I know you understand this is a very delicate matter for McCain. All he has is Iraq going for him; it’s his only ace in this game.

Oh so wrong. By Iraq’s progress getting it to the point that withdrawal can and will start… as Petraeus told us last year and this spring, so it’s no surprise… the Iraq playing field between the two candidates has been leveled.

Aces? In order of import, IMHO?

1: oil supply, nuke power plants, affordable energy along with simultaneous alternative energy (including drilling). Your boy will be buried on that.

2: In tangent with above, taxes. By the time BHO sunsets the Bush tax cuts=tax hike, then piles on the taxes for his energy programs… all the while never giving the average American relief from the high gas prices by sending the signal to the speculators that the US will increase the supply of oil… you’ll watch the citizens rebel against the tax and spend BHO and his merry DNC Congress. Just where does he think we’ll get all this extra money to hand over for alternative energies? They will “conserve” our driving habits to the point that it affects businesses… never going for vacations, going out to dinner, etal.

3: Pakistan and foreign policy. JSM hasn’t burned his bridges there, and BHO hasn’t got a clue how to win Afghanistan. That is a worse “quagmire” in the making than Iraq could ever dream to be because it is intrinsically tied to Pakistan. BHO is a man threatening invasion of a US ally. He is, as bigpapa said so tersely, “an idiot”.

…since you trust Bush and you deny all the evidence I have presented for a significant distinction between Obama and McCain-Bush (that is one wants to end the occupation, the others want a long-term presence with large numbers of troops…

What you fail to acknowledge is that the US cannot, and will not, do anything the Iraqis themselves don’t want and agree to. ala, they ask us to leave, or do not sign SOFAs or renew mandates… we’re outta there. If they want us to stay, we hammer out agreements that work for both sides in order to do so.

In the end, it is not up to the Iraqi government to decide what Iraqis want, ‘I decide what they want.’ — that’s how this is beginning to sound.

Only to your ears, Doug. The Iraqis are in full control of their situation. See above. Been the facts since day one, and remains the facts today. You can nuance til the cows come home. But it won’t change the facts one iota. Withdrawal is withdrawal. Both DNC and GOP candidates will leave 50-60K personnel there.. for how long, again depends on what the Iraqis dictate, which will be determined by their progress and ground events.

However BHO can claim no moral success in getting to this point. He has, along with his party, fought this moment since before the Surge. He is, as usual, getting a free ride, and oblivious to his own shortcomings. I, however, am not.

Love the effort at propaganda though-I mean, trying to market McCain as GWBII as if Obama’s foreign policy is soooooooo different…oh that’s rich.

Curious, did Doug see that Obama interview w Logan today where she made him admit that his unilateral strike policy towards Pakistan is the same policy as GWB’s? Or, perhaps the NYT piece today showing that Maliki’s quote in Speigel was made a misquote, and they took out the conditions on the ground part (a claim reiterated by the article that started this thread).

YES, there will be a withdrawal
YES, Iraq will want some US forces there for a long time-especially the ones building their infrastructure at no cost to the Iraqi govt, and the counter-terrorist troops fighting Al Queda groups in Iraq that have killed 50-75% of the civilian deaths in Iraq.
YES, Obama and McCain do have the same Iraq policy: get as many troops out as soon as possible (with “possible” meaning: conditions based, or conditions on the ground, etc).

…and yes, US forces are to continue their withdrawal because of American success that was impeded and opposed by Democrats and the left from before US troops even stepped into Iraq. That is to say, the troops can come home-not because of what Democrats did, but in spite of it.

We could start by looking at yesterday’s response by McC. to Maliki’s interview:

“His [Maliki] domestic politics require him to be for us getting out,” said a senior McCain campaign official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “The military says ‘conditions based’ and Maliki said ‘conditions based’ yesterday in the joint statement with Bush. Regardless, voters care about [the] military, not about Iraqi leaders.” [doug's emphasis]

Then today: Meredith Viera asks John McCain about how the Iraqi government keeps finding commonality with Obama’s Iraq policy. McCain answers:

I have been there too many times. I’ve met too many times with him, and I know what they want. They want it based on conditions and of course they would like to have us out, that’s what happens when you win wars, you leave. We may have a residual presence there as even Senator Obama has admitted. But the fact is that it should be — the agreement between Prime Minister Maliki, the Iraqi government and the United states is it will be based on conditions. This is a great success, but it’s fragile, and could be reversed very easily. I think we should trust the word of General Petraeus who has orchestrated this dramatic turnaround.

In the end, it is not up to the Iraqi government to decide what Iraqis want, ‘I decide what they want.’ — that’s how this is beginning to sound. Now it’s not transparent yet, it’s not a media sound bite, but how long can Bush and McCain say ‘no’ as the dust settles from all this.

I’m saying this: one side can say, ‘”conditions on the ground…” all they want’, but if that message starts to overshadow the tone and will of the message coming out of Iraq– that they want to get the troops out, out by 2010, and they aren’t messing around, then McCain will begin to look as tho’ he is bullying the Iraqi government, denying them their own national interests… then you will see Maliki having to show even more distance between him and McCain-Bush and if the media smells this, they will echo it and put it in their echo chamber ad nauseum.

I know you understand this is a very delicate matter for McCain. All he has is Iraq going for him; it’s his only ace in this game.

Obama, the “broken clock” that is right once or twice a day, now finds that conditions that were not good for the Iraqis last year when he touted withdrawal, are good to go now – no thanks to him or the DNC. He’s like a damaged goods race car on the track… at some point in the race, he is actually a car in the heat with others for a short time…. but many laps behind.

Withdrawal will take place under any POTUS… under Bush now, and continuing under whomever in late January. Therefore, it’s absurd to battle over withdrawal plan vs withdrawal plan since either one will suffer change in the event ground conditions flare up. In essence, there is very little difference between either candidate right now.

The big difference is that the judgment to get us to withdrawal reality – a withdrawal that the Iraqis agreed they were ready to attempt now – only belongs in the GWB/JSM column… and not BHOs.

(AP) Face to face with Iraq’s leaders, Barack Obama [re]gained [(my change)] fresh support Monday for the idea of pulling all U.S. combat forces out of the war zone by 2010. But the Iraqis stopped short of actual timetables or endorsement of Obama’s pledge to withdraw American troops within 16 months if he wins the presidency.

The Democratic presidential contender also got a military briefing — and a helicopter tour — from the top U.S. commander in the region, Gen. David Petraeus, and he met with a few of the nearly 150,000 U.S. troops now well into the war’s sixth year.

Back in the U.S., Republican rival John McCain said he hoped Obama’s visit would open his eyes to the danger of withdrawal timetables. Said the Arizona senator, who was meeting with President Bush’s father, the former president, in Maine: “When you win wars, troops come home.” He said of Obama: “He’s been completely wrong on the issue.”

In Washington, the White House expressed displeasure with recent public comments by Iraqi leaders on the withdrawal question and suggested they might have the U.S. election on their minds.

As Obama visited Iraq for the first time in more than two years, comments Monday by the nation’s government spokesman roughly mirrored the Illinois senator’s withdrawal schedule and offered a glimpse of Iraq’s growing confidence as violence drops and Iraqi security forces expand their roles.

“We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq,” spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said after Obama met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — who has struggled for days to clarify Iraq’s position on a possible timetable for a U.S. troop pullout.

Iraq’s Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, said after meeting Obama that Iraqi leaders share “a common interest … to schedule the withdrawal of American troops.”
…

See the video here:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/on_film.php#comments

All the networks are now carrying this and it’s gonna be pretty certain this time; not much chance of a walk-back.

John’s pissed here:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTY2ODA2YjVjZDA0M2ZhZTk2MWY5OWE5ZGFlYmI4ODE=

Ramesh finds some hope for McCain still:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGVkYTEyZTJmNWZjNTcwZjc0MDY2YjJkODZlMThiNDU=

Gateway Pundit almost has a stroke and wants to tout a line of Obama’s failings on Iraq and emphasize ‘conditions’, while going into denial mode that the news media cycle is now running away with the story that when it comes to time-frames on a withdrawal, Maliki and Obama are a near match.

Things are catching fire!

As to Maliki stabbing Bush Admin (lame duck admin) in the back…so? Who cares? It’s a lame duck admin that’s good for nothing anymore except finger-pointing (see also Democrats’ Congress).

And I think MH is right that Obama will have some freedom to adjust while McCain will simply say we are winning, victory is near and still spend $10 billion a month.

Now now, James. That is not at all what I said.

Both BHO and JSM will be adjusting during the withdrawal period. The difference is that BHO will promise an end date, and move the goal posts as they come. In the meantime, he’ll present this to his adoring fans as another campaign promise that he’ll sweet talk his way thru if he wins the Oval Office.

JSM will not set a definite end date, but do it as fast as the events on the ground, and troops/equipment can be moved.

As far as who Maliki wants… I agree with Scott. However we do know who Chavez and Hamas want for the next US POTUS. As Barry Rubin said…

If the dictators and terrorists are smiling, it means everyone else is crying.

And I think MH is right that Obama will have some freedom to adjust while McCain will simply say we are winning, victory is near and still spend $10 billion a month. The military has done what we’ve asked them to do and its time we reward them by bringing them home. I’m sure the generals can devise a plan to successfully transition from Iraq and meet the security needs of Iraq. But Iraq will have to stand up – as they did in Basra when the Brits turned the region over to the Iraqi forces.

Maliki has some political capital and he can use it to improve security in Sunni regions and begin the process of working on political issues with the opposing factions.