rssOn Iraq, Game Over For McCain?
Monday, July 21, 2008 at 8:58 am
- 12 Comments
On Saturday, Nouri al-Maliki endorsed — unprompted and by name — Barack Obama’s call for withdrawal from Iraq within 16 months to the German magazine Der Spiegel. In response, a sometime McCain consultant correctly observed to Marc Ambinder, “We’re fucked.” The only hope for the McCain campaign, and for the White House, was to try to say that Maliki was incorrectly quoted, and so U.S. Central Command put out a statement citing Maliki spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh kinda-sorta saying that.
But the GOP consultant was right the first time. Today, al-Dabbagh — the very guy used by Centcom for Operation Maliki Walkback! – says, in English:
Iraq’s government spokesman is hopeful that U.S. combat forces could be out of the country by 2010.
Ali al-Dabbagh made the comments following a meeting in Baghdad on Monday between Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day.
The timeframe is similar to Obama’s proposal to pull back combat troops within 16 months. The Iraqi government has been trying to clarify its position on a possible troop withdrawal since al-Maliki was quoted in a German magazine last week saying he supported Obama’s timetable.
That’s via Adam Blickstein of Democracy Arsenal, who observes, “Pretty clear, huh?” Indeed it is. 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.
Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter
12 Comments
Comment posted July 21, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
@ufred, as long as there’s the option of punting on Kirkuk, expect a three-and-out strategy. And the option appears, contrary to my expectations, not to be disappearing. The fact of the referendum will be what determines violence in the city, not a U.S. presence.
Comment posted July 21, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
When do you think the issue over Kirkuk will be settled, or at least voted upon, and do you think having US troops visible will help contain violence in regard to Kirkuk?
Comment posted July 21, 2008 @ 10:52 am
I think he means 16 months from when his is inaugurated since he really does not have the power to pull troops out of Iraq yet.
Comment posted July 21, 2008 @ 9:36 am
If Obama continues to say ’16 months’ whenever he is asked, then someday he will get it right. However, the first time he was asked, 16 months would be over in March. Besides, with 300 foreign policy advisors, he is bound to get one or two answers right. I just wish he had a little experience–in anything–to make me have more confidence in one of his proclamations.
Comment posted July 21, 2008 @ 4:36 am
If Obama continues to say '16 months' whenever he is asked, then someday he will get it right. However, the first time he was asked, 16 months would be over in March. Besides, with 300 foreign policy advisors, he is bound to get one or two answers right. I just wish he had a little experience–in anything–to make me have more confidence in one of his proclamations.
Comment posted July 21, 2008 @ 5:52 am
I think he means 16 months from when his is inaugurated since he really does not have the power to pull troops out of Iraq yet.
Comment posted July 21, 2008 @ 10:09 am
When do you think the issue over Kirkuk will be settled, or at least voted upon, and do you think having US troops visible will help contain violence in regard to Kirkuk?
Comment posted July 21, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
@ufred, as long as there's the option of punting on Kirkuk, expect a three-and-out strategy. And the option appears, contrary to my expectations, not to be disappearing. The fact of the referendum will be what determines violence in the city, not a U.S. presence.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
