Politcs of the past, journalism of the past
I think McCain's got the better of this exchange. It's all well and good for Obama to claim that we should never have invaded Iraq in the first place, but the exchange began when Obama suggested that, after withdrawl, he would send troops back to Iraq if Al Qaeda were found to be building a base there. That's not a question about what we did in the past. It's a question about what we should do now and in the future. If, whenever he is criticized for his Iraq policy proposals, Obama's default position is "we should never have been there in the first place," people are going to start to notice that the forward-looking candidate seems to be living in the past.
Fear not, though. Whenever Obama's proposals seem vague, incoherent, or evasive, we can count on his pals in the unbiased media to underscore the really important point of this debate:
"That's history, that's the past," McCain told attendees at a town hall meeting at Rice University. "That's talking about what happened before. What we should be talking about is what we're going to do now. And what we're going to do now is continue this strategy which is succeeding in Iraq and we are carrying out the goals of the surge, the Iraqi military are taking over more and more of the responsibilities."
It was an interesting claim from the man seeking to be the oldest American ever first elected president — about a candidate 25 years his junior — and is just the latest charge in what may be a preview of the general election. (Emphasis mine.)
The Republicans and the McCain camp should embrace the "Mean Old Man McCain" image now. The sooner the McCain campaign finds a way to subvert, mock, and satirize the "Mean Old Man McCain" spin, the sooner it will lose its power. And the Obama campaign and its acolytes in the press will have to find another talking point.
UPDATE: Heh.
Fear not, though. Whenever Obama's proposals seem vague, incoherent, or evasive, we can count on his pals in the unbiased media to underscore the really important point of this debate:
"That's history, that's the past," McCain told attendees at a town hall meeting at Rice University. "That's talking about what happened before. What we should be talking about is what we're going to do now. And what we're going to do now is continue this strategy which is succeeding in Iraq and we are carrying out the goals of the surge, the Iraqi military are taking over more and more of the responsibilities."
It was an interesting claim from the man seeking to be the oldest American ever first elected president — about a candidate 25 years his junior — and is just the latest charge in what may be a preview of the general election. (Emphasis mine.)
The Republicans and the McCain camp should embrace the "Mean Old Man McCain" image now. The sooner the McCain campaign finds a way to subvert, mock, and satirize the "Mean Old Man McCain" spin, the sooner it will lose its power. And the Obama campaign and its acolytes in the press will have to find another talking point.
UPDATE: Heh.
posted by Kate Marie | 8:00 AM | Permalink
|
3 comments
3 Comments:
Dear Kate Marie,
You and Senator McCain seem to have misunderstood Obama's remarks. His noting that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to the US invasion does not reduce down to "we should not have been there in the first place." It adduces that there is no predictable correlation between the deployment of troops into or out of Iraq and the strength of Al Qaeda there. Adding US troops to Iraq gave Al Qaeda the foothold it enjoys there now, thus withdrawing US troops might have the exact opposite effect. In the Democratic debate on Tuesday, when asked directly about the possibility, Obama affirmed that he would be ready to send troops back into Iraq if it looked like Al Qaeda's strength was growing again in the wake of a US withdrawal. That is hardly an incoherent or evasive position, it is a prudent acceptance that we simply cannot know what the short and long term effects of US troop deployments will be, and that any president will have to stand ready to change course in the face of rapidly evolving circumstances on the ground. It is ironic for John McCain to take Obama to task for such candor, since he himself suffered so much criticism for the many months that the Bush administration refused to change strategic course in the ways that McCain himself advised.
Dear Madman,
This was Obama's remark:
""I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."
-- I think my interpretation of his words at least as plausible of yours, since if Obama had wanted to point out that there is "no predictable correlation, etc." he could have done so quite clearly. I would alo argue that --far from suggesting "no predictable correlation" -- Obama's remarks seek to suggest a strong correlation between the original invasion and the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
In any event, if there is *no* predictable correlation between the deployment of troops into or out of Iraq and the strength of Al Qaeda there, why would the redeployment of troops make any difference? Why would it not once again -- according to Obama's perspective -- cause a spike in Al Qaeda's strength and support?
Again, if Obama wanted to answer these questions, he could have done so in much clearer terms than those he chose. Since I am not as reluctant as you are to ascribe some garden variety political campaign "spinning" to Obama and his campaign, I think it makes far more sense to understand his remarks as a reminder that Bush/McCain (I like how McCain "decided" to invade Iraq, in Obama's formulation) got us into this "failed" war in the first place, etc.
Dear Kate Marie,
This was John McCain's remark:
"I have some news — al Qaeda is in Iraq. It's called: 'Al Qaeda in Iraq.'"
The implication: if you suggest that you might have to put troops back *into* Iraq to deal with Al Qaeda, well, they are already there. So why would you contemplate pulling them out in the first place? Obama's response: Al Qaeda is only there because of the US invasion, so pulling troops out just might be the wisest thing. The mere presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq does not argue for the wisdom of keeping US troops there.
"In any event, if there is *no* predictable correlation between the deployment of troops into or out of Iraq and the strength of Al Qaeda there, why would the redeployment of troops make any difference? Why would it not once again -- according to Obama's perspective -- cause a spike in Al Qaeda's strength and support?"
Again, you don't seem to understand. We are dealing with hypotheticals. Redeploying troops might make a difference or it might not, just as withdrawing troops might help the situation or it might not. Obama's statement at the Democratic debate indicated that withdrawal is not a dogma for him as perpetual ("hundred year") occupation is for McCain.
I personally don't think that a redeployment of US troops in the wake of a withdrawal would be necessary or wise, but I'm prepared to be proven wrong, and (evidently) so is Obama. It is predictable that McCain will attempt to portray Obama's policy position on Iraq as incoherent or naive, but really it is just different than McCain's. One of the ways in which it is different is that it is more pragmatically flexible, which in the wake of 6 years of Bush rigidity on the issue is a great virtue.
Post a Comment
<< Home