Posted by Damozel | Re: The value to Obama of Maliki's statement (discussed here), Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars says; 'Ooh, that’s gotta leave a mark when you make your campaign all about your foreign policy expertise.' But Josh Marshall wondered whether the White House would 'muscle Maliki into a retraction of some sort.'
Yep. As Libby says at The Impolitic, 'it didn't take long for the White House to walk Maliki back.' But --- as she and Josh Marshall say --- that's going to be a lot for the public to unswallow.
He's already said he was misinterpreted, but come on. That's a whole lot of statement to misconstrue.... [E]verybody is going to know that Maliki was forced into a retraction. (The Impolitic)
Warren Street at Blue Girl, Red State speculates:
Someone probably blistered Maliki good--via video conference call or perhaps in person. Someone had to have felt the rage of John McCain today. Somewhere, Bob Gates is smiling, and, somewhere, the cracks in the rotten edifice of this administration showed a little more clearly than before. They cannot control Maliki, but they can threaten him and get him to backtrack after he humiliates them.
The Anonymous Liberal writes:
Tellingly, though, the spokesman doesn't offer any real clarification of the initial remarks, so it's not clear what exactly was misunderstood. I suspect the answer is nothing. This subsequent statement has all the markings of something hastily thrown together to appease the Bush administration. I'd love to have been privy to some of the heated communications that took place between the White House and Maliki's office this afternoon. Needless to say, it's more than a little unseemly for our government to be putting diplomatic pressure on the Iraqi government in order to get them to say things solely intended to influence a domestic political election. Then again, this is an administration that has no shame at all, so this is hardly a shocking development. (emphasis added)
I don't think --- to use a Bush-like idiom --- that dog's gonna hunt. I really don't.
So, setting aside Maliki's attempt to unsay what he said... at Democracy Arsenal, optimist Ilan Goldberg says, 'It's Over.' Goldberg asks, 'Is there anything left to say?' Sadly, there is.
Re: Maliki's pre-'mistranslation' retraction, already the spin machines are already in full gear. Joe Gandelman says:
[N]ever underestimate the ability of [politicos] to come up with a way to spin themselves out of having to admit their position has been undermined.
Via Polimom ('twas she who found it) some pre-official spin spin:
This is just flat-out funny. And I really feel compelled to respond to this little tidbit from The American Mind (my emphasis):
First, realize Maliki sees Obama as the Presidential front runner. It’s rational not to rock the boat. Second, Iraq and the U.S. wouldn’t be in this situation if it weren’t for the surge that quelled violence.
That is absolutely the McCain campaign’s narrative on Iraq. It has to be, since it’s all they’ve got now. And you can bet your bottom dollar that many millions of Americans will recall — with or without the reminders that are surely coming — that the dire situation that led to the surge was predicated by an incredibly stupid invasion. (Polimom)
The Liberal Journal remarks:
Now the Right is framing the entire "judgment" question around the Surge. It's because it's the only shred of non-incompetence they have to hang on to.
On that score, Andrew Sullivan said:
In the last few days, the McCain campaign and his supporters began pursuing th[e] strategy [of running on the surge]. An independent pro-McCain group, Let Freedom Ring, announced today it is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars running an ad attacking Obama over Iraq. And the McCain campaign put out a new TV ad along similar lines yesterday. But with Maliki backing Obama's Iraq strategy and Bush accepting time horizons, those ads feel tone-deaf.
Whiskey Fire wonders how Captain Ed and others of the Hot Air ilk will cope, and provides an illustrative clip.
The exercise yard at the Hot Air asylum is littered with rakes, and nobody over there can figure out what keeps smacking them in the gob.
Here's how, by the way:
Barry O’s accomplished the foreign policy masterstroke here of screaming for withdrawal year after year when it would have been a horrific idea and now, with the jihadis and militias finally subdued to the point where it at least wouldn’t be disastrous, he wants credit for having been ahead of the curve. You truly are a visionary, Messiah.
Nice try.
And of course, here's that anonymous senior official to turn you right around.
His domestic politics require him to be for us getting out," said a senior McCain campaign official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "The military says 'conditions based' and Maliki said 'conditions based' yesterday in the joint statement with Bush. Regardless, voters care about [the] military, not about Iraqi leaders." (Marc Ambinder; emphasis added)
Respecting this typical bit of fact-digestion-and-deformation, Chris LeJeune at VetVoice writes
Why would is "domestic politics" require [McCain] to support a withdrawal if the Iraqis want us there? This is an open admission that the majority of Iraqi voters oppose our continued occupation. But he clears that up at the end; "voters care about [the] military, not about Iraqi leaders".
At Donklephant, Justin Gardner writes:
[A]ll this talk of moral obligation? Well, it just got flipped on its head. Now we have a moral obligation to leave them alone, and sooner rather than later.
In the meantime, strong sentiment that this is really good for Obama/not so good for McCain.
Sit on this and spin, Bush and McCain. 'Retraction' or no retraction, it's out there again.
Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger:
By any reasonable measure, this is pretty extraordinary. The Bush-backed Iraqi prime minister has endorsed Obama’s withdrawal policy, both in general and by name..It’s extraordinary. Assuming the report is accurate, and that there wasn’t some kind of translation problem, the prime minister of Iraq believes John McCain is wrong about everything — the utility of withdrawal, the notion of “defeat,” the extended stay, everything..
Big Tent Democrat (no big Obama fan) at Talk Left:
I believe this is devastating to John McCain.
Matt Yglesias makes the important point that it isn't a question of doing what the Iraqis want because they want it, but of respecting their sovereignty:
We shouldn't slavishly adhere to whatever the Iraqi government happens to want (if they say we need 100,000 soldiers in Iraq for the next 20 years, we need to tell them no way) but as even John McCain and George Bush used to admit if the Iraqis want us to leave we really have to leave.
At Poliblog, Dr Steven Taylor:
For Maliki to essentially endorse the notion that a phased withdrawal in line with what Obama has suggested is to give Obama enhanced credence.... In terms of pure politics, it stands in stark contrast with McCain’s statement about potentially being in Iraq for 100 years. ((And yes, I know he meant in a peaceful capacity, a la South Korea, but the bottom line is that leaving in 16 months. I even understand that a phased withdrawal of combat troops over 16 months will not mean the utter cessation of a US presence. However, I am speaking here in terms of political perception.) Beyond that, when it comes to basic policy direction, Maliki’s statement bolsters Obama’s position, not McCain’s.
BONUS: Most entertainingly, the White House accidentally emailed out the Reuters article to its whole media list. Jake Tapper:
The misfire comes at an odd time for Bush foreign policy, at a time when Obama’s campaign alleges the president is moving closer toward Obama’s recommendations about international relations — sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, discussing a “general time horizon” for U.S. troop withdrawal and launching talks with Iran.
Yes, 'odd' is a good word in this context. it is very odd indeed that Bush seems to see the merit in Obama's foreign policy recommendations when John McCain just can't seem to.
Paddy at The Political Carnival: 'Oops. Someone's in trouble.' Heh.
At Newshoggers, Libby says:
I suppose that the last thing the administration wanted to do was draw more attention to the fact that they are suddenly adopting all of Obama's policy positions as their own.
The GTL reflects on the internets-challenged GOP.
For those who didn’t already know it...John McCain (be sure to roll the “R”), is also more than just a little bit “Internets challenged” himself, not even knowing the difference between the “Start” button and a “Pipe” OR a “Tube”, which makes him a “shoo-in” for President Bush’s replacement for those who resist “change”…
Hip, hip, HOORAY for the members of the Grand Old Party (G.O.P.) for learning more and more about how the “Pipes, Tubes and Internets” work. And “KUDOS” to...McCain for his aggressive leaps and bounds forward to embrace the webs.
OTHER RELATED POSTINGS
Iraqi PM Endorses Obama's 16-Month Withdrawal Plan
Bush Agrees to Timeline for Withdrawing Troops from Iraq?
Obama: It's Time to Begin to End the War
Iraqis Unhappy with US Demand for Indefinite Presence
RECENT POSTINGS
The Very Privileged Richard Cheney
Former Attorney General John Ashcroft: Waterboarding Isn't Torture
Comments