wants us in Iraq permanently like Korea. The Iraqi people and the Iraqi government do not. Maliki just made it clear that it's time to start heading for the exits. That the surge made this possible is irrelevant. Obama wants out of Iraq and into Afghanistan. McCain wants in Iraq and wants some phantom troops to beef up Afghanistan too.
One of McCain's key points on the campaign trail, where he insisted that he got it right on Iraq and Obama got it wrong, was his “long term presence similar to Korea and Germany” plan. Now that this concept has been effectively blown out of the water by Maliki, I wonder how they will scrub that from the campaign message?