News Iraq PM cripples McCain's campaign

[fourier jr]

McCain calls Obama "naive" about Iraq but apparently Nuri al-Maliki doesn't. I don't think this was covered in many American sources. The NY Observer did pick it up but Der Spiegel ran the original story (apparently Maliki's translator was the one who mistranslated what Maliki said):

In the interview, Maliki expressed support of Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. "That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of changes."

Maliki was quick to back away from an outright endorsement of Obama, saying "who they choose as their president is the Americans' business." But he then went on to say: "But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited."

A Baghdad government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said in a statement that SPIEGEL had "misunderstood and mistranslated" the Iraqi prime minister, but didn't point to where the misunderstanding or mistranslation might have occurred. Al-Dabbagh said Maliki's comments "should not be understood as support to any US presidential candidates." The statement was sent out by the press desk of the US-led Multinational Force in Iraq.

A number of media outlets likewise professed to being confused by the statement from Maliki's office. The New York Times pointed out that al-Dabbagh's statement "did not address a specific error." CBS likewise expressed disbelief pointing out that Maliki mentions a timeframe for withdrawal three times in the interview and then asks, "how likely is it that SPIEGEL mistranslated three separate comments? Matthew Yglesias, a blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, was astonished by "how little effort was made" to make the Baghdad denial convincing. And the influential blog IraqSlogger also pointed out the lack of specifics in the government statement.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566914,00.html

 

[BobG]

Yes, Malicki's comments caused some pain for both Bush and McCain: Maliki votes for Obama

Bush's response causes even more pain for McCain: President George W Bush spikes some of John McCain's guns

Bush's response is the only realistic response he could have given. What else was he going to say - "We won't leave until we're good and ready?"

Don't worry, it'll get worse. Republicans still need to figure out how to drag an unpopular, lame duck President through the convention unnoticed (Party Crasher). Suggestions range from having Bush speak Sunday night (the convention starts Monday) to, more realistically, surround Bush with his family, from the more popular Bush 41 to the very popular Laura Bush. Ten of the 12 Republican Senators facing a close election fight this fall have suddenly found conflicts that prevent them from attending the convention.

 

[mgb_phys]

Isn't the comment more damaging to Obama?

Brown person attempting to become president (all brown people are terrorists!)
Brown president of terrorist country thanks Obama for promising to remove troops
Troops are only thing stopping terrorists
Therefore Obama is a terrorist

 

[lisab]

Don't worry, it'll get worse. Republicans still need to figure out how to drag an unpopular, lame duck President through the convention unnoticed (Party Crasher). Suggestions range from having Bush speak Sunday night (the convention starts Monday) to, more realistically, surround Bush with his family, from the more popular Bush 41 to the very popular Laura Bush. Ten of the 12 Republican Senators facing a close election fight this fall have suddenly found conflicts that prevent them from attending the convention.

The Republican candidate for governor here in Washington State only identifies his party as "GOP." No where on his website, posters, or ads have I seen the word "Republican."

 

[BobG]

Isn't the comment more damaging to Obama?

Brown person attempting to become president (all brown people are terrorists!)
Brown president of terrorist country thanks Obama for promising to remove troops
Troops are only thing stopping terrorists
Therefore Obama is a terrorist

Maybe . You're scaring the carp out of me since it requires so many detachments from reality, but ... maybe.

 

[WarPhalange]

The people who would think that are racists who already had their mind set not to vote for Obama, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I had to LOL when I heard about some of the private reassurances given that Maliki wasn't talking about a timeline. There was recently a very interesting observation made by the NY Times foreign affairs correspondent, and three time Pulitzer Prize winning, Thomas L. Friedman:

"In the US, politicians lie in public and tell the truth in private. In the ME, politicians lie in private and tell the truth in public."

 

[OrbitalPower]

He probably wants to ally himself closer to Iran given that he personally is a shia and is a member of a Shia leaning party, I believe at one point was even extremist as well.

Also, take a look at where the ISCI, another member of Iraq's Shia-Kurdish-Kawa government, was founded. In Iran, and have been known to start up sectarian conflicts among groups, including other Shia leaders.

The US has simply failed to colonize the country, and the current "downplay" of violence is only because Iran, Syria, etc. no longer fear a stable Iraq with people like al-Maliki in power and have thus called on Muqtada al-Sadr and so on to draw down his forces, so they will be there when the US pulls out, allowing Iran to continue its leverage in the region.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see how an endorsement by a foreign head of state can "cripple" McCain's campaign. Obama got a boost in the polls from his trip due to the high profile nature, but it certainly doesn't guarantee him the win.

 

[OrbitalPower]

I don't see how an endorsement by a foreign head of state can "cripple" McCain's campaign. Obama got a boost in the polls from his trip due to the high profile nature, but it certainly doesn't guarantee him the win.

I don't see how Bush can claim that Nouri al-Maliki represents stability in Iraq because of Iraq's semi-stabalization of Sadr city, Basra, and Mosul, while not adhering to his calls for removal of US troops, whom he previously said should be removed [i.e. Maliki], and who is now supported by Iran to some degree anyway, even though Bush claims he is the best hope in keeping Iranian influence out of Iraq.

How to make sense of this, I don't know. Maybe they just don't want to destablize Iraq during an election year.

Then again, who really has more influence with the Iraqi people, al-Maliki, or Muqtada al-Sadr?

 

[lisab]

Isn't the comment more damaging to Obama?

Brown person attempting to become president (all brown people are terrorists!)
Brown president of terrorist country thanks Obama for promising to remove troops
Troops are only thing stopping terrorists
Therefore Obama is a terrorist

Wow...

It's only damaging to Obama in people whose thought process is extraordinarily, um, bendy...

 

[mgb_phys]

It's only damaging to Obama in people whose thought process is extraordinarily, um, bendy...

Like the 25%that believe he's muslim, or the 50% that believe Iraq was behind 9/11.

Normally presidential candidates stay away from foreign trips. Foreign affairs don't score highly in US elections and the few voters that see the candidate as a statesman are out numbered by the ones that see him standing next to a soviet/european/arab enemy leader (pick decade).

 

[lisab]

Like the 25%that believe he's muslim, or the 50% that believe Iraq was behind 9/11.

...yeah, good point...!