John McCain On Wednesday Regarding Barack Obama’s 16-Month Iraq “Timetable” Proposal: “Sen. Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a campaign.” John McCain On Friday: “I think it’s a pretty good timetable…”
Alright, just who IS this “John McCain” character anyway? Is “John McCain” and “character” an oxymoron?
While I don’t want to jump to that conclusion just yet, it is a notable FACT the man spent the early part of last week basically accusing his opponent for the Oval Office of willing to lose the so-called “war” in Iraq to get himself elected by proposing to remove the American combat forces from Iraq within sixteen months after taking his oath of office. Here’s a little stroll down (recent) “Memory Lane”, courtesy of The Atlantic Journal-Constitution:
McCain blasts Obama on Iraq policy
“… Speaking at a town hall meeting here, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said that Obama, even after visiting Iraq, was showing “a remarkable failure to understand the facts on the ground” by continuing to call for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq on a fixed timetable.
(Snip!)
“… And McCain repeated the accusation, which he first made Tuesday in New Hampshire, that Obama’s policy on the war represented the triumph of political expediency over the national interest.
“So apparently, Sen. Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a campaign,” McCain said to the applause of many in the crowd of roughly 800.
Obama has said that he is committed to the withdrawal of U.S. troops but would allow some flexibility in his proposed 16-month timeline depending on events and the advice of commanders. …”
First things first — 800 people? Okay, okay — I can’t do this — pretend to be surprised. While Barack Obama is pulling in up to 200,000 people per event, the “energized McCain” base has had PLENTY of trouble (well documented) finding it in their hearts to go out of their way to listen to Señor Straight-Talk blather on and on in that monotone, “fingernails scratching on the chalkboard” voice of his.
That said, Señor Straight-Talk Panama John Mc-Flip-Flop, just a couple of short days later, is suddenly a HUGE fan of Barack Obama’s 16-month “timetable” (yep, he even said “timetable” before he quickly caught yet another of his one of many recent “gaffes” and corrected the statement — i.e., “time horizon”) as The New York Times‘ Michael Cooper informs us:
McCain Gives Qualified Endorsement to Iraq Timetable
First the Iraqi government gave Senator Barack Obama a boost by seeming to embrace his proposal for a 16-month timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. Now could Senator John McCain, who built his candidacy in large part on his opposition to such a schedule, possibly be following suit?
“I think it’s a pretty good timetable,” Mr. McCain said Friday in an interview on “The Situation Room” on CNN, before adding that it should be based “on the conditions on the ground.”
For months Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has strongly opposed setting a timetable for withdrawal and has criticized Mr. Obama, his Democratic rival, for suggesting one. But the debate has shifted in recent days as Iraqi officials, including Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, moved closer to Mr. Obama’s position.
In the CNN interview, Mr. McCain first seemed to play down any possibility that Mr. Maliki would actually ask the United States to withdraw in the next 16 months to two years. “He won’t,” Mr. McCain said, explaining that he knew Mr. Maliki well.
Then, asked why he thought Mr. Maliki had called 16 months a potentially suitable timetable, Mr. McCain gave his enigmatic answer.
“He said it’s a pretty good timetable based on conditions on the ground,” Mr. McCain said. “I think it’s a pretty good timetable, as we should — or horizons for withdrawal. But they have to be based on conditions on the ground. …”
H/T goes to MemeOrandum for the pull, by the way…
Just so I can get this “straight”, as in a “Straight Talk Express” brand of “straight”, it appears Señor McCain of Arizona Panama is trying to BLURR the fact he is now a HUGE fan of Barry’s and is easily-led by his “no experience” brand of leadership by emphasizing (along with the NYT’s Michael Cooper apparently), his endorsement of the Obama plan is a conditional, or “qualified” endorsement, depending solely upon the “conditions on the ground” at the end of this timetable “time horizon of McCain’s Obama’s. Of course, “Panama John” would have us believe this is what NOW “differentiates” himself from “Barry O-Bomber” on the subject of Iraq. Unfortunately for Señor McSurge, we are all capable of reading AND calling “B.S.” when we see it.
Again, from the first referenced article from the AJC:
“… Obama has said that he is committed to the withdrawal of U.S. troops but would allow some flexibility in his proposed 16-month timeline depending on events and the advice of commanders. …”
Okay, now that I think about it, perhaps, I’m jumping to conclusions. What if Barry is talking about consulting ONLY with Naval and Air Force commanders and only Panama McStraightTalk knows this, while the latter is talking about consulting ONLY with Marine and Army commanders? Could somebody help me out with some sources to indicate whether or not this is true, because it could totally change my opinion of who, between Panama and Barry possesses the most “marbles” in his skull? Could this be why Señor McSurge insists upon differentiating his (new) position on a timetable “time horizon” depending upon information coming from ground commanders versus air and sea commanders?
Or, then again — could it just be John McCain is certifiably NUTS and stricken with the politician’s disease known as Flip-Flopitis?
***
Now, for some of my favorite blogger reactions — just “snips” — read them in their entirety, please:
Andrew Sullivan of The Daily Dish (The Atlantic):
“… McCain changes his tune, and then semi-corrects himself… “
“McCain: I’ll lose to win – too!”
Marc Ambinder (Also of The Atlantic) — Gotta LOVE the Q&A:
“… Which candidate supports a 16-month withdrawal timeline for combat troops that depends on conditions on the ground?
Barahn Sidssein McBama… “
The Drudge Retort — One of the first few comments in a lively “back and forth” debate:
“I guess nobody’s going to need McCain anymore! He should just retire.”
“… John McCain has flip-flopped once again, this time on his Iraq policy. After attacking Obama’s plan for months he has essentially endorsed it. …”
“… So when McCain says “he won’t,” well, that ship has already sailed. Maliki “has” and McCain not wanting to accept that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. …”
“… Obviously, John McCain would rather lose a war in order to win an election, since he favors a timetable that is impossible, that would require us to leave our heavy equipment behind in an ignominous rout not seen since Dunkirk, that evidenced a candidate’s inexperience and hubris. Can America afford that risk? …”
The Reaction (Michael J.W. Stickings):
“… Not that McCain’s fellow warmongers will give in to what Obama and the war’s critics and opponents have been calling for for a long, long time. After all, what they want is not just virtually endless war, and not just a permanent U.S. foothold in the region, but essentially global American hegemony. That on top of being utterly delusional with respect to the reality of the war and occupation. …”
Loading ...
10:32 pm on July 26th, 2008 1
[...] Crony’s, who’s to say, what site is next. Stop the ACLU? Daily Kos? RedState? Gun Totting Liberal? or will it be a “little guy” blog that will feel the brunt of the Almighty Federal [...]