Maliki's Game-Changer

Marc Ambinder has the best analysis of the devastating impact of Nouri al-Maliki's statements to McCain's arguments about Iraq:

This could be one of those unexpected events that forever changes the way the world perceives an issue. Iraq's Prime Minister agrees with Obama, and there's no wiggle room or fudge factor. This puts John McCain in an extremely precarious spot: what's left to argue? to argue against Maliki would be to predicate that Iraqi sovereignty at this point means nothing. Obviously, our national interests aren't equivalent to Iraq's, but... Malik isn't listening to the generals on the ground...but the "hasn't been to Iraq" line doesn't work here.

Team McCain follows up with this statement:

"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."

Even granting the premise that Maliki's statements are purely about Iraqi domestic politics, all this amounts to is the fact that Barack Obama's plan for Iraq is, according to both the Maliki government and the McCain campaign's analysis, the only way forward that's politically viable in Iraq. Meanwhile of course the US military has more credibility with the American people than does the Iraqi government, but given the particulars of this case it's just a no brainer that if the Iraqi government doesn't want us to stay we have to leave. McCain even said so himself before conceding the point became damaging to his campaign.

Comments

Have you seen the footage of Barack getting nuthin' but net on his first shot from the three point line at a gym in front of the troops in Kuwait?

It is one of the first time I've ever seen troops at a dog and pony show that seemed genuinely electrified to be at the dog and pony show.

The troops LUVS them some Barack in a way I've never seen them respond to a politician.

Posted by calipygian | July 19, 2008 4:14 PM

O Karma, thee a bitch!

In 1979, the shia's of Iran sank the presidency of Carter when they played him and refused to turn over the hostages, and in essences handed the presidency to Ronald Reagan! In 2008, the shia's of Iraq are going to sink the chances of Mccain becoming the president of the U.S.

O Karma, thee a bitch!

Posted by suggestive | July 19, 2008 4:15 PM

Josh Marshall agrees with you and Marc Ambinder. This particular story adds up to more than "a bad news cycle." Josh actually suggests that it's a blow McCain may not be able to recover from.

Posted by Ted | July 19, 2008 4:16 PM

Maybe we're overreacting, though. All this really does is neutralize McCain's arguments about Iraq. He can still run on his economic creden . . .

Posted by Ted | July 19, 2008 4:20 PM

This is the sort of thing that Ambinder is useful for: he's telling us what "all the Washington reporters are saying." If the Washington press corps conventional wisdom has coalesced around Obama for this news story, McCain is really screwed.

Posted by Tyro | July 19, 2008 4:33 PM

Well, he can still run on sheer personal magnet . . .

Hmm.

I like Marc's summary even more than Josh Marshall's:

Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, "We're fucked."

Posted by Ted | July 19, 2008 4:34 PM

Politico's Ben Smith put it best when he wrote: "aren't domestic politics just another way of saying 'what Iraqis want'?"

This is bad news for Straight Talkin' McCain.

Posted by Troy Flowers | July 19, 2008 4:35 PM

If only this were happening in October.

Posted by ben | July 19, 2008 4:40 PM

McCain should just try a little straight-talking and tell Maliki that the US isn't in Iraq for Iraq but for GOP domestic electoral politics. That'll shut the guy up.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 19, 2008 4:40 PM

Ben: Nah, I like it happening right before Obama visits Iraq. This is the issue we want front and center now, so we get the maximum boost out of the video that the news channels will inevitably be running. In October, it'll be time to focus on the economy, and more broadly, on the right track / wrong track issue.

Posted by Ted | July 19, 2008 4:47 PM

"Regardless, voters care about [the] military, not about Iraqi leaders."

This breaks down to the fundamental lie of the Republican sound bite "Support the troops." The left's version is "Support the troops! Bring them home!" The Republican version is "Support the troops! Keep them in a meat grinder .. for a hundred years!"

It's all about the troops. Right?

Posted by Amos Anan | July 19, 2008 5:00 PM

"Regardless, voters care about [the] military, not about Iraqi leaders."

This breaks down to the fundamental lie of the Republican sound bite "Support the troops." The left's version is "Support the troops! Bring them home!" The Republican version is "Support the troops! Keep them in a meat grinder .. for a hundred years!"

It's all about the troops. Right?

Posted by Amos Anan | July 19, 2008 5:02 PM

The question is, what will the Obama campaign do with this? Start airing ads early next week that tells Americans of the Maliki endorsement, that tells Americans a vote for Obama is a vote to "bring them home" in 16 months?

They need to wrap their arms around this quick and define it on their terms before the Republicans do. It would make a great response to the new McCain attack ad that started yesterday.

Posted by Mike H. | July 19, 2008 5:06 PM

The question is, what will the Obama campaign do with this? Start airing ads early next week that tells Americans of the Maliki endorsement, that tells Americans a vote for Obama is a vote to "bring them home" in 16 months?

They need to wrap their arms around this quick and define it on their terms before the Republicans do. It would make a great response to the new McCain attack ad that started yesterday.

Posted by Mike H. | July 19, 2008 5:09 PM

Far be it for me to get conspiratorial, but it does seem like George Bush is doing absolutely nothing to stop the McCain campaign bleeding on this one. Is it possible that he's sick of McCain sassin' him in the press and in ads, and is trying to do some legacy-salvaging at McCain's expense?

Posted by Dave M | July 19, 2008 5:17 PM

McCain is projecting when he attributes Maliki's endorsement of Obama's plan to the necessity of domestic politics.

There is almost nothing McCain does or says anymore that isn't a concession to the fact that he is a poor candidate saddled with the burden of representing the wrong party.

Of course political conditions within Iraq shape Maliki's behavior--ending wars and creating order out of chaos is ultimately a political problem.

Once again, McCain demonstrates that he just doesn't understand the world around him.

Despite his many years and travels.

Posted by Jeff | July 19, 2008 5:18 PM

McCain is projecting when he attributes Maliki's endorsement of Obama's plan to the necessity of domestic politics.

There is almost nothing McCain does or says anymore that isn't a concession to the fact that he is a poor candidate saddled with the burden of representing the wrong party.

Of course political conditions within Iraq shape Maliki's behavior--ending wars and creating order out of chaos is ultimately a political problem.

Once again, McCain demonstrates that he just doesn't understand the world around him.

Despite his many years and travels.

Posted by Jeff | July 19, 2008 5:20 PM

Strange that this "devastating" "game-changer" doesn't seem to be generating much excitement in the media. Maybe Matthew and Ambinder need to turn down their reality-distortion fields a couple of notches.

Just this week, Obama suggested that his "timetable" for withdrawal may be subject to change in response to consultations with military "commanders on the ground" and the Iraqi government. So if the Iraqi government advises Obama to stick to his timetable and "commanders on the ground" advise him that he should extend it, what's he going to do? Whose advice will he follow? Does Maliki trump General Petraeus? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by Mixner | July 19, 2008 5:25 PM

Mixner -

Maliki is the head of the sovreign Iraqi government as Preznunt Bush loves to remind us at every opporitunity.

General Petrareus is merely the commander of an army of occupation.

It should be blindingly obvious to a non-Bush Administration shill (I.E. non-retard) which suggestion should take precidence.

Posted by calipygian | July 19, 2008 5:29 PM

Well Mixner, it has prominent, huge font, headline status on Drudge right now, and as we know, he rules the media's world. No doubt it'll be a major topic on the sunday shows.

Posted by mad6798 | July 19, 2008 5:30 PM

So if the Iraqi government advises Obama to stick to his timetable and "commanders on the ground" advise him that he should extend it, what's he going to do? Whose advice will he follow?

You're confusing tactics with strategy.

Obama will tell his military leaders to figure out how to get us out of Iraq as soon as possible. They're not going to advise them that they can't do that. If the timeline they draft up isn't fast enough for Maliki, then Nouri's out of luck. Full stop.

Posted by Jake | July 19, 2008 5:30 PM

Far be it for me to get conspiratorial, but it does seem like George Bush is doing absolutely nothing to stop the McCain campaign bleeding on this one. Is it possible that he's sick of McCain sassin' him in the press and in ads, and is trying to do some legacy-salvaging at McCain's expense?

I don't think Bush has ever forgiven McCain for challenging his run for the presidency in 2000. In the eyes of the Bush family, the McCain family has always been considered "the help." Bush might view 2008 as an opportunity to give McCain one more reminder of that.

Posted by Tyro | July 19, 2008 5:32 PM

This is interesting, too.

From The Sunday Times | July 20, 2008

British troops may be home from Iraq in a year

Francis Elliott in London and Marie Colvin in Baghdad

The prime minister yesterday gave the clearest hint yet that most British forces will be withdrawn from Iraq next year as he announced that their work was nearing completion.

Visiting Baghdad and Basra, Gordon Brown said he was ready to “reduce troop numbers” and announced a four-stage plan to bring them home.

A spokesman for Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, confirmed that the final withdrawal could come “within a year”.

A wider initiative is under way to draw up conditions for the departure of all foreign troops from Iraqi soil and end the five-year occupation.

http://tinyurl.com/BritTroop1Yr

Posted by El Cid | July 19, 2008 5:34 PM

I think Ezra's about right:

To really understand the importance of Maliki's comments, you need to consider their opposite. Imagine if Maliki had walked in front of the cameras and said, "at this stage, a timetable for withdrawal is unrealistic, and we hope our American friends will not bow to domestic political pressures and be hasty in leaving Iraq just as the country improves." It would be a transformative moment in this election. John McCain would talk of nothing else. The cable shows would talk of nothing else. Magazines would run thousands of covers about "Obama's Iraq Problem." Obama would probably lose the race.

I think that's mostly right, and I think we can be fairly confident the story will get the attention it deserves. When Ambinder, Tapper, Smith, Drudge, Halperin, and Swampland put this kind of oomph behind a story, it will cross over into cable coverage and front pages. Plus, this development is important context for next week's main story, both campaigns have seen fit to make statements, and the White House blooper has given the story a little Freak Show flavor.

Posted by southpaw | July 19, 2008 5:42 PM

Mixner: "Whose advice will he follow? Does Maliki trump General Petraeus? Inquiring minds want to know.'"

beyond parody. The "advice" of the sovereign iraqi government is actually, you know, backed up by power and threats. Petraeus is the servant of the POTUS and has to do whatever the POTUS wants him to do. who trumps who? Ignorant retards want to know.

Posted by raft | July 19, 2008 5:42 PM

And for all we know, Petraeus might be telling Obama:

"Look. I've been doing the best I can, but now that the Boy Prince and that insane fucknut Cheney are gone, how about getting us the fuck out of this hellhole before we break the Army for good?"

Petraeus follows orders. He may have been telling Bush all along that he's fucked up, but Bush keeps on telling him to keep on keeping on. We really don't know, now, do we?

Obama will give the order. Petraeus will salute and carry it out or resign. Its as simple as that. And if Petraeus can't in good conscience get the troops out in 16 months, then he fucking well better resign.

Posted by calipygian | July 19, 2008 5:46 PM

The overall story will likely be nearly invisible by Monday (although it shouldn't) given our dumb as a post news media system, but the story made the 2nd in line at Fox Nooz:

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l291/enbuenora/FoxNooz-Maliki_Obama.jpg

The top international news stories, nearly everywhere I saw, have to do with the US-Iran meeting and what it might portend and Obama's 'surprise' trip to Afghanistan.

Posted by El Cid | July 19, 2008 5:48 PM

Obama can't rely on the media. He has to bring it to the forefront on his own. Obama can force the media to make this a story if he wants to.

This would be breaking news on every cable news station if Maliki said the opposite. Everybody thinks Obama is going to have a good trip and win the election. The media is only concerned with stuff that flies in the face of that wisdom. They only want gaffes, they want to be on top of his screw ups.

Posted by Mike H. | July 19, 2008 6:08 PM

jake,
You're confusing tactics with strategy.

You're pretending you can read Obama's mind. Where has he stated that he will stick to his 16-month timetable regardless of what military commanders or anyone else advises?

raft,
beyond parody. The "advice" of the sovereign iraqi government is actually, you know, backed up by power and threats.

Beyond stupid. What power and threats? Where has Maliki made any threats whatsoever regarding the withdrawal?

Posted by Mixner | July 19, 2008 6:26 PM

"His domestic politics require him to be for us getting out," said a senior McCain campaign official,

This McCain official has committed the basic, but understandable error of projecting the workings of American politics upon the Iraqi scene.

He is presuming that Maliki's opposition is as craven as the Democrats.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | July 19, 2008 6:26 PM

You're right, Mike. 'S why it sucks to be winning.

But don't worry, they're on it.

http://thepage.time.com/obama-memo-on-foreign-policy/

Posted by Ted | July 19, 2008 6:30 PM

Obama suggested that his "timetable" for withdrawal may be subject to change in response to consultations with military "commanders on the ground"

If the generals tell Obama that the logistics of a withdrawal require 17 months rather than 16, then it will take 17 months. We aren't going to have anyone dangling from the skids as the last helicopter takes off from the embassy roof, this time.

If the generals tell Obama that we need to stay in Iraq for the next century or so, then he will find himself a new set of generals, and properly so.

On details of tactics and logistics, the president ought ordinarily to defer to the experts. Strategy is his proper concern.

Posted by rea | July 19, 2008 6:33 PM

Hey Mixner, you going to reply to mad6798 at 5:30 p.m., or are you just going to let that one slide and admit you were wrong?

Posted by Ted | July 19, 2008 6:33 PM

The overall story will likely be nearly invisible by Monday (although it shouldn't) given our dumb as a post news media system, but the story made the 2nd in line at Fox Nooz: http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l291/enbuenora/FoxNooz-Maliki_Obama.jpg

Well done for capturing that image. How long was it there for? 30 seconds? I just went to foxnews.com, and the story's already been relegated to the second item of the second topic. I don't see any mention of it at all on the New York Times home page. Yes, it must really be a "devastating game-changer."

Posted by Mixner | July 19, 2008 6:35 PM

While you're at it, Mixner, do you have a reply for calipygian at 5:29 p.m.? That comment seemed to me to nullify the whole point of your intervention, but if you want to let it slide, I'm fine with that.

Posted by Ted | July 19, 2008 6:36 PM

"Even granting the premise that Maliki's statements are purely about Iraqi domestic politics..."

'Iraqi domestic politics' is what the guy does. What the hell else do you think it's about?

Posted by converse | July 19, 2008 6:38 PM

It's the top story on MSNBC and CBS, as well as Drudge.

Newspapers are slower to update than non-print media. It'll appear on the papers this evening. How often do you see int'l political stories that appear on Drudge, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC, but not in the New York Times?

Posted by Ted | July 19, 2008 6:47 PM

Now it's the top story on CNN as well.

Posted by Ted | July 19, 2008 6:53 PM

The McCain claim that al-Maliki's statement is just about domestic politics doesn't work.

If al-Maliki was just playing to Iraqi audiences, he would have been satisfied with last week's statement about the need for a timetable. That would have thrown a bone to Iraqi sentiment while maintaining wiggle-room about the time frame for withdrawing American troops.

Instead, al-Maliki was specific about his support for Obama's 16 month framework for withdrawing troops. It was also significant that al-Maliki criticized the right-wing's equation of troop withdrawals with American defeat.

It appears that the al-Maliki government has made a fundamental judgment that Bush is not a good ally and that McCain would not be a good ally either. Given all the innocent people killed by the American military, the Blackwater massacre, the arrest of Maliki family members, and the Bush administration's aggressive initial position on the Status of Forces negotiations, it appears that an increasingly confident al-Maliki has decided to throw them under the bus.

Posted by Ric Caric | July 19, 2008 6:54 PM

I swear Mixner, you're not just one of the stupidest fucking guys on the internet, you're like a caricature of the stupidest fucking guy on the internet.

Posted by McKingford | July 19, 2008 7:01 PM

If al-Maliki was just playing to Iraqi audiences, he would have been satisfied with last week's statement about the need for a timetable. That would have thrown a bone to Iraqi sentiment while maintaining wiggle-room about the time frame for withdrawing American troops.

If Maliki were playing to an Iraqi domestic audience, he wouldn't have said it to Der Speigel. Remind me again to where Obama is going after the Middle East?

I think it was the country with some Gate in it...

Posted by calipygian | July 19, 2008 7:02 PM

Main story on CNN now. Mixner, you can suck it.

Posted by Jake | July 19, 2008 7:07 PM

Jake,
Main story on CNN now.

Patience, my young padawan. Do CNN call it a "devastating game-changer," or words to that effect?

I swear Mixner, you're not just one of the stupidest fucking guys on the internet,

I swear, "McKingford," you are the most idiotic, moronic, cretinous, stupid, foolish imbecile on the planet.

Posted by Mixner | July 19, 2008 7:20 PM

McKingford nailed it.

Posted by fp | July 19, 2008 7:22 PM

Game. Set. Match.

Dave H, you're right. History will look back and see that George Bush screwed John McCain out of the Presidency twice.

Posted by Chewie | July 19, 2008 7:24 PM

Juan Cole was on the Rachel Maddow show yesterday and was very interesting about this. He mentioned that Maliki has emerged as a real leader in Iraq and definitely wanted the US to withdraw it's troops. Cole also mentioned that Maliki knew he had the administration over a barrel as far as U.S. election politics went. He mentioned that the Iraqi congress had already voted for a demand that the U.S. withdraw their troops by 12/31 this year. Cole commented that if Maliki came out in favor of this referendum that he could profoundly influence U.S. politics.

And so Maliki has, just not in the way that Mr. Cole layed out on the radio just yesterday. Still, it was very prescient.

Posted by AnotherBruce | July 19, 2008 7:51 PM

Before all of you get too wrapped up in your chortlefest over the "game changer" please note that an Iraqi official has already been dredged up to deny the quote:

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.'"

Posted by Steve S. | July 19, 2008 8:06 PM

Yes, but it looks like a non-denial denial to me. The official never states that Maliki didn't make those statements, just that they were "mistranslated". Well then, what did he say?

Posted by AnotherBruce | July 19, 2008 8:24 PM

I have the sinking feeling that al-Maliki will not be with us much longer. Something about a bomb and a glitch in his personal security detail.

Posted by Joel | July 19, 2008 8:27 PM

Jake,

Main story on CNN now.

And now it's gone. That didn't take long, did it? The story has also been shunted off to a sidebar on MSNBC.

But not to worry, we're assured it's a "devastating game-changer," so this must be some oversight.

Posted by Mixner | July 19, 2008 8:29 PM

please note that an Iraqi official has already been dredged up to deny the quote: 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.'"

Oops!

Posted by Mixner | July 19, 2008 8:31 PM

"were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."

Hmm. Doesn't say exactly what part was misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately. I don't see much vindication here, Mixner. But then, I'm not looking at the world in a tinfoil hat.

Posted by Joel | July 19, 2008 8:40 PM

Hmm. Doesn't say exactly what part was misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.

Spin, spin, spin.

I'm not looking at the world in a tinfoil hat.

No, just one with "Sucker!" written on it.

Posted by Mixner | July 19, 2008 8:51 PM

Well, Der Spiegel can put this to rest (or not) - is there a tape of the interview?

Posted by Gold Star for Robot Boy | July 19, 2008 8:54 PM

"Yes, but it looks like a non-denial denial to me. The official never states that Maliki didn't make those statements, just that they were 'mistranslated'. Well then, what did he say?"

It doesn't matter. He called for a timetable a couple of weeks ago, too. The press blandly notes these things, then moves on to important topics like Obama's bowling score. If Maliki says this a dozen more times and then adds, "American troops will be in Iraq two years from now over my dead body," then our intrepid media might finally start to care, but until then this is for them just another case of one of the brown-skinned folks out in the provinces speaking out of turn.

Posted by Steve S. | July 19, 2008 9:10 PM

"Spin, spin, spin."

Oh, my. Somebody is getting a little desperate.

Heh.

Posted by Joel | July 19, 2008 9:12 PM

Good one, Joel. Of course, you're "Doesn't say exactly what part was misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately" doesn't smack of desperation at all. You're clearly not desperately clinging to the hope that Maliki said what Der Spiegel reported him as saying. No sir. No sign of desperation whatsoever.

Posted by Mixner | July 19, 2008 9:17 PM

Domestic politics=democracy. Isn't that our supposed purpose there? Game over.

(One reason the media is not all over this is because it's a lazy Saturday in the dog days of summer. The cable news nets are all running non-news shows for the most part. Let's see how the Sunday gab fests deal with this. That aside, this story is being widely circulated. Google news had thousands of hits on the story.)

Posted by latichever | July 19, 2008 9:22 PM

Heh.

The Maliki quote has legs, Mixner. AP:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/maliki_obama

The non-retraction is a non-story.

I love it!

Posted by Joel | July 19, 2008 9:23 PM

One reason the media is not all over this is because it's a lazy Saturday in the dog days of summer.

What, not even for a "devastating game-changer?"

Posted by matchipuller | July 19, 2008 9:25 PM

Mixmaster,
Would you rather have a story break your way only to have the story's subject claim being misunderstood/mistranslated/not conveyed accurately, or do you enjoy better being in your current position?

Posted by Gold Star for Robot Boy | July 19, 2008 9:26 PM

The Maliki quote has legs,

Translation: Yahoo News is slow to update its stories.

Posted by Viper Attack for Robot Boy | July 19, 2008 9:30 PM

The last ditch GOP sputter will be..."but we can't have foreigners dictating our policy!"

Posted by jimbo | July 19, 2008 9:38 PM

"What, not even for a "devastating game-changer?"

They're all at the Hamptons.

The Times Politics Blog, the Caucus, has a couple of interesting updates on the story. They note that although an Iraqi spokesperson calls the statement "misunderstood and mistranslated," they don't point to any textual instance of error. They're also saying that it's not an endorsement of a U.S. presidential cabinet. Expect a lot of backing and filling on this in the next few days. I agree that it would be a good idea to get a campaign commercial out there before anyone else can define the issue. Unfortunately, it would be attacked as unseemly exploitation of Obama's trip. The campaign probably can't do it as an ad until he gets back, or at leat out of the Middle East. But this could be a job for the moveons of the world.

Posted by latichever | July 19, 2008 9:38 PM

From The Hill:

The top American commander in Iraq is downplaying recent comments by Nouri al-Maliki on the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, claiming that the Iraqi prime minister wants "time horizons," not timetables.

Looks like Bush and his minions have fallen back on the desperation of semantics. "No, it's a time HORIZON, not a time TABLE." Pathetic.

Let's have a little reality check. Bush and McCain both wanted permanent bases in Iraq. Bush pushed for 58 bases. McCain said Iraq was like Germany and South Korea, and he it was OK to stay for 1,000 years. Obama wanted out. Soooooo, who had the appropriate position?

And let's not even get into how wrong Bush and McCain were on Afghanistan. I think the McCain quote from April 2003 says it all; "nobody in Afghanistan threatens the United States of America."

So much for John McCain's "strength". But at least he has that powerhouse on the economy, Phil "My Policies Failed Miserably" Gramm to advise him.

Posted by LFC | July 19, 2008 9:41 PM

"Translation: Yahoo News is slow to update its stories."

Heh.

Why update? Nothing's changed.

Posted by Joel | July 19, 2008 9:43 PM

The fact that Maliki specifically mentioned Obama is what makes this an irresistable story for the media, and it is hard to imagine a "mistranslation" adding Obama's name. So I suspect we will in fact keep hearing about this for a bit, and it will likely also become one of those oft-repeated facts whenever relevant stories are being written (that Maliki has endorsed Obama's withdrawal plan is pretty easy to include in the background section of relevant stories).

All that said, I'm not sure it is right to call this a "game-changer". We already knew that the Iraqis had come to favor a relatively quick scheduled withdrawal. Although this fact and its implications hadn't yet been popularized in the United States, I find it hard to believe we would have gotten to November in the same state of unawareness of what the Iraqis actually want.

So, what really happened here is that Maliki brought attention to something that likely would have been fleshed out eventually anyway. That said, this fact about what the Iraqis want is in fact devastating for McCain's chances.

Posted by DTM | July 19, 2008 10:02 PM

Game-changer?

I was and am someone who supported the removal of Saddam and the attempt to spread the seeds of democracy in that part of the world.

And if al Maliki's words were correctly recorded, I welcome the idea that troops can be withdrawn as soon as possible. It means that the change of strategy known as the surge did the job that needed done!

There was no point in having our military stand around exposed as Iraq's situation went down in flames. Instead, the surge ensured that we were there with a purpose and helped to achieve ultimate victory over AQI and the Mahdi militia!

It bothers me not one bit which candidate proclaims to have had the right strategy, ultimately it was the president who finally made the right decision -- the one that worked.

I welcome the fact that the prospect of having bases in the country for the next "hundred years" and a dedicated ally against Iranian and other barbarous zealots running the region. I look forward to seeing Iraq regain full sovereignty and join the circle of legitimate governments in the world. Fingers firmly crossed on the last one, of course.

Posted by MarkG | July 19, 2008 10:02 PM

Yeah, MarK, it helps things when you are so brain damaged you cough out a sentence like this: I welcome the fact that the prospect of having bases in the country for the next "hundred years" and a dedicated ally against Iranian and other barbarous zealots running the region.

That's about exactly the level of "I huffed so much spray paint that I don't make a bit of fucking sense" that it takes to be the last man standing for Bush.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 19, 2008 10:09 PM

I welcome the fact that the prospect of having bases in the country for the next "hundred years" and a dedicated ally against Iranian and other barbarous zealots running the region. I look forward to seeing Iraq regain full sovereignty and join the circle of legitimate governments in the world. Fingers firmly crossed on the last one, of course.

Last time I checked, we did have a dedicated ally against Islamic extremists and the Iranians in Iraq. His name was Saddam Hussein and he was a great ally as long as he stuck to mustard gassing 15 year old Revolutionary Guards and launching Scuds into Tehran.

But the second he got uppity and started to threaten our Democratic allies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia....look out!

Posted by calipygian | July 19, 2008 10:16 PM

They're all at the Hamptons.

Right. That must be it.

Why update? Nothing's changed.

Absolutely. Er, except for that pesky "misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately" business. Darn translators!

Posted by Mixner | July 19, 2008 10:18 PM

Yeah, MarK, it helps things when you are so brain damaged you cough out a sentence like this: I welcome the fact that the prospect of having bases in the country for the next "hundred years" and a dedicated ally against Iranian and other barbarous zealots running the region.

Thanks in advance for the forthcoming substantive argument, by the way.

Whether Obama (most likely, in my view) or McCain become president, military advisers and strategists will point out to the CIC that, in fact, there is every reason to retain some of the bases set up in Iraq expensively because of the Iranian threat to Persian Gulf shipping, which also has deep implications for future Iraqi oil exports and other commerce. The CIC will, in negotiations, talk about our blood and treasure spent to eject Saddam and help the Iraqis -- and we will offer to pay a certain amount of rent for the properties (with the help of enormous undisclosed tax advantages given us by the Iraq government) -- to set up a sovereign government.

The Iraqi politicians will certainly talk in populist terms about getting us out of the country -- they need to do double-duty populism to reassure their voters that, contrary to popular regional satellite media, they are not puppets of the Americans. They need to show their voters that they, the elected Iraqi representatives, serve the Iraqi people, and not the vilified American government.

Obama or McCain, the choices are the same, and the outcomes will be similar.

Posted by MarkG | July 19, 2008 10:24 PM

You gotta love the rules of evidence that weigh (a) Prime Minister Maliki's own words as reported by an independent media organization against (b) the characterizations of a spokesman as reported by United States Central Command press office and decide (b) is the better bet.

Tell me, Mixner, why wouldn't the guy say what he thinks was mistranslated?

Posted by southpaw | July 19, 2008 10:26 PM

In this game, you always say controversial things were mistranslated. That's how it works. Mixner is just rather naive. It makes me feel a little sorry for him.

Posted by Reality Man | July 19, 2008 10:29 PM

it SHOULD be a gamechanger but it ain't. MSM is already ignoring it, and will play up Maliki's 'correction,' if they report anything about the original story at all. As I type, its 'on the half-hour,' and neither CNN, CNN-H, Fox (of course) or even the supposedly more-progressive MSNBC is reporting Maliki's comments.
Hate to be a gloomy gus, but its gonna take more than this to change the game or get anyone to pay attention to Obama's true position---Sheeet, I haven't even seen one MSM observe (let alone critique) the patent bullshit that is "Time Horizon." The whole thing is getting more Orwellian, not less, as the campaign goes on. If the White House releases it, they say (read) "Time Horizon" with a straight face!

Posted by mofo | July 19, 2008 10:33 PM

"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."

So basically the non-denial is complaining that the boiler plate wasn't mentioned as well and that Der Speigel had made it look like a more explicit endorsement of Obama instead of a more implicit one of his plan. Note this non-denial only came after meeting Maliki met with Bush.

Posted by Reality Man | July 19, 2008 10:34 PM

Did I not tell you my shit was good?

Posted by Mixner's Crack Dealer | July 19, 2008 10:35 PM

"Tell me, Mixner, why wouldn't the guy say what he thinks was mistranslated?"

Yes, the Iraqi spokesperson who said it was mistranslated pointed to no instance of mistranslation. Rest assured, the tape/transcript will be released and vetted. I'm sure Der Spiegel has Arabic speakers on its payroll.

Bottom line though in terms of the horse race. Look at the headlines, about the level of attention for most folk (who might have better things to do), and its all bad for McCain. They basically say, or will be read to say, "Iraqi Prime Minister Endorses Obama."

Posted by latichever | July 19, 2008 10:36 PM

I guess CENTCOM is now the P.R. arm of the Iraqi government. Must suck for McCain when the truth keeps leaking out.

Posted by LFC | July 19, 2008 10:39 PM

What Matt refuses to admit is that Maliki is able to say this because the counter insurgency work of the past 18 months has worked, and given Iraq the time to work on political reconciliation. Matt was certain that wouldn't happen, so now he jumps on this as a "game changer".

Sure, it is. And if McCain's campaign had a clue (questionable), it would be. Just not in a way that would make Obama's "We've lost this war" past stands on the matter look good.

Posted by James Robertson | July 19, 2008 10:40 PM

I must say that the comments of Mixner on this blog over the past months have been misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately, and he regrets any impression that he's a close-minded tool.

Posted by Official Spokesperson for Mixner | July 19, 2008 10:42 PM

Yes, the Iraqi spokesperson who said it was mistranslated pointed to no instance of mistranslation. Rest assured, the tape/transcript will be released and vetted. I'm sure Der Spiegel has Arabic speakers on its payroll.

Most assuredly, the Spiegel translation will prove accurate, and the government spokesman's clarification will still continue to be the Iraq government's official word.

The Iraqi government is proving to be just as wily and argumentatively robust as are our own politicians.

One point for the left: There are certain distinct advantages to the despots like Hussein that they loved. Since these despots squashed debate and free speech, there was no dispute about false translations, unless you wanted yourself and/or your dearest relatives to end up tortured and murdered.

Posted by MarkG | July 19, 2008 10:50 PM

What James Robertson refuses to admit is that brutally slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis was a high fucking price to pay for an increased violent death rate, lower electricity production, fewer doctors, fewer hospitals and millions of internally displaced.

Listen fuckwit, stop patting your own dumb ass on the back (mixed metaphor? Sure, but then I'm dealing with complete fucking retards). You still haven't managed to bring the violence level down to that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. There was never any reason for the genocide you assholes stirred up.

The surge? Not nearly as effective as not invading. How fucking stupid are you James?

Posted by Not as stupid as James Robertson | July 19, 2008 10:53 PM

What Matt refuses to admit is that Maliki is able to say this because the counter insurgency work of the past 18 months has worked, and given Iraq the time to work on political reconciliation. Matt was certain that wouldn't happen, so now he jumps on this as a "game changer"

Run with that if it makes you feel good.

Now, me, I'd be a bit skeptical about how yesterday in Cheetoland pulling out of Iraq was a surrender to AQ and now that Nuri doesn't think so it's Victory in Iraq Day. What do I know. Throw a parade if you feel like it. Absolutely no skin off my nose.

I love this framing. Take a look around you....at the desert of the real. There is your candidate, and Iraq is gone. That's not sand....it's cheeto dust.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 19, 2008 10:55 PM

I don't know who this Mixner fellow is, but I can see his flop sweat through the intertubez.

Obama or McCain, the choices are the same, and the outcomes will be similar.

Two days ago, the McCain campaign was doing everything it could to point out the differences between the two candidates. Now, we're going to be hearing a lot of the above quote.

That means you lost.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 19, 2008 10:57 PM

'Game-Changer'? Yeah, perhaps in a functioning reality.

The main point is how the media plays the story. If they report this as a stand-alone story & ignore what it says about McCain's policies (up to this point...they could change tomorrow), leaving the reader/watcher to draw their own conclusions, then it'll barely scratch McCain.

If the media wants to actually hold McCain's feet to the fire & ask some genuinely hard questions, then, yes, it could be a defining issue. As Ezra notes, if Maliki supported an open-ended occupation, that would a HUGE story, that would, indeed, end Obama's run. The media would see to it.

Perhaps I'm a cynical, old bastard (no perhaps about it!), but I'm betting on the former. I reckon the MSM will helpfully bury this story for Sen. McCain.

Indeed, it'll probably take 3 years into McCain's presidency, with approval ratings at the mid-twenties, before the MSM becomes disenchanted with Mr. McCain. By then it'll have been too late, but that won't stop the usual suspects from issuing pointless mea culpas about how they "got it wrong", but they've "learned their lesson" & will "try even harder to get it right next time". The sad thing is, there will be a "next time", & they'll get it exactly wrong again, having learned exactly nothing.

Posted by raff | July 19, 2008 10:58 PM

And look what we have here. MarkG, supporter of genocide lying about the left's "support" for Saddam Hussein. Which leftist President sent Donald Rumsfeld to exchange gifts with Saddam Hussein? Which leftist President aided and abetted Saddam Hussein's war with Iran?

Sorry dipshit, support for murderous dictators is generally a Republican, and moronic anti-Communist thing.

What idiots like MarkG want us to forget is that there is a difference between not supporting mass slaughter like Bush's unprovoked assault on Iraq - which has made Iraq a fucking basket case, and support for a dictator. But that's because simpleminded twits like MarkG don't really understand subtlety - hell, they don't understand that black and white aren't the only options. That's why they are fucking morons.

Posted by Not as stupid as James Robertson | July 19, 2008 11:01 PM

The surge? Not nearly as effective as not invading.

Posted by: Not as stupid as James Robertson

Which candidate is promising to turn back time and prevent the invasion?

Guess you're flatly disenfranchised if that's what you're hoping for. Or you might write in David Copperfield...

Posted by MarkG | July 19, 2008 11:01 PM

The issue MarkG, is that there is no reason to listen to genocidal maniacs like you. Your support for slaughtering the Iraqis, five years later, marks you as unfit to give your opinion.

Posted by Not as stupid as James Robertson | July 19, 2008 11:04 PM

The surge? Not nearly as effective as not invading.

Posted by: Not as stupid as James Robertson

Which candidate is promising to turn back time and prevent the invasion?

Guess you're flatly disenfranchised if that's what you're hoping for. Or you might write in David Copperfield...

Posted by MarkG | July 19, 2008 11:05 PM

More seriously Nuri has made a habit lately of insisting on people taking his doublespeak seriously

The prime minister was widely quoted as saying that in the negotiations with the Americans on a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate the US troop presence from next year, "the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal".

That was the version of Mr Maliki's remarks put out in writing by his office in Baghdad.

It was widely circulated by the news media, and caught much attention, including that of Mr Obama.

There is only one problem. It is not what Mr Maliki actually said.

In an audio recording of his remarks, heard by the BBC, the prime minister did not use the word "withdrawal".

What he actually said was: "The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence."
Mr Maliki's own office had inserted the word "withdrawal" in the written version, replacing the word "presence".

Contacted by the BBC, the prime minister's office had no explanation for the apparent contradiction. An official suggested the written version remained the authoritative one, although it is not what Mr Maliki said.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 19, 2008 11:08 PM

Ooh, here's a surprise, someone so stupid as to not recognize that the assault on the Iraqi people was a bad idea can't work the comment system.

What a clod.

Posted by Not as stupid as James Robertson | July 19, 2008 11:10 PM

McCain's position is so confusing. TPM needs to update their video.

Posted by southpaw | July 19, 2008 11:13 PM

raff-
thanks for saying, in a far more eloquent way than i, what i wanted to say before. this is a non-story, courtesy of your MSM memory-holers, by the time the clock strikes thirteen tomorrow.

Posted by mofo | July 19, 2008 11:13 PM

Dunno how that double-posted. Must have clicked twice inadvertently.

For "Not as dumb as...":

Dude, you'll have to gather some evidence to bring a real case in your "genocide" charge. Don't think I or the US have too much to worry about yet, though, based on past decisions.

Of course, if you're in favor of despots and the Despot Protection Society (UN), then everything is genocide, making the term legally meaningless.

Posted by MarkG | July 19, 2008 11:15 PM

Which candidate is promising to turn back time and prevent the invasion?

Neither.

Now, which candidate wants us to elect him based upon his "experience" in foreign affairs? The one that was right all along about Iraq and Afghanistan, and who is willing to talk to Iran, or the one who was wrong and doesn't want to talk to Iran? (Though he may have flip-flopped on that too.) The one who wants out of Iran, or the one who wants permanent bases for 100 years like Germany and South Korea?

McCain has proven that his judgment is awful. He's unfit to be president.

Posted by LFC | July 19, 2008 11:17 PM

Obama first introduced legislation for a fixed withdrawal plan on January 30, 2007. According to that plan, all combat brigades would have been out of Iraq by March 31, 2008.

It's one thing to plan a withdrawal once the situation is stable, but on March 31, 2008 the defeatists where proclaiming Basra lost to Iranian backed militias, hardly a point anybody with the coalition wound call victory.

Posted by Neo | July 19, 2008 11:18 PM

This story isn't going anywhere. Nuri of the 21'st century is playing a fine line. Nuri of the 20'th century back when the British tried this wound up trying to escape in drag but he didn't have the right shoes and got shot.

If Maliki screws this up, that Nuri should hope for the first ones fate because he was dead when the crowds disintered him and mutilated his corpse.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 19, 2008 11:20 PM

In 2002 the violent death rate for the city of Baghdad was such that there were 14 in a month. Under Bush's tender care when was the last time Neo, that there were only 14 people murdered in Baghdad in a month? I'll give you a hint, it still hasn't happened.

Should I mention Bush's preening declaration of victory when he played dress-up on the carrier?

Whining about Obama's plans in 2007 while ignoring Bush's criminal actions that led us to this abattoir marks you as an unserious moron defending the same position as idiots like MarkG and fuckwits like James Robertson.

Posted by Not as stupid as James Robertson | July 19, 2008 11:26 PM

There really isn't any doubt that Maliki endorsed Obama's plan. Whether or not this is a "game changer" is hard to say, but it's definitely not good for John McCain.

And I don't think we've heard the last from Maliki about this, he really wants the US troops out, and he's going to use all the leverage he can to make sure this happens.

Posted by AnotherBruce | July 19, 2008 11:42 PM

The reason why this is a game-changer is that it changes the terrain of debate. It's not going to have a huge immediate effect on American opinion. Like all stories, it'll fade in 48 hours.

But then it'll keep coming back, in every discussion of Iraq, and most notably in the debates. When it becomes clear that the Iraqis feel ready to stand on their own, and think Obama's plan is realistic, there's no longer any way for McCain to spin Obama as out of touch with realities in Iraq.

Moreover, it's going to force McCain to adopt a policy that looks more like Barack's, which (in an election) tends to look like a confession that Barack was right.

It really neutralizes much of McCain's perceived strength on national security. Again, I don't expect this to sink in next week. Give it a month or two. But the changing terrain here (and in Iran, and in Afghanistan) is long-term bad news for McCain.

Posted by Ted | July 20, 2008 12:14 AM

Can someone ask David Petreaus what the difference between a timetable and a time horizon is? Seriously, wtf?

Posted by Andrew | July 20, 2008 12:15 AM

Another point, courtesy of NYT and Josh Marshall: the remarks of the Iraqi spokesman who said something vague about mistranslation?

Those remarks were not made directly to any reporter. They were released by Centcom.

You connect the dots.

Posted by Ted | July 20, 2008 12:22 AM

When confronted with the reality that the counter insurgency plan has worked, all the left can do is yell that we shouldn't have invaded.

We don't get that choice; regardless of where anyone stood in 2003, we aren't there now. What we do know is that the counter-insurgency plan has worked, and that Iraq is now in far better shape than it was 18 months ago.

I also love the fact that people who want to yell about this can't seem to go 5 words without swearing and calling their opponents names. That says something about the level of faith they have in their own position. As a friend of mine used to ask me:

"Are you yelling to convince me, or yourself?"

If you have to yell and use curse words, it's a bad sign for the quality of your position.

Posted by James Robertson | July 20, 2008 1:48 AM

Hey Matthew....

OFFICIAL CLARIFYING STATEMENT FROM MALIKI’S SPOKESMAN ABOUT THE PRIME MINISTER MEANT TO TELL DER SPIEGEL:

Mr. Maliki’s statements to the German magazine Der Spiegel have been misunderstood

The official spokesman for the Iraqi government, Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh, announced that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki confirmed that his statements to the German magazine Der Spiegel have been misunderstood and mistranslated and was not conveyed accurately regarding the vision of Senator Barack Obama, U.S. presidential candidate, on the timeframe for U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq.

Al-Dabbagh explained that Mr. al-Maliki confirmed the existence of an Iraqi vision stems from the reality with regard to Iraq security needs, as the positive developments of the security situation and the improvement witnessed in Iraqi cities makes the subject of U.S. forces’ withdrawal within prospects, horizons and timetables agreed upon and in the light of the continuing positive developments on the ground, and security that came within the Strategic Plan for Cooperation which was laid and developed by Mr. Maliki and President George Bush. The Iraqi
government appreciates and values the efforts of all the friends who continue to support and supporting Iraqi security forces.

Al-Dabbagh underscored that the statements made by the head of the ministerial council (Prime Minister al-Maliki) or any of the members of the Iraqi government should not be understood as support to any U.S. presidential candidates.

So much for your hilarious "devastating game-changer." Maybe you shouldn't be so blindly trusting of unconfirmed German media reports next time.

Posted by Mixner | July 20, 2008 2:52 AM

The New York Times is now also reporting Maliki's correction of Der Spiegel's bogus assertion:

Iraq PM Did Not Back Obama Troop Exit Plan: Government
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki did not back the plan of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and his comments to a German magazine on the issue were misunderstood, the government's spokesman said on Sunday.

Posted by Mixner | July 20, 2008 3:12 AM

Der Spiegel's bogus assertion

The interview is here.

Posted by novakant | July 20, 2008 8:26 AM

That's not a statement from Malaki, that's the same statement CentCom released from that Iraqi spokesman who keeps doing joint press conferences with Dana Perino.

There isn't a single word in there from Malaki.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 20, 2008 10:13 AM

Matt never, ever follows up on reports that contradict his position. I don't expect the vast throng of cursing, name calling commenters to accept it either. Still and all, the main lesson here is just how much the media is in the tank for Obama.

If he wins, I expect the media and many of his followers to end up despising him about 2 years in, simply because no one could live up to the impossible expectations being set. Funny thing is, much of that will be Obama's fault, because he's well into the "I believe my own press clippings" phase of the media game.

Posted by James Robertson | July 20, 2008 10:14 AM

An error in translation implied that Mixner is a naive idiot who believes existing trends are certain to last forever, that waterboarding is not torture, and that Mixner himself is the most odious sociopath in America. We wish to correct the record.

Posted by Official Spokesperson For Mixner | July 20, 2008 10:28 AM

Matt never, ever follows up on reports that contradict his position.

Yeah, sure - except that he just did.

Posted by novakant | July 20, 2008 10:32 AM

We clearly need an even weaker Iraq government, staffed by politicians whose dependence on US military power knows no bounds whatsoever. Think South Vietnam.

Posted by SqueakyRat | July 20, 2008 10:41 AM

James, you fucking moron, I use curse words because your bloody war has fucking killed people. The escalation "worked" to bring the level of violence up from when the nation was ruled by Saddam Hussein. Good job you cretin. People are dying and poor fucking James feels superior because his argument doesn't include cursing.

Do you have a plan to bring back the hundreds of thousands of people your assault murdered? Then shut the fuck up. No, I don't have a plan for that either - but then I'm not a shithead who wants to ignore the fact that the United States has made Iraq a basket case.

Five years later and hundreds of thousands of dead and you want congratulations that your latest plan is still killing hundreds of people every month?

The James Robertson position "Sure I sliced off an arm and a leg while attempting to remove your appendix, but aren't you glad that I removed it and now, instead of gushing blood out of the stumps, it's only seeping?"

Jesus fucking Christ conservatives are stupid.

Posted by Not as stupid as James Robertson | July 20, 2008 11:23 AM

The press release was through CenCom? And you guys freaking believed it?

Posted by mickslam | July 20, 2008 12:19 PM

I wonder if the press, that organ of the right wing foreign policy hacks, is now going to say a little bit about Maliki, since he has stabbed their war crime agenda in the back. After all, who is this "elected" leader? Isn't he the head of Dawa? And isn't Dawa the sister organization of Hezbollah? Of course, this has all been under the deep freeze of press amnesia, but now that he is moving away from the general Bushian idiocy, who knows whether the reporters in Iraq (propagandists like Michael Gordon at the NYT, Judy Miller's old co-writer) might decide to actually include that in the narrative.

The narrative on the rightwing moronosphere has already firmed up: we won! we're winning! This is pretty hilarious. We won in 2003, already. But you don't superwin. You certainly don't win a game in which there is no endpoint or rules. Our win looks like the Iraq that would have been if we had never invaded: un by a Shia government with multiple past ties to "terrorism", close to Iran but open to the West insofar as Iraq's leadership, one of the most corrupt in the world, can always be bought. The course open to us in 2001 was: drop sanctions on Iran and recognize it, pour money into making Kurdistan viable, watch Saddam's establishment unglue. The difference between a sensible foreign policy and Bush's vanity policy is a trillion and a half dollars and between 200000 and half a million Iraqi dead and 2 million Iraqi refugees, not counting internal refugees.

The Iraqi government has been forced to pretend to like the Bushian regime, with the inevitable Blackwater thugs and the greedy oil and construction execs. The Bush people are fading, and their grip on Iraq is losening. There might be some October surprises, here, that will be distinctly unpleasant for our corrupt rulers in D.C.

Posted by roger | July 20, 2008 12:36 PM

raff nails it. As far as I can tell, the Mixner side of this debate is arguing that, because this story won't be front and center in the media for the next two weeks (it's not about a crazy pastor or ill-advised comments about God and guns, after all), that it hasn't really occurred.

But the fact that a vast majority of Americans, and now the sovereign goverment of Iraq, support Obama's position has become a permanent feature of the debate over our Iraq policy. I don't see how it's possible for the media to bury these facts over the next four months, although I'm sure they will downplay them to the greatest extent possible.

I'm looking forward to McCain arguing that we need to stay in Iraq until the "job is finished", even though huge majorities from all interested parties either disagree, or maintain that the job is, in fact, finished.

I also wish I was a chiropractor paid to treat the increasingly twisted contortions that the McCain-loving media will twist themselves into trying to obscure or deny that McCain's position is anything other than complete, bordering on nonsenical, denial of the political realities taking shape in Iraq.

Posted by brewmn | July 20, 2008 5:46 PM

brewmn,

But the fact that a vast majority of Americans, and now the sovereign goverment of Iraq, support Obama's position has become a permanent feature of the debate over our Iraq policy.

Ha ha ha ha! Your beliefs about what the "vast majority of Americans" believe are seriously wrong, brewmn. That's what tends to happen when you think guessing is a substitute for evidence.

Pew Research Center:

"Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?"

Keep in Iraq Until Stabilized: 43%
Bring Home As Soon as Possible: 52%

Your "vast majority" consists of a 9-point difference. And your "permanent feature of the debate" claim is even more laughable. In February, the difference was a mere two per cent. The numbers are fluctuating, and by November McCain's position may well be the majority one.

Not that this particular question is the same as the broader question of which candidate voters think has the better Iraq policy in general, anyway. A number of polls over the past year or so indicate that a growing share of Americans believe that we are winning the war in Iraq, that conditions in Iraq are improving, that the war is going "very well" or "fairly well," that the United States will "definitely succeed" or "probably succeed" in achieving its goals in Iraq, and so on. The far-left can keep desperately trying to spin its "the surge has failed," nonsense, but Americans know better.

Posted by Mixner | July 20, 2008 6:26 PM

brewmn,

As far as I can tell, the Mixner side of this debate is arguing that, because this story won't be front and center in the media for the next two weeks (it's not about a crazy pastor or ill-advised comments about God and guns, after all), that it hasn't really occurred.

As far as I can tell, the brewmn side of this debate is arguing that, even though no one really cares about this story except a few obsessive lefties, it's still important. The brewmn side of this argument needs to stop assuming that its peculiar obsessions are shared by the American people.

Posted by Mixner | July 20, 2008 6:33 PM

L'état, c'est moi.

Posted by Mixner XIV | July 20, 2008 6:57 PM

The Republican response: Well, we really need that war in Iran now.

Dick Cheney and the Israelis agree.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 20, 2008 10:33 PM

Reposted from the other, ridiculously unending post on this subject which our right wing investigators proved to have their usual levels of investigatoritive speculationizing.

But the interpreter for the interview works for Maliki's office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Maliki's interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Obama's position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Maliki's comments by The Times:

"Obama's remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq."

He continued: "Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/21/america/21obama.php

Posted by El Cid | July 20, 2008 10:40 PM

"Pew Research Center:

"Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?"

Keep in Iraq Until Stabilized: 43%
Bring Home As Soon as Possible: 52%"

So, a clear majority favor immedaite withdrawal, and all but 5% want American troops out as soon as Iraq is "stabilized."

Maybe Pew should then ask, "would you consider Iraq to be stabilized due the unequivocal success of Teh Surge, and the fact that the Iraqi goverment feels its time for the Americans to withdraw?"

I'm guessing we'd see near-unanimous support for withdrawal here at home.

Face it, Mixner. Nobody in America wants to see an open-ended, decades-long commitment of large numbers of American forces occupying Iraq except for John McCain and a handful of delusional dead-enders like yourself.

Posted by brewmn | July 20, 2008 10:48 PM

... whereas Mr. Obama was thinking in terms of retreat, Mr. Maliki on the other hand was suggesting the natural outcome of victory: that America’s soldiers, who had fought a hard won yet incidental battle against the ultimate jihadist aim of resurrecting an Islamic Empire, could go home with laurels and to acclaim.

Posted by Neo | July 24, 2008 6:37 PM