July 22, 2008

7/22: All About Iraq

Iraq remains the dominant topic in the political blogosphere today following the announcement by the Iraqi government that it hopes the U.S. will withdraw its troops by 2010 -- which is "roughly the same time frame laid out by Barack Obama". Liberal bloggers were delighted by this development, which they believe is politically devastating to John McCain. They think that McCain -- who has repeatedly argued against timetables -- is "now all but forced to concede to Obama's stand on the timing of withdrawal".

Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, seem split. Some are arguing that the Iraqi government's remarks shouldn't be seen as a vindication of Obama's position because Obama opposed the surge that (in their view) made a 2010 troop withdrawal possible. Others are arguing that this development helps Obama by undermining McCain's charge that Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan is reckless. Still others are arguing that Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki has ties to Iran and that the U.S. should keep its troops in Iraq for as long as it likes.

IRAQ: Walking Back The Walk Back

In an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel that was released on Saturday, Iraqi PM Maliki offered a qualified endorsement of Obama's 16-month troop withdrawal plan. After concerned Bush administration officials "called to seek clarification", Iraqi spokeseman Ali al-Dabbagh walked back Maliki's remarks, saying they had been "misunderstood and mistranslated." Yesterday, however, al-Dabbagh announced that the Iraqi gov't would like U.S. troops to be removed by the end of 2010 -- which is "roughly the same time frame laid out by Barack Obama":

"Al-Dabbagh said the government did not endorse a fixed date, but hoped American combat units could be out of Iraq sometime in 2010. That timeframe falls within the 16-month withdrawal plan proposed by Obama, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day as part of a congressional fact-finding team."

Liberal bloggers believe that al-Dabbagh's latest statement makes it clear that Maliki's remarks to Der Spiegel were not mistranslated, and that the Iraqi government does, in fact, share Obama's desire to see U.S. combat forces leave Iraq by 2010:

• Daily Kos' SusanG: "So Obama and al-Maliki are indeed on the same page."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "First Nouri al-Maliki tells Der Spiegel that he thinks Barack Obama's 16-month timeline for getting out of Iraq is about right. Then his spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, tries to walk this back by claiming that Maliki's comments were mistranslated (they weren't). Now, today, Dabbagh is back, and he says Maliki likes Obama's timeline after all. [...] There's no walking things back this time. For better or worse, Maliki has now firmly endorsed Barack Obama's vision for the future of U.S. troops in Iraq."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Ali al-Dabbagh says in English that the Iraqi government thinks US troops should be out of Iraq by 2010. Barack Obama's plan for Iraq would, of course, have US troops out of Iraq by 2010."

IRAQ II: Has The Ground Shifted Under McCain's Feet?

Liberal bloggers think the Iraqi government's quasi-endorsement of Obama's withdrawal plan is politically devastating to McCain:

• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "The McSame campaign is totally melting down over the Iraqi government's repeated calls for a timetable. Their messaging is all over the place -- everything from 'this proves how awesome the surge is' to 'the Iraqis are lying' to 'we'll stay as long as we damn well please.' But the debate about whether we should stay until we 'win' -- what McSame has been basing his entire candidacy on -- or whether we should leave is over. [...] I don't see how he recovers."
• Crooks and Liars' SilentPatriot: "If McCain loses the foreign policy debate, which is becoming increasingly likely, he'll have an insurmountable problem on his hands."
• Firedoglake's Spencer Ackerman: "There's nowhere left for McCain to go here. Either he endorses a timetable for withdrawal, which he has consistently said would be a disaster, and cedes his only big issue to Obama -- and more importantly, concedes that Obama's judgment is sound -- or he deliberately ignores the concerted, expressed wishes of the Iraqi government in order to prolong an unpopular war."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "McCain implicitly concedes that he was wrong on getting into the war itself (concedes in as much as public opinion is firmly on the side of his being wrong and he realizes that). He's also now all but forced to concede to Obama's stand on the timing of withdrawal, in as much as the Iraqis are now being clear that they want US troops out in roughly the same period of time. So he goes to the public with Obama being right and him wrong on starting the war in the first place and with the timing and approach to getting out -- but along the way he was right about the surge, so he should be president? [...] I find McCain's claim to being 'right about the surge' dubious but arguable. But even if you concede that, it leaves McCain talking about the past and conceding the real issue that is before the public."

IRAQ III: McCain Knows What The Iraqis Want

Liberal bloggers are slamming McCain after he had the following exchange with NBC's Meredith Vieira on the subject of timetables:

Vieira: "Senator Obama's timetable of removing U.S. troops from Iraq within that 16-month period seemed to be getting a thumbs up by the Iraqi prime minister. [...] If the Iraqi government were to say -- if you were President -- 'we want a timetable for troops being removed,' would you agree with that?"

McCain: "I have been there too many times. I've met too many times with him, and I know what they want. They want it based on conditions and of course they would like to have us out, that's what happens when you win wars, you leave. We may have a residual presence there as even Senator Obama has admitted. But the fact is that it should be -- the agreement between Prime Minister Maliki, the Iraqi government and the United states is it will be based on conditions. [...]"

• The New Republic's Jason Zengerle: "So, basically, the new McCain position on withdrawal seems to be: we shouldn't listen to what the Iraqi government says it wants, we should listen to what McCain says it wants. And, oh yeah, we should listen to [Gen. David] Petraeus, too. [...] I think that's going to be a tough position for McCain to sustain for the next three months."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "By simply asserting that he knows what the Iraqi government wants better than they do, and that we should trust his take on what they think over theirs, McCain can avoid the need to respond at all. It's a pity that this strategy requires that he look like a complete idiot, and adopt an insulting attitude towards the Iraqi government and its people that would surely not serve him well were he elected President, but them's the breaks."
• Think Progress' Satyam Khanna: "McCain is picking up a tactic from President [George W.] Bush: claiming that he can now speak for Iraqis and know what's best for them."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "It's the height of arrogance -- McCain doesn't need the opinions of the Iraqi prime minister, because he's John McCain."
• dday: "McCain basically said today that he knows better than the Iraqi government or its people how to best manage their future. It's the colonial mindset to a T."

IRAQ IV: Who Does This Help?

NRO's Peter Wehner denies that Maliki's remarks "are a vindication of Obama's position": "We can full expect Obama and his supporters to argue that Maliki's words, despite the clarification, are a vindication of Obama's position. Any such effort would be ludicrous [...Obama] was a relentless critic of the surge, even after it was clear the surge was not only working, but working beyond the expectations of even those who championed it. [...] We are now seeing the good fruits of the [Gen. David] Petraeus-led effort and, if things continue on their present course, we may be able to accelerate the drawdown of troops [...] For Obama and his campaign, however, to believe that Maliki's words are a vindication of his 'judgment to lead' is misguided. Obama was wrong -- consistently and spectacularly wrong -- on the most important national security decision since the Iraq war began. What Maliki said doesn't change that fact and, in some ways, it underscores it. Obama's record on Iraq and the surge is intellectually dishonest and reckless. We can only be glad that his plan, which would have removed all combat troops from Iraq in March 2008, was never put in place, and the defeat he would have authored has not come to pass."

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru responds to Wehner: "Sure, McCain can still argue that Obama's judgment, particularly on the surge, has been wrong. But Obama will also still be able to argue that McCain was wrong to support the invasion of Iraq in the first place. And on the forward-looking question, McCain's charge that Obama's course would be reckless is looking a lot weaker today. I don't see any way to deny that this development helps Obama."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff agrees with Ponnuru that Obama will benefit from the recent statements made by Iraqi officials: "Obama will likely profit from the fact that Iraq's leaders have made certain statements that Obama can claim (albeit somewhat misleadingly) reflect his basic position. As a result, Obama does not come off looking reckless or outside the present mainstream. Obama also profits from the fact that so much of the discussion is about what Iraq's leaders say. For one thing, it shifts the focus away from Obama's own incoherence and inconsistency and onto that of Iraqi politicians. For another, John McCain would almost certainly prefer that the focus be on what our generals are telling Obama. However, the generals feel an obligation not to become involved in American presidential politics. Iraq's leaders are under any such constraint, and the story so far is all about their various rather ambiguous remarks."

Other conservative bloggers are offering suggestions about how to deal with Iraq going forward:

• NRO's John Derbyshire: "Now that our American blood and money has seen off most of the enemies of Maliki and his Iranian pals, it is perfectly natural for them to believe they can finish the job themselves, without further assistance from us. Maliki can now afford to start putting distance between himself and the U.S.A. -- essential for political viability in a region where the U.S.A. is pretty generally hated. We should tell Maliki, loudly and in public, that he owes his job to us, and that further prosecution of our military operations in his country will be conducted with regard only to U.S. interests, as determined in consensus by our established domestic political processes. And if he doesn't like that, he can go to hell."
• AmSpec Blog's John Tabin: "I realize that lots of people -- particularly those skeptical of the prospects for stable Iraqi democracy -- are worried that Maliki is too close to Iran. But there's a case to be made that an honorable withdrawal frees our hand with Iran, at least in some ways. Fewer troops in Iraq mean fewer convenient American targets to retaliate against after a bombing run, after all."

MCCAIN: The Mysterious Iraq/Pakistan Border

Liberal bloggers are ridiculing McCain for alluding to "the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border" (Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border):

• SusanG: "The candidate with all the reputed serious credentials in national security doesn't know his geography well enough to distinguish between Iraq and Afghanistan."
• Atrios: "Very Serious Foreign Policy Expert John McCain doesn't seem to know which countries border each other."
• Firedoglake's watertiger: "These increasingly frequent international senior moments makes one nostalgic for those 'aw shucks' [Mike] Huckabee foreign policy fuckups. If McCain can't distinguish between Iran and Iraq, how does he expect people to buy his line that he's always been right about the war?"
• SilentPatriot: "How many more of these will it take before we finally dispense with the idea that John McCain is some sort of foreign policy genius who is uniquely qualified to be commander-in-chief?"
• Drum: "Even we partisans can get a little tired of pointing out John McCain's constant verbal flubs and, um, moments of confusion. But Jesus. The question was about Afghanistan in the first place, which was an obvious invitation to talk about its ongoing border problems with the tribal areas of Pakistan. So what does McCain do? He deliberately pivots away to mention the nonexistent Iraq/Pakistan border. Does he even know what a map of central Asia looks like? Isn't this supposed to be his strong suit?"
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "John McCain, whose campaign is based on his long-time foreign policy experience, told ABC that's he very worried about the Iraq/Pakistan border. But, there isn't one. Iran, a somewhat important nation in the scheme of things in the Middle East, is in between. [...] Pretty basic stuff. Pretty big mistake for John McCain."
• Think Progress' Ali Frick: "Before McCain repeats his claim to 'know how to win wars,' he should probably look at a map."

MCCAIN II: What Happened To Straight Talk?

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain's new TV ad, "Pump", which blames Obama for rising gas prices. Liberal bloggers are portraying McCain's ad as blatantly dishonest:

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "John McCain has often said that he would run a respectful campaign, but he never said anything about running an honest one. [...] Did he forget that his own campaign said: '...allowing new offshore drilling would have no immediate impact on supplies or gas prices.' Did he forget all that or is he just lying?"
• Drum: "Is the McCain campaign losing it? In an ad today about spiraling gasoline prices, the narrator asks portentously: 'Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?' This is accompanied by [Obama's picture] and background noise of a crowd chanting 'Obama! Obama!' Are they serious? They're going to try to convince the American public that Barack Obama is responsible for $4 gasoline? Or is this one of those pseudo-ads that never really gets aired anywhere and is released just to see if it can get some press attention from suckers like me? Regardless, this is really lame."
• Benen: "For McCain, it appears the equation is simple. If abandoning honor and honesty will give him the presidency, then so be it. The truth, McCain has concluded, is for losers. To anyone who cares about reality, the ad doesn't make a lick of sense. McCain has to hope, desperately, that we're all idiots. For example, the ad says gas prices are high 'because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America.' How's that, exactly? No one is saying no to 'drilling in America.' There's all kinds of drilling in America. There's drilling in U.S. waters, and on U.S. land. I don't know of a single U.S. policy maker who wants 'drilling in America' to stop. Worse, the ad wants Americans to believe that prices would be lower if there was more 'drilling in America.' McCain knows that's not true, but hopes to fool just enough people, playing them for suckers. It's shameful."
• Yglesias: "John McCain's new ad says that Barack Obama's refusal to open America's coastline to drilling is to blame for high gas prices. [...] They say nobody ever went wrong underestimating the intelligence of the voting public, but it is staggering that you can't find any credible people anywhere prepared to argue that McCain's drilling schemes will bring any short-term relief from high gas prices or that the long-run price reductions would be anything other than tiny. Meanwhile, it's McCain who has no plan to help bolster alternative fuels and no plan to bolster alternatives to driving."

MyDD's Todd Beeton thinks the ad is effective: "The Republicans seem to have settled on the message that the real problem with the concept of dependence on foreign oil is the 'foreign' part, not the 'oil' part, so the only way to solve the crisis is to drill our way out of it here at home. Over the past few days, we've seen a real flipping of the conventional wisdom script that 'it's always a good day for John McCain if the conversation is about Iraq and it's a good day for Barack Obama if the conversation is about domestic issues.' The fact that McCain is forcing this issue is reflective not only that he'd like to change the subject away from Obama's Iraq trip, but also that, between his insistence on more drilling off our shores and in ANWR and his gas tax holiday sham, McCain's false promise of immediate relief to soaring gas prices is connecting."

Open Left's Matt Stoller disagrees with Beeton: "I don't think McCain's attack will work on Obama, since it is saying something that Americans fundamentally don't believe. The ad suggests that prices are rising because of insufficient drilling, and that more drilling will lower prices. That isn't true, and polling suggests people know it isn't true. An ad that says something along the lines of 'this isn't a total solution, but it's a start' would be much more credible as an attack on Obama. [...] If you drilled everything there is in the US tomorrow and oil started coming out of the ground tomorrow, gas prices would drop by about three cents."

MCCAIN III: Killing The Dems On Energy?

On the right side of the blogosphere, Conn Carroll critiques Stoller's post: "The netroots are genuinely frightened about the success of conservative messaging on energy. [...] Matt Stoller is reduced to just making stuff up. [...] According to the Energy Information Administration, if the bans on energy development were lifted for the OCS and ANWR, America's current oil reserves would more than double. Considering that the U.S. currently produces only 34% of its oil needs, doubling that capacity would have to bring down prices by way more than three cents."

Other conservative bloggers love McCain's ad:

• NRO's Mark Hemingway: "McCain's latest ad on domestic oil drilling is a very good and effective one, I think."
• Glenn Reynolds: "I think this [ad] will have some traction."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The McCain campaign came out with this terrific ad today, blasting Obama for his adamant opposition to developing our domestic petroleum resources. [...] The ad is running on broadcast TV in eleven swing states and on cable nationwide. They can't run it often enough, as far as I'm concerned."

OBAMA: Politics Over Principle?

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama for telling ABC's Terry Moran that if he had to do it over again, he still would have opposed the surge:

Moran: "If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?"
Obama: "No, because keep in mind..."
Moran: "You wouldn't?"
Obama: "Well, these kind of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. I think what I'm absolutely convinced of is that at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with and continue to disagree with, which is to look narrowly at Iraq and not focus on the broader issues."

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "So basically, even though the surge has been a tremendous success that has actually made withdrawing troops under stable conditions a much better possibility, he still wouldn't have supported it because he had a political disagreement with Bush. Obama would rather see failure in Iraq than take off his ideological blinders."
• Hinderaker: "Obama told ABC News that, knowing what we know now -- that the surge in Iraq has been a success, that it has drastically reduced violence and given Iraq a shot at a bright future -- he would still oppose it. [...] This was, I think, a moment of candor. To explain his seemingly-shocking response, Obama immediately referred to political considerations. Opposing the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, even if that opposition turned out to be wrong, was a necessary ingredient in Obama's securing the Democratic Presidential nomination. That being the case, how can Obama, a purely political animal, regret a decision that advanced his own career?"
• Wehner: "That Obama opposed the surge is bad enough -- but that opposition was not itself irresponsible or unforgiveable. It was understandable, if in retrospect quite wrong, to believe that Iraq, caught in an apparent death spiral in the latter half of 2006, was unsalvageable. Critics of the surge argued that we were sending American troops to die in a lost cause. It turned out that Iraq was redeemable and that the President's strategy, brilliantly executed by General Petraeus and the American military, worked faster and better than anyone thought possible. To say that he would oppose a military plan that one day may well rank as among the best in our history is stunning. Whatever would motivate Obama to say what he did -- political cowardice, willful denial, astonishing blindness to the facts, or the mindset of an ideologue -- it ought to cause Americans to rethink, in the most fundamental way, whether Obama is responsible enough to be President."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "This, of course, opens the door for many follow-up questions that will no doubt plague Obama for days to come. Already, columnists and pundits are weighing-in. Washington Post's Dan Balz said: 'Obama's opposition to the troop 'surge' that has helped quell violence and U.S. casualties -- and that McCain vociferously supported -- leaves plenty of room for further questions about his judgment at that moment.' [...] Obama will hold a press conference to 'explain' his statement today. Will the press let him off the hook...again???"
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "A better answer would have been, 'No, because Iraqi security isn't worth any more American lives.' Which is not to be confused with the correct answer, 'No, because I wouldn't have been nominated if I did.'"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Declaring Victory

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini offers some thoughts on how McCain should frame the Iraq debate:

"The developments over the last few days with Al-Maliki suggest that Republicans are at some point soon going to have to begin incorporating withdrawal into their lexicon. That's because we're winning. And a big reason why we're winning is John McCain. The only reason that Obama can talk about 16 months and not sound radical is because the surge has worked. [...]

At some point, this debate is going to have to stop being retrospective (where were you on the surge?) and start being about you draw down troops and still preserve the security gains that came from the surge John McCain fought for. There is a danger, to the extent we are seen as turning the corner, that Obama could align himself with a sense of rising optimism on Iraq through calls for withdrawal. And anyone suggesting an open-ended commitment could come to be seen as the pessimists, a role reversal from the last five years. The public's reasoning will no longer be, 'It's hopeless, so we must withdraw.' It could be, 'We're winning, so we can safely withdraw.'

And before I get catcalls on this, remember that John McCain sees an end date: 2013. So this is something we're going to have to begin preparing for. What can we do to make sure that the debate is one of 'draw down and win' vs. 'precipitously withdraw and lose?'"

LEST WE FORGET: Man Given Points For Trying Increases Total Trying Points To 643,457

From The Onion:

"HIAWATHA, IA -- After a failed attempt to surprise his family with a chili dinner Friday, Frank Hayden, 38, was given 16 points for trying by his wife, Laura, thereby increasing his running total of trying points to 643,457. 'I told him you have to brown the meat before you put the sauce in, or else it doesn't cook right,' Mrs. Hayden said. 'At least he put in the effort.' The failed sauce follows a lifetime of attempts that have earned Hayden points for trying, including failing to climb a rope in fifth-grade gym class, screwing up a tryout to play guitar for an area band, botching his attempt to fix the radio of his 1994 Saab 900, incorrectly ordering a meal in Spanish, and his eldest daughter, Carmen. Hayden is currently trying to save up the 750,000 trying points needed to get a beanbag chair."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at July 22, 2008 01:43 PM