home

Obama Should Say Maliki Endorsed His Withdrawal Plan . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:39:24 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Over and over and over again. We knew that the Bush Administration would twist Maliki's arm and try to get a walkback from him. Obama should refuse to accept it. Kevin Drum writes:

"Maliki Endorses Obama Withdrawal Plan is a headline everyone can understand." True enough, but only if that's the headline the U.S. media actually decides on. . . . This ought to be a pretty good foreign policy moment for Obama, but we won't know for sure until the media narrative takes shape. Stay tuned.

It is up to Obama to demand the narrative he thinks is correct. Drum's approach is entirely too passive for my tastes. Maliki said what he said. Obama should discuss it truthfully. He should not let the Media decide what "the truth" is.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

< Saturday Night Open Thead: Rock Photos | Politico Defends Obama's Centrism >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Should Say Maliki Endorsed His Withdrawal Plan . . . | 144 comments (144 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I don't know if I'm missing the point (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:01:33 AM EST
    but isn't what you call Obama's withdrawal plan just a version of many conservative Democrats's plans.  I don't see anything new or controversial in his stated withdrawal plans as they currently exist that was not already in place in Clinton's or other Democratic plans, so why is it now his plan and not the Democratic plan.

    Obama was actually. . . (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:10:34 AM EST
    out ahead of a lot of Democrats on calling for a specific timetable for withdrawal.  And he hasn't been afraid of using the idea of a timetable.  On this issue, he deserves credit (at least from people who believe an expeditious withdrawal is a good policy).

    Parent
    Have you read other people's position (none / 0) (#30)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:14:48 AM EST
    on this?  He has actually softened his withdrawal proposition now.  The timetable is something the Idea is something the Democrats have agreed at least since before the Iraqi elections.  No he was not ahead of anyone on the timetable issue he was at best part of many.

    Parent
    Yes, of course. (none / 0) (#38)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:19:41 AM EST
    And Obama was ahead of many other Democrats in proposing an actual timeline for actual troop withdrawals.

    He's softened his position but not very much.  Of course, once he's in an actual position to implement it the specifics will go out the window in favor of sufficient flexibility to deal with conditions on the ground.  But that's the nature of reality.

    Parent

    No he was not (none / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:02:02 AM EST
    You are simply misinformed on this.

    Parent
    If you believe (none / 0) (#97)
    by Truth Sayer on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:40:28 AM EST
    that you have not been paying attention to what was being advocated in congress even before we took over the majority in'06. Give it a rest. You can't recreate reality.

    Parent
    Well said, Larry (none / 0) (#127)
    by DYBO on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:39:00 PM EST
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:19:41 AM EST
    And Obama was ahead of many other Democrats in proposing an actual timeline for actual troop withdrawals.

    That's correct.  You are well-informed.

    Obama has changed very little, and it's ludicrous for people to attack him on a point where he is light years distant from Bush and McCain.

    I have no doubt he will exploit Maliki's statement to the maximum extent.  I don't even know why it's questioned here.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:19:19 AM EST
    he was kind of slow on that.

    In 2005, he voted against the Levin plan for timtables.

    Parent

    I'm speaking of his. . . (none / 0) (#41)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:20:55 AM EST
    campaign positions.  Did any other candidate have as specific or aggressive a proposal to get out of Iraq?

    Parent
    Yes Kucinich was even more (none / 0) (#44)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:24:22 AM EST
    gung-ho on the issue of withdrawal and BTW did you read Clinton's proposals?

    Parent
    Point taken. . . (none / 0) (#48)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:27:47 AM EST
    on Kucinich.

    Parent
    Um ALL of them? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:26:10 AM EST


    Parent
    Point taken. . . (none / 0) (#73)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:55:21 AM EST
    on Kucinich and Gravel.

    Parent
    Clinton, Edwards, Richardson (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:01:29 AM EST
    residual troops anyone?

    What in blazes are you talking about?

    Parent

    Clinton. . . (none / 0) (#82)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:09:25 AM EST
    proposed an early start to troop reductions, but no end date.  I don't remember Edwards' plan.  Richardson, I think, may have had a date certain so perhaps he ought to be classified with Kucinich and Gravel.

    Parent
    That is just wrong (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:21:38 AM EST
    Seriously, for a Clinton supporter, you are incredibly misinformed about her positions.

    Parent
    Oh. (none / 0) (#86)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:22:27 AM EST
    What was her timeline?

    Parent
    1 to 2 brigades per month (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:49:47 AM EST
    Do the math. Her position was EXACTLY Obama's.

    Parent
    Her early statements in the debates (none / 0) (#95)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:37:32 AM EST
    were that she could not guarantee the troops would all be out of Iraq by the end of her first term.

    Parent
    Precisely what Obama and Edwards said (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:48:57 AM EST


    Parent
    there's no guarentee (none / 0) (#129)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:44:47 PM EST
    tht the iraqi state will survive a pullout and thus require another invasion.

    Parent
    Because he is running for President (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:02:22 AM EST
    No other Dem is running for President.

    Parent
    Oh, so now only presidential candidates get (none / 0) (#15)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:05:33 AM EST
    any credit?

    Parent
    Only Presidents (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:11:21 AM EST
    are the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

    Parent
    When he wins then it becomes his (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:16:15 AM EST
    policy.  Until  then IMO he is one of many.

    Parent
    hubris (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:45:46 AM EST
    that a presidential candidate, without government and independently, can determine policy is astounding.

    And that he is encouraged to do so is even more astounding.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:19:47 AM EST
    You go with that if you like.

    Parent
    Actually I got sidetracked on your comment (none / 0) (#55)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:35:16 AM EST
    I was being kind of snarky.  My original point, which apparently I did not express well, was that he is changing his position from immediate withdrawal to A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal.  But that, phased withdrawal, was something that was part of the Democratic proposals already.  So I am now left wondering what his position will be once elected.

    Parent
    you're missing something here (none / 0) (#103)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:52:40 AM EST
    and that is that there has never been a plan to never withdraw troops from iraq.

    The adminitration's plan has always been to provide Iraq the security it needs to foster its political and economic recovery. Given Iraq's pre-existing level of infrastructure, we've been able to see some huge improvements within 5 years of the onset of the war thanks to our unshaken and determined efforts.

    Labelling a plan to withdraw troops when the conditions in Iraq were within minimal risk of relapse as anything but the status quo is an simply a mind-numbingly silly exercise of make-believe.

    Obama's plan was to withdraw U.S. troops no matter what conditions existed in Iraq. You can read any of dozens of quotes and plenty of footage of him saying exactly that.

    Now that he's clinched the Nomination. he's waffled on Iraq along his Wizard of Oz trip to the centre. His drones, however, desperatley attempt to revise history and warp reality so that Obama's new position (which rests on the semantic uselessness of the word 'timetable') has somehow become the position everybody and their little brothers wants to be in.

    Insanity.

    There has been huge improvements in Iraq, but in no way is Iraq's prosperity guaranteed at this point.

    The best case scenarios talk about 1 1/2 years down the road. If even you accept the quote in Spiegel's article (which was ripped out of context), you're nuts if you don't think Maliki's talking about the best-case scenario here.

    The bottom line here is that conducting operations based on 'the conditions on the ground' while remaining committed to facilitating stability in Iraq IS Bush-McCain policy. Heck it's the only reasonable policy if you feel Iraq's stability is important - be you Dem, Repub, Green, libertarian or independent.

    Claiming that these people are just now adopting this plan and that this plan was in some way shape or fashion originally Obama's plan is pure fantasy.

    If you don't care for Iraq, well, it's unfortunate for you since neither political party is fronting a candidate who shares your opinion on that matter.

    Parent

    Question (none / 0) (#123)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:10:50 PM EST
    I have the data that overall, oil production looks down from prewar levels (peak pre-war 2.5 million barrels-12 mos thru 09/07 2.3).  I can't find more current numbers.  Electricity production is up slightly from 3958 pre-war nationwide to 4200 in June-Sept 07.  The US goal was 6000 back in '04.

    Where are you getting indicators for improved infrastructure?  Since the surge, less data seems to be coming out.

    Parent

    yes, sadly (none / 0) (#137)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:46:07 PM EST
    electricity is still unacceptably patchy (temporal-wise)

    Oil production surpassed peak Hussein levels a few months ago and will top approximately 3 million barrels by November this year.

    Note though the distinction between crude oil production and refining. The former will suprass Hussein's peak levels, the latter still lags.

    I have neither heard nor read of any reason not to trust Iraq's own Minister of Oil Dr. Hussein Al-Shahristani on the figures of crude oil production.

    The Economist has also written lengthy articles on the subject and again I don't really have any reason to distrust their figures.

    Parent

    BS (none / 0) (#124)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:14:23 PM EST
    Obama's plan was to withdraw U.S. troops no matter what conditions existed in Iraq. You can read any of dozens of quotes and plenty of footage of him saying exactly that.

    I don't care how much misinformation you care to quote, Obama had always said that his plan was contingent on conditions on the ground. His position was exactly the same as Hillary's. Both called for a responsible withdrawal.

    Parent

    Not quite (none / 0) (#131)
    by DYBO on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:47:01 PM EST
    Obama's position is - and always has been - that he will immediately order the military to change the mission in order to facilitate a withdrawal - not immediately withdraw.

    I don't believe he ever said he would immediately withdraw - in the sense that everybody would just pack up and head out.  Again, that's people hearing what they want to hear.

    Parent

    Back in 2007 he stated (none / 0) (#139)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:08:40 PM EST
    "The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year -- now"

    Parent
    To "immediately begin" (none / 0) (#141)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:09:39 PM EST
    to do something isn't the same as to immediately complete it. Obviously.

    Parent
    I'm not going to argue but (none / 0) (#142)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:24:15 PM EST
    He introduced legislation calling for withdrawal to start on May 1 2007 and for all combat brigades to be pulled out by March 31, 2008.  That is in 10 months, now nobody is saying that immediate is disorganized, just compare this to his current statements and his timetable proposition,  Look, I am not saying he should not change his mind and the fact that I find his original position better that his new position, which is very similar to Hillary's position all along is a bit of a disappointment for me does not make me right or him wrong.  It's just that for a person who claimed to be a channel for change he is showing to be another politician.  My worry is which is the President we will get, the one who was going to filibuster FISA or the one who voted for it, the one who wanted to withdraw within  a year or the one who is now putting all kinds of conditions.  I have said it before and I'll say it again IMO his best quality is not being McCain.

    Parent
    Just another politician (none / 0) (#144)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:33:04 PM EST
    I don't disagree that his policies and Hillary's were much alike. I think his main strength is in being able to promote policies much like Hillary's without provoking the kind of fanatical kneejerk opposition she does from the right wing, which then bleeds over to infect the non-aligned center and leads them to reject reasonable things for irrational reasons.

    His post-partisan unity schtick might be reviled by some, but I think in the current climate it works. But then I see it as nothing more than a rhetorical tactic on his part to disarm and confuse RW reaction and not a real thing in terms of policies, which are actually anything but meeting the right wing halfway.

    On Iraq he talked like a hawk about al Qaeda and WOT but advocated timetable and withdrawal of troops, which is now CW. 10 months vs 16 months, pffft - just giving himself maneuvering room. On Afghanistan, he talks about military initiatives but the centerpiece of his plan is infrastructure and non-military funding. On faith-based initiatives he talked like he was giving gov't over to Evangelicals, but the actual policy proposed brought things back in line with how they were under Clinton, i.e., strictly circumscribed. On health care he said no mandates to keep the libertarianized centrist majority from freaking out over new gov't initiatives to put its hand in their pocket. Now it's accepted that major expansion of access to health care insurance will happen. Don't look at what he says, look at what the details of his proposed policies would actually do.

    Having your policies seen as some kind of post-partisan unity schtick while in fact moving the center steadily leftward without it even being recognized is no bad thing in my book.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#143)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:11:33 PM EST
    you'r ebeing facetious here. If so that was funny.

    If not, um. Alrighty then.

    Parent

    Separating (none / 0) (#145)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:33:58 PM EST
    two different things that have been dishonestly conflated for political gain is "ebeing facetious"? I think not.

    Parent
    to imply (none / 0) (#146)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 07:32:27 PM EST
    that Obama is in someway immune from being catagorically wrong on the surge on the grounds that he stated that he would "immediately begin" to do something rather than "immediately complete it" is either use of  sarcasm in an attempt to be funny (being facetious), or, embodies a significant probability that he or she still believes in the tooth fairy and other such figmants of the imagination.

    Parent
    Hi Talex (none / 0) (#147)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:15:28 PM EST
    Long time no see. Not.

    Parent
    abductee (none / 0) (#148)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:24:21 PM EST
    believe it or not you seem to have just illustrated my point. ^^

    Parent
    Better get (none / 0) (#149)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:27:12 PM EST
    yet another ID fired up...

    Parent
    LOLROTF (none / 0) (#150)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:59:22 PM EST
    Good eye Alien Abductee!

    Parent
    The reason that the MSM is not (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by kenosharick on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:11:14 AM EST
    shouting "Maliki endorses Obama plan!" is that it would not help the Obama campaign much. The media is doing all it can to put Barack in the WH, and 99% of voters would probably ask, "who or what is a maliki?"

    I strongly disagree (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:18:33 AM EST
    And in fact I think it is getting a fair amount of coverage given the fact that the Obama campaign is not pushing it - which I think agrees with your point that perhaps the Obama campaign is not eager to push the story.

    Why in Gawd's name they would not want to push it is beyond me.

    Parent

    They're thinking what I'm thinking (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:40:00 AM EST
    Do you think most Americans know the difference between the Iraqi government and the terrorists? I mean that as a serious question. McCain can just say honestly that Obama is the choice of
    Nouri al-Maliki. It won't sound good.

    Parent
    Don't forget that (none / 0) (#71)
    by pie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:53:02 AM EST
    all-important Bin Laden endorsement.  

    Parent
    It seems "Obama 16 month plan" was (none / 0) (#83)
    by wurman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:11:48 AM EST
    Google-bombed by Obama campaign supporters.  It's viral @ 510,000 entries.

    Parent
    Foreign policy (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by cawaltz on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:29:03 AM EST
    is the only area I actually agreed with Obama more than Edwards and Clinton. That said, after the shenanigans during the primary season I don't see myself voting for Obama. What the DNC did smacks of Banana Republic. Short of Clinton on the ballot I don't see myself voting for him, even if his foreign policy does sound like a change(which would be a welcome change from the backdoor US centric policy that refuses to look at long term consequences rather than just short term results).

    Anyway, I wish you luck in leading the horse to water. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't make a statement because Obama and his own campaign appear to be their own worst enemy.

    I take no support from Iraqi leadership seriously (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by stefystef on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:06:54 AM EST
    I know many Obama supporters what to make him out as the amazing leader who will bring all the world's leaders back into his fold.

    These leaders are notorious for back stabbing and changing their stance to suit them.  They are playing us against their own people.

    Totally Agree! (none / 0) (#89)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:26:15 AM EST
    We/Everyone seem to forget that they are all politicians and "they do what they do" (to take BTD's favorite Pass phrase)

    They all have their individual political goals and aspirations and will say and do exactly what they think is necessary to get ahead.

    You think they really give a toss about all the politics in our country? Well, the Iraqis may, to a certain extent due to circumstances and the choices of the outgoing President and his administration.

    But beyond that, those foreign leaders don't really care whether Obama rightfully won his Primaries for the nomination; whether he's flip-flopping on various national policies and whether his supporters and surrogates get along with everyone else in the US. (Angela Merkel's probably hoping, right about now, that she said and did the right thing so she gets re-elected, and likely has Obama's mug on a dartboard in her office for putting her in a spot these past couple of weeks.)

    Parent

    Maliki and Bush. . . (3.00 / 2) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:48:11 AM EST
    have both endorsed Obama's plan (Bush reluctantly, of course).  They both now agree to a timeline for troop reductions.  And everyone agrees on increased troops for Afghanistan.

    Essentially, Obama is setting US foreign policy even ahead of his official nomination.

    I will say this for Obama.  He laid out a foreign policy that was in fairly stark contrast to the current Administration and he stuck to it (pretty much) through criticism from both Republicans and his Democratic opposition.  And the act of simply having done so seems to have moved the ball to some degree in terms of what's happening even now.

    Same war, different country. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by pie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:55:32 AM EST
    And everyone agrees on increased troops for Afghanistan.

    Are you kidding me?  This is unacceptable.  I see the war drums starting though.  Just read in a recent issue of Time that Bin Laden may be planning another attack.

    Unbelievable.  Yes.  Unbelievable.

    Ask the Russians what they think of this idea.

    Parent

    To not do it is unacceptable to me (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:56:05 AM EST
    So now where do we go?

    Parent
    To not do what? (none / 0) (#7)
    by pie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:58:07 AM EST
    Withdraw from Iraq?  That's great, but not if it means moving the chips into Afghanistan.

    Parent
    It is unacceptable to me (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:01:28 AM EST
    to not defeat the Taliban and Al Qaida.


    Parent
    No comment. (none / 0) (#12)
    by pie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:04:19 AM EST


    Parent
    Why no comment? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:13:19 AM EST
    It is perfectly acceptable to disagree with that which you seem to do.

    I am a Centrist after all.

    Parent

    Why bother? (none / 0) (#36)
    by pie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:19:19 AM EST
    I'm sure this all sounds good in the election season.  

    You are trying to get him elected, after all.

    Parent

    Has nothing to do with Obama (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:21:39 AM EST
    I have believed this since 2001.

    Parent
    I'm surprised you haven't (none / 0) (#60)
    by pie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:40:09 AM EST
    changed your opinion since then.

    The US has certainly done a very successful job of getting more people to resent, even hate, us.

    But by all means, let's keep seeking out the evil terrorists, wherever they are.  Just look at the success the US has had in that regard.

    Parent

    "I am a Centrist after all." (none / 0) (#53)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:33:04 AM EST
    Repeating something doesn't make it true.

    Parent
    Not At All A Centrist (none / 0) (#61)
    by daring grace on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:40:16 AM EST
    And I've believed this since 2001 too.

    Parent
    Very well. . . (none / 0) (#26)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:12:49 AM EST
    And everyone agrees on increased troops for Afghanistan.

    Are you kidding me?  This is unacceptable.

    All but twelve people agree on increased troops for Afghanistan.

    Parent

    Twelve people, huh? (none / 0) (#31)
    by pie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:15:36 AM EST


    Parent
    Fourteen? (none / 0) (#43)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:23:53 AM EST
    Twenty-four?

    The biggest fallacy of the blogosphere in my mind is "everybody agrees with me" fallacy.  Since you believe the US shouldn't fight the Taliban then, of course, everyone else must believe it as well.

    Parent

    Just ask the (none / 0) (#58)
    by pie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:35:58 AM EST
    anti-war crowd what they think of this idea.

    Code Pink?  

    How about the families of the military?

    Fight the Taliban.  Pfffft.

    Parent

    Code Pink? (none / 0) (#62)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:43:30 AM EST
    Well, you've got me there!  With their membership rolls of 150 million they surely do represent majority opinion in the country.  Why, I don't even know why we haven't renamed the place the United Code Pink of America yet!

    Actually, it's kind of hard to type since all the noise of the anti-war protesters marching in front of my window is so distracting.  Really, the unremitting demonstrations from the anti-war crowd have really shown this nation what the people want.  I can't believe I didn't see that!

    Except, you know, that there isn't any anti-war crowd -- not even when it comes to the war that people actually oppose (Iraq).  Fourteen people isn't a "crowd".

    The "families of the military" is so silly I don't think it even requires a response.

    This may not be the way you want it to be.  It may not be the way I want to be.  But it is the way it is.

    Parent

    The Families of the Military? (none / 0) (#63)
    by daring grace on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:43:38 AM EST
    I've never seen a poll of this, and I would hate to generalize but more often than not the families of military people say they're proud their relatives are fighting terrorism and want to see them get the job done.

    I'm SURE there are many others who feel differently, but this is what I hear face to face and in the media.

    Parent

    Holy cow. (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by pie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:46:39 AM EST
    say they're proud their relatives are fighting terrorism and want to see them get the job done.

    You sound like the republicans.

    The job will never be done.

    Good grief.  I don't believe this.

    Parent

    Maybe Some of The Families (none / 0) (#70)
    by daring grace on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:50:45 AM EST
    are Republicans.

    Or maybe they are genuinely proud of their relatives' service.

    Parent

    Being proud is one thing. (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by pie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:59:31 AM EST
    Wanting them over there is another.

    The mother I talked to last week wants it to be over.  Her son just left for his fourth tour.

    Parent

    OBL (none / 0) (#94)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:35:18 AM EST
    When it comes to Osama bin Laden, I'm inclined to believe what Benazir Bhutto said in an interview with David Frost shortly before she died than I am to believe anything from our media or government on his current plans/status.


    Parent
    It's not just a military plan (none / 0) (#140)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:07:28 PM EST
    A central feature is non-military economic aid for it and for Pakistan, and rebuilding the country's infrastructure.

    Parent
    Orwelllian reasoning at its best (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:47:45 AM EST
    "Maliki and Bush have both endorsed Obama's plan (Bush reluctantly, of course).  They both now agree to a timeline for troop reductions."

    unless "endorsed" is newspeak for 'following through with the status quo and continue to ignore' and,

    "Obama's plan" is newspeak for 'their flailing indecisive and dithering opponent who's "plans" for Iraq change like the flavours of the month at Baskin Robbins'.

    You know Larry, traditionally the revisionist history is supposed to occur at least decades after-the-fact.

    Parent

    Your distaste for Obama. . . (none / 0) (#72)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:53:02 AM EST
    has corroded your critical faculties.

    Obama has a specific (too specific for reality, in my mind) plan for a troop withdrawal timeline.  Maliki unquestionably endorsed that plan -- with specific reference to the time targets.  Bush was forced to accept Maliki's demands for some kind of timeline (now called a "time horizon").

    All this is true.  The fact that you prefer to believe otherwise doesn't change the facts.

    Parent

    Unless I missed some (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Truth Sayer on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:30:56 AM EST
    news today neither Bush or Maliki have publicly agreed on a timeline. What they agreed on is a Time Horizon which has no date certain. It could be years before such a time horizon is reached.

    It is true that Maliki wanted a timeline but once again he caved in to Bush and did not get what he wanted.

    I'm not sure what Big Tent means when he wrote "Maliki said what he said". Said what, other than Time Horizon?

    And Larry I think you are exaggerating what Obama is doing. Iraq started to voice the  desire for sovereignty and the withdrawal of US troops long before Obama even announced for President.

    As for Afghanistan every thinking person in the US has already said we needed more troops in Afghanistan, again long before Obama even announced his run for the Presidency, McCain included.

    Let's not give Obama credit he does not deserve. If anything Obama's plan is just the CW of everyone except Bush. Obama is following, as usual, not leading. Just as with the surge. First Obama was against it, and then he praised it as bringing more security to Iraq, which it has as much as many people are reluctant to admit.

    Parent

    You Sure Did (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:57:16 AM EST
    Unless I missed some news....


    Parent
    Yeah I saw the news downthread (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Truth Sayer on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:22:54 AM EST
    I also saw the retraction from Maliki although  I think he is just playing politics.

    But even with that what I said in my post is valid.

    Parent

    Retraction (none / 0) (#125)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:25:10 PM EST
    was issued by the U.S. military in Iraq.  The spokesperson supposedly issuing the retraction has appeared side-by-side with Dana Perino in D.C. at press events.

    Maliki has not personally retracted the comments.

    Parent

    the bigger points still stands (none / 0) (#115)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:30:55 AM EST
    which is that the obama campaign is trying to equate the hint that Bush may lower the number of surge-level troops in Iraq within the next few months following our extraordinary success in Iraq of late thanks in part due to the surge(which Obama is on record asserting would fail miserably and subsequently opposed it in the Senate) with some fantasy hog-race of Republicans streaming to his Almighty 'centrist position'.

    Delusions of grandeur worthy of Bush.

    Loved the following article mostly because I watched Obama's victory speech and reacted the same way Charles Krauthammer apparently did at the same lines:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/17/AR2008071701839.html

    Parent

    Have they got the translation thing resolved? (none / 0) (#116)
    by EL seattle on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:31:14 AM EST
    This report looks a bit hazy still:

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/19/almaliki.obama/index.html

    But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."

    I guess the original report came from Der Spiegel, so it may be possible that the original interview's translation to german wasn't completely accurate?

    Parent

    Who ciriticized him (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:55:38 AM EST
    for the policy he pronounced? The problem was not using his powers in the Senate to see the policy he pronounced become a reality.

    I will not let you distort the truth anymore than Obama should let the Media distort the truth.

    Parent

    I am speaking of his Middle East. . . (none / 0) (#14)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:05:18 AM EST
    foreign policy.  For his position on Iraq he's been roundly criticized by Republicans.  For his position on Iran he's been criticized by both Republicans and the Clinton campaign.

    Throughout the criticism he's remained pretty firm on his policies -- expeditious removal of troops from Iraq, increased focus on Afghanistan, and direct negotiations with the Iranians.  (I say "pretty firm" since on one or two occasions he's suggested modest modifications to his original statements -- for instance, insisting that negotiations with Iran would take place "at a time and place of my choosing").

    Although these policies were opposed by the current Administration, in the last few weeks they've done a more-or-less complete turnaround.

    I'm not distorting anything.  Go have your coffee.

    Parent

    Um... (none / 0) (#21)
    by pie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:10:54 AM EST
    For his position on Iran he's been criticized by both Republicans and the Clinton campaign.

    When did the Clinton campaign criticize him for his policy on Iran?  Google seems to think it's the other way around.

    Parent

    Obama's position on Iran. . . (none / 0) (#29)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:13:48 AM EST
    direct diplomatic contact without preconditions, was roundly criticized by the Clinton campaign and by Clinton directly.

    Parent
    You're mixing apples and oranges (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:12:32 AM EST
    The Clinton criticism on the "lack of preconditions" was theater - silly theater. But that is politics.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#34)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:17:30 AM EST
    Apples and oranges?  I made a simple point about Obama's foreign policy positions.  A point, by the way, that supports your concept of the power of the politics of contrast.

    I don't see the difference between Clinton's "political" criticism of Obama's Iran policy and the Republicans' criticism of Obama's Iraq policy.  Is that Republican criticism somehow not "political"?  Why is one apples and one oranges?

    Parent

    Yes the difference between the 2 (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:20:44 AM EST
    is one is substantive - the GOP does not want to withdraw from Iraq, and non-substantive - Clinton preconditions nonsense.

    Parent
    The question of. . (none / 0) (#47)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:27:07 AM EST
    substantiveness is in the eye of the beholder.  In fact, Obama was attacked for both his Iraq and Iran positions.  He stood more or less firm in both cases.  Now his positions are very close to winning -- and he's not even the nominee yet.

    If you really want to deny Obama any role in the policy changes we've seen, I suppose you can argue that he was simply good at getting ahead of what would have happened anyway.  But I think it's silly to ignore the fact that his positions sparked something of a public debate -- or at least created a contrast between his positions (rational and grown up) and Bush's (petulant and bullying).

    Parent

    Everything is in the eye of the beholder (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:02:51 AM EST
    That's no answer.

    Parent
    Critics of the "16 month" plan . . . (none / 0) (#80)
    by wurman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:03:44 AM EST
    From the McCain Report (link) which refers to ABC News, July 11, 2008:
    RADDATZ: Do you think it's dangerous to pull out if it's not conditions based?

    MAJ GEN HAMMOND: I think it's very dangerous....

    RADDATZ: It is that phrase "sustainable security" that we heard again and again in Iraq from officers on the streets of Baghdad.

    OFFICER: That would be conditions based.

    OFFICER 2: We're thinking in terms of accomplishing the mission.

    OFFICER 3: You can't put a timetable on it.

    RADDATZ: To senior officers.

    LT GEN LLOYD AUSTIN: What I'm focused on right now is helping the Iraqi people, the Iraqi government achieve sustainable security.

    So while nobody Raddatz talked to thought the outcome of a 16 month timetable would have a positive impact on the security situation, the most damning indictment of Obama's plan came at the end of the report. Raddatz asked whether it was even possible to safely get U.S. troops and their equipment out on such a short timeline:

    Several commanders we talked to off camera said, no way.

    Generals Hammond & Austin are identified; others remain anonymous.

    Gen. Clark offered "soft" criticism, see here at Securing America (link):
    General Wesley Clark on MSNBC's Morning Joe, April 3. 2008

    GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: "But he (Obama) has leaned toward saying he's trying to complete the withdrawal within 16, within 16 months.

    Mika Brzezinski: Would you-

    GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: And I'm against, I'm against fixed timelines. I think it's just, I think it sets up false expectations and takes away some of your bargaining leverage.

    There have been some specific criticisms of the 16-month plan by knowledgeable commenters.


    Parent

    Which is ridiculous (none / 0) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:22:50 AM EST
    from Clark in that Clinton had the same view almost the same timetable.

    Parent
    Same Timetable? (none / 0) (#93)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:31:31 AM EST
    I believe H. Clinton said she would have a plan for withdrawal on her table within the first 60 days of taking office. And that would like take 1-2 troop brigades out of the country at a time, depending on the advice she receives from her commanders on the ground there. I don't think she said anything about a 16-month complete withdrawal or anything close to that.

    Parent
    You believe wrong (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:50:38 AM EST


    Parent
    Uh (none / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:49:58 AM EST
    If you do the math, it adds up to the same thing.

    Parent
    Hillary Did Not Set (none / 0) (#110)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:09:59 AM EST
    a specific timeline i.e. 16 months for a complete withdrawal of troops.

    Her plan, which would be developed and ready within the first 60 days of her being elected, would be based on what the commanders on the ground advise her to do.

    Obama, even without an official nomination, let alone being elected, President has called on a 16-month complete withdrawal. He's promising something he isn't even sure can be delivered.

    How is that the same thing?

    BTD: So what was her plan then?

    Parent

    Need a timeframe for timetables (none / 0) (#104)
    by wurman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:54:43 AM EST
    These positions evolved over the course of the primary campaign.

    Pew reports Sep 27, 2007 (link):

    Russert's question first went to Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who would not make the pledge to have all troops removed by 2013. "I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013," said Obama, "but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out."

    Senator Hillary Clinton of New York also would not pledge to have all troops removed. "Well, Tim, it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term," said Clinton, who agreed with Obama that it would be difficult to make such a pledge without knowing what she would inherit as president in 2009.

    "Voice of America" has soft positions for both in April 2008 (link):

    Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who are battling for the Democratic Party nomination for president, renewed their calls for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

    Clinton--

    "I think it is time to begin an orderly process of withdrawing our troops, start rebuilding our military and focusing on the challenges posed by Afghanistan, global terrorist groups and other problems that confront America," she said.

    Obama--
    "Nobody is asking for a precipitous withdrawal, but I do think it has to be a measured, but increased pressure," he said.

    Gen. Clark's comment was April 23, 2008.

    Parent

    And Obama should point out. . . (none / 0) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:50:05 AM EST
    not only that Maliki and he see eye to eye on removing American troops (so why are the Republicans standing in the way) but that Bush is playing politics with the issue by trying to spin away the truth.  And that he (Obama) won't play politics with the issue.

    lol!~ (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:57:39 AM EST
    And that he (Obama) won't play politics with the issue.


    Parent
    Yes, that was humorous. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by pie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:58:31 AM EST


    Parent
    I think Obama. . . (none / 0) (#17)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:08:03 AM EST
    has an opportunity to get around the right side of this question.  Of course, everything the candidates do during the election is political, but Obama doesn't want to get tagged as the guy playing politics with this issue.  When contrasted with McCain (who is pushing the unpopular view of endless occupation of Iraq) the argument that Obama (who is pushing the politically popular idea of withdrawal) might be vulnerable.  But using Bush as a proxy would let him remind voters that 1) McCain's position is basically Bush's and 2) that from day one Iraq has been as much about politics for Bush as governance.

    Parent
    Updated and scrubbed (none / 0) (#91)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:30:01 AM EST
    The NY Times issued an Update today stating Maliki has said he was mistranslated in what he said about Obama's plan.

    CNN and MSNBC have scrubbed their websites of yesterday's articles, from what I hear.

    Parent

    Did the NY Times mention that (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:59:36 AM EST
    The U.S. military's Central Command press office issued the statement on behalf of Maliki?

    How often does that happen? Does this make Maliki is a puppet and the puppet masters are displeased?

    Parent

    Bush (none / 0) (#109)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:07:08 AM EST
    I read yesterday that the headline was 'accidently' done by the Bush people.  They pushed the wrong button.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#113)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:12:57 AM EST
    Not the headline but the Speigel story quoting Maliki agreeing with Obama. That story went out en mass to all BushCo supporters by mistake.

    Parent
    Sen. Obama should get on message & (none / 0) (#13)
    by wurman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:04:29 AM EST
    repeat the al Maliki phrase at every chance.  In addition, all of the surrogates should hammer home the "agreement" between Sen. Obama's foreign policy & the will of the Iraqi government.

    It's almost too easy, and it will remove the Iraq War as an issue in the campaign.  I can remember Pres. Eisenhower constantly emphasizing "I will go to Korea" and "troops home by Christmas" as he eliminated Stevenson's ability to pivot away from Pres. Truman's commitment to the police action.  Ike tied the Democrats to that war & held them to it.

    Similarly, Nixon stuck Humphrey with Vietnam, though we learned later that Tricky Dick was, in fact, simply lying about his "secret plan."  Presumably, Obama means it.

    It is to be hoped that Sen. Obama, or someone on his staff, has enough sense to make "16 months & out" a continuous focus & bind McCain to the war as if he authorized the invasion, himself.  Third term, indeed.

    Obama should just say (none / 0) (#16)
    by lilburro on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:07:14 AM EST
    everyone agrees with me now.  Because Maliki won't have his back and of course Bush won't, even though they are all on the same page.  Which the media I'm sure will be unable to discover by themselves.

    and why (none / 0) (#105)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:56:47 AM EST
    is Bush "on the same page as Obama"?

    (putting aside the insanity of the idea that Bush in some way came to Obama's position)

    Seriously?  Why can Bush now discuss lowering the surge troop levels?

    How did we get to this point in Iraq?

    Parent

    I wonder just how much of an advantage (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:08:11 AM EST
    it is to have this be true. After all, won't McCain just turn around and say that Obama wants foreign leaders to determine U.S. policy?

    Heh (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:10:33 AM EST
    So you posit McCain arguing that the sovereign Iraqi government's desire to have US  troops leave Iraq should be ignored?

    Surely you jest.

    Parent

    The Bush administration (none / 0) (#27)
    by pie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:13:05 AM EST
    has been ignoring Maliki's requests for withdrawal for years.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:17:00 AM EST
    Can you link to Maliki's requests?

    Parent
    I can't, actually. (none / 0) (#49)
    by pie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:28:20 AM EST
    But I didn't dream that Maliki's been making noises about the US to withdraw before this.

    Parent
    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:34:24 AM EST
    "noises" is an amorphous word.

    Parent
    Oh. (none / 0) (#52)
    by pie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:32:29 AM EST
    Here's one from last year.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:35:26 AM EST
    Here's the problem. He did not say he WANTS them to leave.

    You miss the big change here.

    Parent

    No, I got that part. (none / 0) (#64)
    by pie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:43:48 AM EST
    He wanted us out all right, but as long as Bush was president, that wasn't going to happen.

    And I sincerely doubt that a total withdrawal of troops from Iraq is in the cards even with Obama.  Maliki will probably be disappointed.

    But as I said, you've got a candidate to elect.

    Parent

    Malikia won't be (none / 0) (#67)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:46:54 AM EST
    disappointed because, of course, the last thing he personally wants to see is the withdrawal of the American troops that are keeping his intra-Shia rivals in check.  His position regarding withdrawal is largely political showmanship for internal (Iraqi) political reasons.

    Parent
    Indeed. (none / 0) (#74)
    by pie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:55:43 AM EST
    His position regarding withdrawal is largely political showmanship for internal (Iraqi) political reasons.

    To say nothing of the showmanship for American political reasons.

    Parent

    Other articles (none / 0) (#87)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:22:31 AM EST
    Maliki has taken Ahmadinejad's position.  His people's position  (2004, 2006)  Maliki is taking the world's position.  Doesn't look to me as if Maliki is taking any political risk.  He wants to retire.

    McCain agrees (sort of) with the statements, but believes (as do I) that Maliki's statement is part of negotioating tactics for the status of forces agreement.  What happens to Obama if Maliki is just using these statements to negotiate and Maliki backs off of them?

    Obama 'vowed to pursue the war on terror "with vigor" if he is elected'  (war on terror, pffft) and is stating we will leave Iraq as conditions on the ground allow.  Obama has taken Bush's position.  Didn't Obama agree with Bush's position on Iraq at one time?

    Barack is taking Bush's position. [Obama wants to continue Bush's successful multilateral efforts to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, and now praises the Bush-inspired six-party talks with North Korea that led to the apparent dismantling of Pyongyang's nuclear program. Like Bush, he advocated expanding the military after the Clinton-era troop cuts. Obama once advocated lifting the embargo against Cuba -- but no longer. Like Bush, he thinks that it is wise to leave it be.

    There is suddenly not much difference when it comes to the Middle East, either. Palestinian supporters were dismayed to hear Obama promise that Jerusalem must be Israel's eternal and undivided capital.

    Obama once criticized Bush for his unwillingness to meet directly with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and exaggerating the danger from Iran, which supposedly didn't "pose any serious threat." Lately though, he agrees with the president that Iran now in fact is a "grave threat."

    Obama's most serious about-face is on Iraq. He once promised a rigid and rapid timetable for withdrawing our troops. But given the radical success of Gen. David Petraeus' surge and change in tactics, Obama is now calling for withdrawals to be based on the conditions on the ground in Iraq. How different is this plan from the present administration's policy of incrementally sending home brigades as Petraeus hands off security responsibilities to Iraqis in additional provinces?]

    Doesn't look like Maliki nor Obama are expending any political capital on this issue and seem to be depending on polls.  Only Obama will have a problem if Maliki backs off his statements (ok, I jsut realized how wrong my whole argument was, thinking that the media won't pretzel itself for anything Obama says.)

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#111)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:10:20 AM EST
    Obama=Bush.  Maliki wants to retire. Hilarious.

    Parent
    Maliki want to retire (none / 0) (#120)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:49:38 AM EST
    hilarious.  That's what he said.  one term only har har har yaaawwwwnnnn.  

    My error, I should never believe anything any politician or leader of any country says.  If there lips are moving they are lying.  ALL of them.

    If Obama doesn't want to come across as sounding like Bush, he should quit parroting his words.  har har har yaaawwwwwn.

    Parent

    One And A Half Years Ago (none / 0) (#121)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:58:18 AM EST
    Was a long time ago, for Maliki.

    Parent
    hear hear! (none / 0) (#112)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:12:12 AM EST
    extremely well said waldenpond.

    On the last bit: the maliki quote is receiving good coverage on fox.

    I'm certain this story will be back with further developments - Maliki's already stated that he was quoted out of context.

    Also, the Obama campaign may be aware that the Iraqi ambassador to the U.S. met with Obama this past month or so to explain to him how important  U.S. troops are to the maintenance of stability in Iraq - and how disastrous a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops would be for Iraq.


    Parent

    Well Said? (none / 0) (#122)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:07:30 PM EST
    I disagree. More like a pleonistic prolixity that amounts to nothing more than Obama=Bush. The only reason I can imagine that  waldenpond makes this obviously false statement is to imply that McSame is somehow a better candidate and different from Bush.
    This could easily read as a campaign statement by McSame, imo.

    What a load of bull.

    Parent

    Hasn't he already? (none / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:35:54 AM EST


    Parent
    Eh... I think most people recognize (none / 0) (#24)
    by Pegasus on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:12:15 AM EST
    that Iraq's elected leaders should have a role in determining American policy in Iraq.

    Parent
    Thank you (none / 0) (#68)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:47:36 AM EST
    surprised that this has not occurred to some.

    Parent
    I agree... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Marco21 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:26:46 AM EST
    that Obama should seize the narrative, on this and every issue. Republicans have been able control the message because the Democrats have surrendered ground because the right wing howls loudest.

    No more, please. Grab the issues, frame them and never let them go. When the GOP has to run on their record and agenda, they fail.

    Combined walkback/endorsement (none / 0) (#51)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:31:17 AM EST
    While the prime-minister of Iraq may claim that he isn't endorsing Obama, actions do speak louder than words.

    This virtuoso display of the flip-flop combined with a WARM (What Al-maliki Really Meant) and the classic "feel free to project your own agenda on my remarks" move is pure Obama.  

    And since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I think there is no question who Al-Maliki wants for President this year....

    Obama and BT probably shouldn't (none / 0) (#102)
    by Green26 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:51:39 AM EST
    take too much from what appears to be a mistranslation and misquote in the German publication. This from a Reuters article today:

    "But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."

    "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."

    It looks like the more accurate description of the Maliki position is what was reported a couple days  ago, i.e. some vague verbiage for withdrawal after security is fully established and turned over to the Iraqis in all areas of Iraq.

    This parent of a US soldier currently in Iraq (none / 0) (#108)
    by Green26 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:06:38 AM EST
    is very proud that our son is serving and protecting his country. All of the parents we know feel the same way.

    Our son very much believes in the mission, and believes the media generally misportrays the situation in Iraq. He ends everyone of his emails with a John McCain quote (we will never surrender). We worry constantly about him, as well as the other soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our son was wounded last summer, including a 4-inch shrapnel hole in his back  and eventual evacuation for surgery. I can't tell you how terrifying that was for our family, starting with an initial ominous voice mail (to return a call to a military person) and seeing my wife's face turn ashen as her knees buckled and she dropped to the floor from the shock.

    While we have democrats and republicans in the family, we support our country, the president and our troops in the war effort.

    I thank your son for his service (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:31:44 AM EST
    I am insulted by your comment. I do not like the implication of the last line of your comment:

    "While we have democrats and republicans in the family, we support our country, the president and our troops in the war effort."

    I also support my country while opposing this President and the disastrous war in Iraq.

    It is outrageous that you choose to taint your son's honorable service by using it to launch a McCarthyistic attack on those who disagree with you.

    Shame on you.

    Parent

    I Wonder If This Refers To An Upthread (none / 0) (#132)
    by daring grace on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:53:01 PM EST
    conversation I was part of about not everyone being happy to have the troops in Iraq re-deployed to Afghanistan and that 'military families' might be among those opposing this.

    I offered my sense that many (most?) families with active duty service people in the Middle East are behind their commitment to serve.

    In any case, I join BTD in extending my respect and gratitude for your son's service.

    Parent

    Obama take advantage of White House Slip Up? (none / 0) (#119)
    by fctchekr on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:36:08 AM EST
    "CRAWFORD, TX (CNN) - An embarrassing slip up for the White House press office Saturday, when an aide hit the wrong button and mistakenly sent to the news media a Reuters article saying Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki backs presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's troop withdrawal plan.

    White House spokesman Scott Stanzel says, "It was a mistake. Clips list for staff was supposed to be the addressee."

    The Obama campaign quickly took advantage of the mistake, forwarding an ABC report detailing the incident to its press list.

    This is not the first time the White House has emailed in error. But its timing is particularly embarrassing as the Bush administration's recent agreement with al-Maliki on a "general time horizon" for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq is being cited by some as resembling Obama's proposal that U.S. forces should leave within 16 months."

    So who's right?

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

    BT, I stated my position. (none / 0) (#126)
    by Green26 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:37:37 PM EST
    I said nothing about your view, nor did I imply anything. McCarthyistic attack? You've got to be joking. There was no attack whatsoever. If you are insulted, it is due to your incorrect inference.

    I have not  tainted my son's service in any respect. It offends me that you would say such a thing. You sometimes seem to have a hard time accepting that some people genuinely support the war effort.

    You did more than that (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:19:35 PM EST
    Perhaps you want to retract this sentence, which has NOTHING to do with your view but with you insistence on denigrating those who do not agree with you:

    "While we have democrats and republicans in the family, we support our country, the president and our troops in the war effort."

    An obvious McCarthyistic attack that is shameful and will not be accepted by me here.

    Do it again and you will be banned.

    Parent

    Point of order. (none / 0) (#135)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:34:19 PM EST
    Are snarky one-liners really against site policy?  I ask only because they're my stock in trade -- if they're not permitted, I'm in a heap of trouble!

    Moi aussi. (none / 0) (#151)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:32:13 AM EST


    Parent
    Point of clarification (none / 0) (#152)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 01:25:08 AM EST
    Items close at 200 comments.  One liners wipe that out quickly.  I believe when I stated 'snarky one liners' I could have stated sniping or insulting one liners, but it wouldn't have been accurate.  If an item is generating a lot of debate, jump in and contribute.  Bite your tongue (typing finger) if it looks like it will fill up and save that wit and humor for an open thread.  :)

    Parent
    New Scarcity Rules? (none / 0) (#153)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:02:46 PM EST
    About as clear as mud, imo. And they only seem to be pertinent to some posters, namely me, and not the plethora of others who regularly post one line snark.

    But hey, I guess life is just unfair and petty sometimes, I can accept that....  

    As far as I am concerned I would rather see good one line snark than some of the vainglorious prolixity you have been dishing out of late.

    Parent

    I do not want to withdraw my sentence. (none / 0) (#138)
    by Green26 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:58:05 PM EST
    That sentence is exactly what my family feels, and had absolutely nothing to do with you or anyone else who opposes the war. Even though we have dems (heck, I voted for Hillary in the primary), repubs, and Obama supporters in our family, our family all supports the war effort, and does not diss the administration on the war. Even though we would love not to have our son in Iraq (currently in a recon outpost on the east side of Baghdad, presumably near Sadr City), we want the best thing for our country, even if that includes having our country's leadership believing the US should remain in Iraq.

    BT, it is you who ought to consider withdrawing a certain offensive sentence.

    Obama Should Say Maliki Endorsed His Withdrawal Plan . . . | 144 comments (144 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment