The Damage Is Already Done
Posted by Ashish on 07.21.2008
The White House getting a "clarification" out of Maliki doesn't really convince anybody...
Even the White House now admits that they leaned on Iraq Prime Minister Maliki's office to get them to release a "clarification" on his statement from the other day where he basically endorsed Obama's withdrawal plan. The damage has already been done. It's clear what Maliki thinks now and offering "clarifications" to try and appease Bush won't change that.
The question now is how McCain responds in the coming week. Does he continue to say there should be no talk of a timetable and no talk of withdrawal, which would put him at odds with Obama obviously, but also Bush and Maliki? Or does he change his policy, even if only slightly, and face potential charges of shifting to Obama's position (whether true or not, that is likely to be the media narrative if it happens)? McCain is currently playing defense on the situation by trying to hide behind "the success of the surge" but, again, perception really hands Obama a gimmie here with another way to validate the "let's get out of there" position.
The arguments that this topic will lead to at the debates should be interesting.
Posted By: Guest#0960 (Guest) on July 21, 2008 at 12:25 AM
No amount of damage control will fix this. Mika had a field day with the whole Time Horizon/ Al Maliki fiasco and so did I :)
Posted By: James (Guest) on July 21, 2008 at 06:52 AM
I love how you're spinning this, though I agree that the media will spin it the same way. Obama has spent the last few weeks edging closer to McCain's position that we ought to listen to the commanders on the ground rather than sticking to a rigid (and, by definition, artificial) timetable. Now, Iraq's PM says that we might have come to a time when a timetable might have become appropriate. Now if McCain stays true to his original position, namely that we would leave when the peace was won and/or when Iraqi leaders ask us to, he is the one accused of changing for political gain.
You're talking about this as if we were in a time vacuum. Maliki says that the timetable might be appropriate NOW, not when Obama first got behind it. Why is that? Because the surge, which McCain suggested back in 2003 and which Obama said would make the situation worse, has been a phenomenal success. Sectarian killings have stopped completely. Deaths overall are at their lowest level in years. And we've given Iraqi defense forces the time and training to be ready to take over when we leave.
McCain (nor Bush, for that matter) never said he was against leaving Iraq WHEN IT WAS SAFE AND APPROPRIATE TO DO SO. For McCain to say that he feels the time has come to start moving out BECAUSE WE WON THE WAR is the furthest thing in the world from a flip-flop. It's changing a policy position corresponding to a change in the facts. It's also exactly what the surge was meant to pave the way for.
If we'd followed Obama's advice and started getting troops out INSTEAD OF having the surge, Iraq would either be in utter chaos today or completely under the thumbs of the mullahs in Iran. Instead, we're going to leave behind, in a position where it can defend itself, the only functioning democracy in the Middle East. To call that success for Obama and not McCain is to turn the term completely on its head.
Posted By: Big Daddy Matty (Guest) on July 21, 2008 at 07:45 AM
And thank you Matty for making my point for me. The only reason we can even talk about a "time horizon" right now is because McCain was RIGHT and Obama was WRONG about the surge.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Registered) on July 21, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Slight correction: Iraq is the second functioning democracy in the Middle East. Israel, of course, was the first.
Posted By: Big Daddy Matty (Guest) on July 21, 2008 at 12:43 PM
It is quite shameful for Obama to now claim Iraq agreeing with his plan when he has been in majority party in Congress and took no action besides lip service. Its almost like he keeps our forces at risk so that he can use it as a campaign issue. Two years ago, the Democrats ran on ending the war. The Democrats talk end-war but appropriate pro-war.
Posted By: AdmChester Mynutz (Guest) on July 21, 2008 at 02:22 PM
Functional....right.
Posted By: Taylor (Guest) on July 21, 2008 at 03:57 PM
Oh you silly McCain supporters. It is so cute to see the things you believe.
Posted By: Captain Truth (Guest) on July 21, 2008 at 05:02 PM
Big Daddy Matty said:
"Slight correction: Iraq is the second functioning democracy in the Middle East. Israel, of course, was the first."
I suppose it depends how you define "functioning." Israel is more than a little restrictive with the vote.
Iran has something like a democracy as well. Again, the "functioning" is more than a little questionable.
Many other middle eastern nations have voting. Most represent their people more than you'd think. Probably not democracies in the sense we'd feel comfortable with, however.
Posted By: Pat Shepard (Guest) on July 21, 2008 at 07:59 PM
STAY CURRENT