Lost In Translation

Some meat there. Do note that (suprise!) European nations HAVE stepped up or are stepping up their troop presence in Afghanistan. But yeah, holding your breath waiting for Obama to admit that he was wrong on anything ever is courting anoxia.

As best I know (I admit I haven't checked very closely) the official Obama campaign has not made the claims that are being refuted here in my main posting. I'm not gonna tag the campaign or candidate with things they haven't done. I'm sure they enjoy the spin, it's certainly possible they're inciting some of it via helpers, but they are not promoting it openly via the campaign that I have noticed.

Moran:

"Maliki is running for office. With elections scheduled for October, there is little doubt that he wishes to forestall any move by his rival, Moqtada al-Sadr, to make hay out of Maliki's close association with the occupation. In short, he is moving to shore up his right (nationalistic) flank by being seen as eager for the Americans to leave.

As the need for American troops to stay in Iraq lessens, the Iraqi people will be more anxious for us to go. Candidates who recognize that political reality will probably do well in the elections.

Maliki's Shia brethren are split on the issue of the occupation with a large segment supporting al-Sadr's call for our immediate withdrawal and a slightly larger faction who recognize the reality of the occupation but want most of us out as soon as it is safe to go. It is these voters that Maliki is appealing to. The bitter enders who support al-Sadr will never win a majority unless they can convince many of the realists that we will never go and that politicians like Maliki are encouraging us to stay.

Hence, Maliki's two step on withdrawal; being obtuse with Bush while pronouncing Obama's specific proposal acceptable. He doesn't want to offend Bush/McCain but for political reasons finds it desirable to pander to those Shias who are worried about the US overstaying its welcome."

Now are you claiming that without the US, Sadr can't resist Maliki? And when others said to hold on in Iraq, were YOU in deep denial? Seems like you were saying the sky was black when it was only grey. Kind of speaks to credibility. How funny that the media reported Maliki made a bad move taking on Sadr and it was Sadr that elected to pull back after showing just how strong he was. Go ahead and google. Read what AP and others reported about the clash with Sadr. Now it is a completely different spin. When Maliki moved on Sadr, Democrats laughed, didn't they? And how did those Iraqis troops do? Now Maliki has defeated Sadr.

All Moran is saying is that Maliki is playing it both ways to get re-elected. In that sense, he shares some traits with Obama, but the Sunnis who are returning to the table do not favor a rapid pullout and warn that the Shia militants have more tricks up their sleeves. I am amazed at how quickly a war that we lost, has become a war we have won MR. Maliki defeats Sadr and we can go home...LOL. Sure, that's the ticket.

Now did the US pick up an Iranian backed Hizb'Allah rep today or did the Iraqis? The dynamics here are far deeper than partisan spin and media filter. After all, both were wrong about Iraq, yes? And McCain pushed the right plan, yes? And Patraeus, didn't betray us, right? And maybe we have learned something we and NATO can take to Afghanistan.

Michael, I see you refuse to admit that you overstated and made a demonstrably false claim. You were challenged on it, and you ran away and tried to divert. No sale.

I repeat--as far as I'm concerned at this point your credibility as an honest conversant in political discourse is now zilch. As in zero. As in none whatsoever. If you wish to be treated as anything other than a loony ranting wingnut, engage honestly.

There are many sites where you may senselessly blather to your heart's content without being seriously challenged on the use of dilatory and diversionary tactics, saying whatever your Rice Krispies tell you to. This is not one of them.

You are exactly right. Even AP reported yesterday that the Iraqi military is not so gung ho on the US pulling out anytime soon. Seems Maliki is pulling an Obama. Moran essentially said the same thing, but MR wants to ignore his central point. Not only has Maliki flip flopped and given worng predictions but Democrats really said some nasty things about him. And if Iraq owes us so much for what we have done, how smart is it for little in pay back and no strategic gains short of Iraq being free of Saddam? Even some Democrats have voiced concerns that we need to stick around a bit and get better compensation for our effort. Funny, didn't we go to Iraq to steal their oil and erect a puppet. No wonder some Iraqis want us out ASAP. You are right on this issue Tully and you summarized it well at CF. It amazes me that the level of analysis many on the Left use, is adjusted for the facts that want to extract and not the truth that is there.

One point of conflation: Obama said repeatedly that he would talk to Iran. Well the US has talked to Iran. So let us cut to the chase Obama and take a good look at your solve-all called "talking":

"A senior diplomat from the U.S. joined envoys from five other world powers in Switzerland at Saturday's talks on Iran's nuclear program. Ahmadinejad told thousands of supporters gathered in the southern Iranian town of Yasouj that Undersecretary of State William Burns "spoke politely and in a dignified manner."

"It was a step toward recognizing the rights of the Iranian nation, toward justice, toward repairing your image in the world, toward cleaning 50 years of crimes you committed against the Iranian nation," Ahmadinejad said, addressing the U.S.

The United States and other Western nations accuse Iran of seeking to acquire nuclear weapons and demand that it freeze its uranium enrichment program. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Ahmadinejad on Wednesday again vowed Iran will not "retreat one iota" from pursuing it."

So what is your plan B? Care to tell Americans? Sounds like Iraq and Iran will be big problems in the coming debates. And Obama should think twice about bringing up Pakistan where his predictions were as wrong as those on the surge. As I linked elsewhere, Obama using Iraq as the cause of recent problems in Afghanistan is not born out by the facts. Despite his touted media biased field trip campaign, Obama returns weakened on the entire range of Messianic solutions and predictions for Middle Eastern problems. Just a thought to those who think BO has the GE in the bag.

So, I guess Boot wasn't serious about democracy - he wants the Iraqi generals to run things, instead of having those nasty POLITICIANS who get involved in POLITICS and, oh, no, try to get good deals for their people instead of living with imperialist deals like what Bush wants and living with being treated like a teenager by the Administration.

Shouldn't you and he be showing at least be showing some respect for the leader of that democracy he spend so mucn time backing? Oh, but not if it doesn't hew to the AMERICAN Republican line.

On timeframes: the President assured the American people and the world that the Surge would be effective in about three months, and honest to God gone from Iraq in six months because it'd all be over so fast. Looking at things that way, Maliki's idea was pretty reasonable, wasn't it? You righties are positively amnesic about the 3-6-month Surge deadline.

You've become a perfect Yglesias in reverse on this issue. He called Maliki both a Bush stooge back then and not anymore. He can't possibly be an independent actor, can he? I challenge you to try and figure out NONPARANOID possible GOOD reasons why Maliki might take this course of action (I can think of 4 beyond popularity of it). Remember, American mistakes have consequences, just like everybody elses'.

This is my last post on this subject. There's about as much point to continuing this as to posting on an Yglesias war thread. Enjoy whatever denying facts instead of adapting to them gets you.