"Maliki Endorses Obama Plan For Iraq!" "Maliki Endorses Obama For President!"
Needless to say the Left blogosphere went absolutely berserk over this with joy.
What helped cause this orgasm was an interview in Germany's Der Spiegal with Maliki saying he thought Obama 16 month retreat fromiraq was `about right',which the Bush Administration's press office 'inadvertently' e-mailed to the media.
Except for one thing...Maliki, for the second time in a week says he was misquoted and mistranslated, that he's not supporting Obama and that tenure of US trops should be 'limited',but without a specific timetable.
Unfortunately, Obama had already leaped on this like a pitbull on a poodle, announcing:
(click to enlarge)So much for presenting yourself as a budding great leader and diplomat when you get screwed twice in one week believing the agenda-driven nonsense of the dinosaur media.
Whoopsie.
Aside from Barack Hussein Obama's fecklessness,I find it interesting that the White House press office would 'accidentally' fax this to the media. The word I hear from my notorious little birdies is that President Bush is not pleased at all with the idea of McCain as the nominee..the bad blood between them goes way back and Bush is apparently not happy with McCain not seeking a more active role for Bush in the campaign and reminding everybody that the president was dead wrong on Iraq and he was correct,or pushing for energy independence in contrast to the Bush Administration's 8 years of mostly being AWOL on the subject.
Accordingly, Bush's Pioneers, Rangers and Super Rangers - loyalists who have raised over $100, $200 and $300 thousand, respectively - are reportedly keeping their wallets closed this year for the most part.
I'm hearing consistent rumors that Bush is doing what he can to sabotage McCain without being overly obvious about it, in preparation for Jeb or another Bush family protege' to run in 2012.
Considering the president's role in destroying the Republican party during his second term, I find the rumors fairly credible.
5 comments:
Maliki's "clarification" is pitiful stuff, as is your credulous endorsement of same.
When Maliki allowed the long-term status-of-forces negotiations to founder he made crystal clear that he doesn't share the right's horror of Obama. Had Obama been the existential threat the right would have us believe, Mailiki would have done his deal with Mr. Bush.
Further, had Obama been a threat, Maliki's restatement would have gone well beyond inserting bland boiler plate about assuming that things continue to improve. He'd have explicitly stated that a 16 month timeline was dangerous.
But that's not what he did. What he did is walk back one step after having taken a giant seven-league step forward.
It'll be fun watching McCain try to defend his position in debates now. He'll be left to explain why he, McCain, is clearly terrified by the prospect of an Obama presidency, but our democratic ally in Iraq is quite clearly not.
Hello Michael,
I believe you are looking at this through Obama-colored glasses. That's certainly your right,and is to be expected given your affiliation and what you support,but it neglects some important stuff and unfortunately shows a lack of understanding of what's going on at ground level.
Of course Maliki isn't going to diss Obama.Neither are the world leaders Obama is meeting with in his current dog and pony show, even if they're secretly laughing behind their hands at him. He may,after all,be the next president and they may have to deal with him.
As for Maliki himself, he's obviously going to be as non-committal as possible because negotiations are still going on.Otherwise,why take the trouble to make any correction at all?
Both Iran and the US have made it clear to Maliki that he's got to choose sides, and the Iranians are undoubtedly telling him that the Americans will leave him hanging,especially if Obama becomes president...while they'll still be there,right next door.
For that matter,it's important to remember that Maliki spent the Saddam years cuddled up with the Mullahs in Iran,and may very well want us out and be saying,at least privately "Thanks for your time and money, infidels..now get out so we can bond with our jihad buddies" as I predicted over two years ago.
Come November,Maliki may very well sing a different tune if he's going to be dealing with a President McCain.
That was always the essential fallacy in Bush fetish for nation building and 'Arab democracy'..he forgot about the tribal nature of the Middle East and the sort of mentality we're dealing with.
One wonders whether the Sunnis and Kurds are likely to want to be part of a Shiite and Iranian dominated Iraq if we pull out as quickly as Obama would like us to.That could put a whole new face on the matter,and perhaps not one you'd enjoy seeing on your TV screen.
As far as McCain debating Obama, McCain will have one salient point to make:that Iraq was a major victory over al-Qaeda and that it would not have happened if Obama and the Democrats had gotten their way.
It cost us a great deal more in time,blood and treasure than it should have, thanks to the farcical mismanagement of the war by the Bush Administration, and I have no problem with the argument thatit was not where we should have gone in the first place, but it's a victory nevertheless, even though it's a partial one.
In fact,that may end up being it's major accomplishment.
The often repeated partisan political line spouted by Obama and others that Iraq was a distraction from fighting al Qaeda will go down in history (depending on who writes it) as one of the stupidest fallacies ever foisted on a gullible public. Things are heating up in Afghanistan and Pakistan not because our attention was elsewhere, but because al Qaeda has been driven from the place it proclaimed as the central front for victory over the Americans, the home of its new caliphate.
Instead, they've been roundly defeated and forced back to their final redoubt, the mountain villages and caves in Waziristan and Pakistan's North West frontier Province.
McCain,if he's smart, will continue to point out Obama's almost total lack of judgment in foreign affairs and on national security, among his other failings.
The idea of retreat and a vacation from history may seem pleasant, but it has consequences. If you'll recall, we tried that during the Clinton years and it didn't work out so well.
Thanks for dropping by..
All Best,
ff
Rick Moran seems to agree with my take on this.
As for looking at the world through Obama-colored glasses, at a point when events of the Maliki-directed move against Al Sadr were still unclear, I wrote a piece titled, "Did we just win a war?" Not exactly the prevailing Democratic narrative.
18 months before that I wrote a piece called "Did we just lose a war?" pointing out that the Pakistani deal with the tribes left us in a very difficult situation in Afghanistan.
And, by the way, I was for the surge before McCain was for the surge. And for the war in the first place when Obma was opposed.
Time will tell (as the anchormen like to say) but I think Maliki just cast his vote. And I think that's about it for Big John.
Hello Michael,
Rick Moran says a great many things, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not.
Apparently you seem to agree with me about Barack Obama's lack of judgment vis a vis Iraq and foreign policy in general, which is fine. I had a different impression of your views, based on an admittedly superficial look at your site..mea culpa.
I'm not sure I agree with you that Maliki has 'cast his vote'. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for him to state not once but twice that his views were being distorted.I see things as still up in the air an dMaliki as keeping his options open.Nor do I think that even if you're correct that this, by itself makes Barack Obama president.
If in fact you're right and the vote has been cast, another possibility you may or may not have considered is that the Bush Administration and Iran have established a quid pro quo..they get de facto control over Iraq and Lebanon and the US agrees not to attack Iran's nuclear facilities or assist Israel in doing the same in exchange for a ceiling on oil prices and a graceful exit from Iraq.
Some of my notorious little birdies have been telling me that for awhile now, and based on the way Condi Rice and the Bush Administration have been operating I must admit I find it fairly credible that at the very least that kind of deal has been talked about, if not already agreed to.
If so, it would be a shameful betrayal that would rank with Munich, and one that will cost us dear in the future.
I do agree with you that Pakistan's 'truce' with al-Qaeda and the Taliban puts an entirely different face on what's going on in Afghanistan, and I wrote at the time that we should have been much more hardline with the Pakistanis to prevent it. We weren't; instead trying to manipulate th esituation by inserting th ecorrupt Bhutto cabal into the mix.
Thanks for dropping by.
ff
I think the decision that Maliki needs to make is does he want to be the leader of a soverign and independenct country or does he want to be a governor of a de facto Iranian territory. I think he will work with the Iranians and has worked with the Iranians on a number of issues to get what he wants but at the end of the day he wants to be head of a soverign and independent Iraq. If this is the case, it would make the most sense to side with the Americans even to the point of requesting a permanent US military presence. This seems to have been what the negotiations were about. If we side with you, you need to assist us in holding back the Iranians, therefor we want a permanent US military presence. The problem is with the Americans itching to withdraw he cannot trust the Americans. If he sides with the Americans, and the Americans declare victory and bolt, he and very likely his extended family will end up dead. This is why he must play both ends. If Maliki endorses Obama, it is likely because Obama appears favored to win right now.
The fact that Obama jumped on this story so quickly, seems to indicate very poor political judgement. When I heard this my first thougts were simillar to those of Freedom Fighter, however, I would add that being near time for an election in Iraq the Iraqi leader feels he has to appeal to certain constituents. The bottom line is I think he wants to be leader of a soverign Iraq and wants a long range American presence but feels, accurately in my opinion, that the Americans cannot be trusted. If he wants to be the governor of an Iranian colony, then he and his government should be destroyed.
Freedom Fighter's take that the Iranians and the Americans have agreed that Iraq will have control over Iraq and Lebanon and the Americans will get a ceiling on oil prices and a graceful exit from Iraq is an interesting take that I think nails it. I've had the same thoughts for a long time. The angry left and the Bush Administration agree that the US should withdraw completely from Iraq, however, the Bush Administration wants a graceful exit the angry left would like to see the US humiliated.
If what Freedom Fighter thinks is the deal has been made, there reamins a major problem. This is enforcement. Specifically how do you ensure Iranian compliance. The Americans face intense and often hostile media scrutiny. as such, American compliance is guaranteed. The Americans will be withdrawing from Iraq and Iran will gain control over the country. Then the Iranians do nothing about oil prices. In summary, Aemrica gets screwed. In order to make any deal with the Iranians, there would need to be some way to ensure Iranian compliance. Right now I don't see such a mechanisim.
Finally, Israel ought to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities. There is little to nothing the Americans could do about it. Remember the Iranians took out a Syrian nuclear faciltiy that was protected with Russia's best technologies. American Air Force capabilities and defense systems are vastly inferior to Russian systems. In short, the Americans do not have the technical expertise or the flying skills to beat the Russian defense systems guarding Iran's nuclear facilties. As such, the operations to take out the facilities will have to be done by the Israelis. The Americans could not stop them if they tried to. The Russain defense systems will pose a far greater challenge than the USAF bsed in Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East ever would or likely ever could.
Post a Comment