| 08.07.2008 |
|
||||||||
| I've spent some time here delving into whether Barack Obama flip-flopped on Iraq, concluding that he did not; now, today, comes a maneuver similar to Obama's from John McCain, so let's see whether he's subjected to the same charges. The impetus for McCain's situation is Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki's call for a memorandum of understanding about a timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of his country. McCain has spoken at least as adamantly about the foolishness of timetables as Obama has about their wisdom. Probably more so. Obama did indeed reserve the right, all along, to change his plan based on conditions in Iraq. A McCain adviser on Wednesday cited similar "facts on the ground" caveats to McCain's anti-timetable stance. McCain, as demonstrated here, has indeed built some flexibility into his Iraq stance. (It's fair to say that judging by the McCain campaign's relative silence on the point that al-Maliki's pronouncement caught them off guard. In a race where some of the momentum on the Iraq issue appeared to be shifting to McCain's advantage, more than just McCain's team failed to take into account that the Iraq War could take a turn against the Republican.) If there's a difference -- besides one of tone -- in the situations Obama and McCain have found themselves in on Iraq in recent weeks, it's that McCain has been less clear than Obama on what he intends to do next. After all the confusion, Obama settled on what amounted to a clarification of his position: I very much intend to end the Iraq War, but that intention could change based on conditions in the country and the advice of military leaders. Per the Post: "On Tuesday, McCain's campaign declined to respond directly to the question of whether he now supports the idea of setting a date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country." Making matters more difficult, McCain years ago said that if a sovereign Iraqi government asked the U.S. to leave, then it's "obvious" troops would have to be removed. It may be hard to level the charge of flip-flopping at someone who won't respond about the nature of his current position. But stopping short of that: Obama said he supports a timetable, but might not depending on the facts on the ground; McCain said he opposes a timetable, but an adviser hinted he might not depending on the facts on the ground. The coming days will determine whether political reporters apply the same standard to McCain as they do Obama on this issue -- and whether they press McCain to clarify what his position is. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 2 Comments |
| McCain decided we wanted to stay in Iraq and now Obama has talked to foriegn Mister of Iraq causing him to talk about staying. He led up hopes of liberals and no more war middle class America that does not care for Iraq that he would leave. Obama got there votes and is now "twicking decisions"that is a flip flop. McCain has done nothing, but say our loses will not be for nothing. The Arabs(not all) can not keep this going. Killing there sons and killing our troops. Tell me blogger what is imperialistic empty towns and shallow graves or military bases with troops stopping the murder of what could be left of humanity our patrotic sons that die and follow rules of engagement to keep peace. |
||
| Brandon Mosgrove | Homepage | E-Mail | 09.07.2008, 23:03 | ||
| Spot on as always. The real interesting thing is the silence from the GOP that you note. It would seem that, at this point, if McCain doesn't agree to the demanded withdrawal, he will be forced to admit that his desire to have permanent bases in Iraq is 1) a personal desire and/or 2) part of an imperialistic plan in the Mideast and not all related to "Iraqi sovereignty" which has been the main GOP Iraqi talking point for the last four years. Ouch. |
||
| Jim | Homepage | E-Mail | 09.07.2008, 14:22 | ||