McCain surrenders to the terrorists - The Iraqis screw John McCain
After listening to over a year of John McCain, presidential candidate, tell me that "Iraq is the central front in the war on terror," and that leaving early would "embolden the terrorists," and that we can't leave Iraq because it "would become a terrorist safe haven," he now seems awfully willing to let all those things happen.
I really do believe the timetable talk from the Iraqis is empty, part of the SoFA negotiation. But I think it's important to notice that the Iraqis were willing to completely screw John McCain here as a political shot across the administration's bow, showing just how exposed Bush's successor is.
Maybe I'm wrong, but they Iraqis are pretty subtle politicians, and I would think they knew exactly what they were doing here. (Politicking with your family's lives at stake does tend to hone your sensitivities.)
From the US side it looks like a nasty negotiating step, but they deal in real people's very real lives everyday. This is nothing to them.
"John McCain has always been clear that American forces operate in Iraq only with the consent of that country's democratically elected government," Michael Goldfarb, a McCain spokesman, told the Huffington Post.....
I really do believe the timetable talk from the Iraqis is empty, part of the SoFA negotiation. But I think it's important to notice that the Iraqis were willing to completely screw John McCain here as a political shot across the administration's bow, showing just how exposed Bush's successor is.
Maybe I'm wrong, but they Iraqis are pretty subtle politicians, and I would think they knew exactly what they were doing here. (Politicking with your family's lives at stake does tend to hone your sensitivities.)
From the US side it looks like a nasty negotiating step, but they deal in real people's very real lives everyday. This is nothing to them.
posted by mikevotes at
4:35 PM
4 Comments:
Maliki can't let himself be seen as an American stooge. Up to now the best card the US has is threatening to leave so Maliki won't be protected. The stronger he gets the less that card can be played.
By
Anonymous, at 5:14 PM
The rest of that quote is the rub:
""The Senator speaks frequently with Iraq's leaders and they have made clear that they share his belief that any timeline for withdrawal must be dictated by the facts on the ground. "
So what if 'the facts on the ground' don't justify withdrawal in McCain's judgment, but they do in the minds of Iraqis or the Iraqi government?
"The facts on the ground" are hardly some immutable, objective thing. It's not even clear if those 'facts' include security or stability. The "facts on the ground" could very well mean that it's a fact that we aren't getting any oil out of all this, so we can't have a timetable.
It's seems reasonable to me that "the facts on the ground" that carry the most weight are the "facts" involving our attack on Iran.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 5:49 PM
It's like 'we won't stay a minute longer than necessary'. Who defines necessary?
By
Anonymous, at 6:03 PM
Todd, fair question.
The other thing is the question of whose facts. Even in the bloodiest days of 2005 and 2006, the Bush administration and military were finding facts to say things were okay.
And anon, kinda what I'm saying. Facts on the ground doesn't really mean anything. Which facts?
By
mikevotes, at 7:04 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home