The Bush Administration, and by extension, John McCain, are having a tough time spinning away the fact that the Iraqi administration they claim to admire seems more comfortable with Obama’s plans for Iraq.
SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?
‘As Soon as Possible’
Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.
The Bush administration has tried to dismiss the Maliki endorsement by suggesting that he was misquoted, misspoke, or something got lost in translation. Turns out, not so much.
I suppose the argument can be made that Maliki’s an idiot who doesn’t know what’s good for his own country, but that sort of undermines the notion we’re spending a ton of money and lives on Iraq for the pure-hearted motive of allowing the Iraqis to engage in this sort of self-determination.
Update
Oh, and McCain is a douche bag, having said this:
It seems to me that Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.
That statement has more than a whiff of desperation about it.
How many “It depends on the meaning of the word ‘Is'” moments has this administration had at this point? I’m trying to think of a statement they’ve made that hasn’t had to be modified, explained, or retracted.
At this point, a more savvy crew would have assumed that any reporter who is simultaneously dealing with a foreign language and contradicting the Bush Administration would have a tape of the encounter. Instead, the Administration just tosses out a theory that it was a mistranslation and prays it’s true.
The Bush Administration was probably assuming that since they have had a shortage of Arabic translators (having fired all the gay ones), and since they also have had a penchant for losing records of communications, that maybe reporters would have similar sloppy habits.
“Douche bag”? Wasn’t there just a post about class and candidates?
Think about what McCain has done here. He is accusing his fellow Senator, not of having different policies; not of being simply wrong; but of actively seeking to lose a war for political gain. That’s disgraceful. At some point, a guy behaves so badly that decorum goes out the window.
Going back to my favorite metaphor of crapping in the punchbowl; if you catch a party guest doing it, you are no longer expected to say “please” and to mind your manners. You can fairly grab him and physically throw him out the door without a breach in etiquette.
Somehow, that just sounds either very naive, or very disengenuous.
Time to put your one-sided indignation back up on the dusty shelf where it belongs.
Tell me how it’s remotely appropriate for McCain to accuse Obama of wanting to “lose” the war.
I’m sure the anti-Obama sign toters that merited your recent post could justify their un-decorous language also. It wouldn’t have struck me at all, but for that recent post of yours. I know you like Obama, and I know you dislike McCain. It just struck me as pretty contradictory stuff, and within a week.
I would agree that it is over-the-top and probably desperate. It will hurt McCain some, especially in light of the way Obama and Barr conduct themselves. So, from many quarters this episode will draw public indignation and private delight, because it’s obvious McCain is falling on his sword.
So, just so we have it straight- If a candidate comes out and says that a candidate has, say, economic policies that are ‘slash and burn’ and therefore ‘intended to hurt the little people’, will the indignation be equal on the ‘crapping in the punchbowl’ kind of way? Because it takes great cynicism to say that one side has only the best intentions, and the other side really is working for the nation’s doom.
I didn’t say whether playing rough in the campaign sandbox was appropriate, fair, or anything else. But, it’s not like it has never happened before or won’t happen again anytime soon.
And, Obama is hardly the first candidate to be called “defeatist”. Geez.
AND, first time Senator Obama gets serious about an insult towards Senator McCain, I’ll bet you’re not half as indignant.
Mike,
I think your hypothetical statement highlights a nice place for line drawing. Saying your opponent embraces “slash and burn” economic policies is probably good old rough & tumble politics. Saying your opponent intends to hurt the poor, absent some decent evidence, probably goes too far.
Given the emotionally charged nature of war and patriotism, it is, in my opinion, even worse to accuse someone of wanting to lose a war. Might as well call Obama a traitor. And, for the record, if Obama accuses McCain of wanting to lose the war in Afghanistan, for example, I’d think that goes too far as well.
You ought to be dancing in the streets over comments like this one. If you can just ignore it, it will begin to drag down Senator McCain’s image as being “Presidential”.
That’s the problem. If you give an opponent enough rope, they will often hang themsleves. But, if you attempt to withhold the rope, or give it out in short segments, it becomes difficult for an opponent to hoist themselves by their own petard (or hang themselves).
That’s a good point. I’m probably a little too mindful, however, of the hit job Saxby Chambliss did on Max Cleland featuring the likenesses of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, while criticizing Cleland’s votes against homeland security measures. That makes me think that you just need to call people out when they start in with the anti-patriot smears.
And, just a pedantic note — a petard is a small, medieval bomb.
Yeah, I know that, but I wanted to include the same analogy (in parentheses) for those who might claim I was mixing analogies. Guess I didn’t need to do that for you…;)
Ann Althouse’s take
(interesting comment thread, along with longer version of the quote)