GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
And McCainiacs do not mince words:
This could be one of those unexpected events that forever changes the way the world perceives an issue. Iraq’s Prime Minister agrees with Obama, and there’s no wiggle room or fudge factor. This puts John McCain in an extremely precarious spot: what’s left to argue? to argue against Maliki would be to predicate that Iraqi sovereignty at this point means nothing. Obviously, our national interests aren’t equivalent to Iraq’s, but… Malik isn’t listening to the generals on the ground…but the “hasn’t been to Iraq” line doesn’t work here.
So how will the McCain campaign respond?
(Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, “We’re fucked.” No response yet from the McCain campaign, although here’s what McCain said the last time Maliki mentioned withdrawal: “Since we are succeeding, then I am convinced, as I have said before, we can withdraw and withdraw with honor, not according to a set timetable. And I?m confident that is what Prime Minister Maliki is talking about, since he has told me that for many meetings we?’ve had.”
Will Maliki retract his words?
Foreign policy was the one area where Americans trusted McCain more than Obama. Ironically, the more we win in Iraq, the less of an advantage McCain will have on foreign policy, as withdrawal from Iraq becomes the “grown-up” position if we’ve won the war. Sure, Americans are still concerned about other foreign threats, like Iran and random jihadists, but those issues rank far below Iraq when it comes to Americans’ current priorities and rank even farther below the economy and energy prices. I suspect that a Joe Biden as running mate or as Secretary of State in waiting would be enough to push Americans’ remaining foreign policy concerns with Obama to the back burner.
If McCain is going to pull this one out, he’s going to have to do what all of us are telling him to do, and run as a candidate who constitutes a clean break from Bush and from generic Washingtonianism. Michael Barone calls it a turn-the-corner strategy. Kavon Nikrad calls it a Sarkozy strategy. But whatever it’s called, it basically requires McCain to show how he, and not Obama, will give America change that we can all believe in. My pessimism regarding McCain’s current efforts come from the fact that he won the nomination months ago and has yet to figure this out for himself. No running mate is going to be able to save McCain in this regard. Neither Mitt Romney nor Tom Ridge can deliver Michigan or Pennsylvania, respectively, if McCain is eight points down in both. Only McCain can win this one for McCain. But in order to do so, he’s going to have to take the engine out of neutral.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
I am so mad at al-Maliki right now - HE MUST BE DEPOSED IMMEDIATELY. We must stay in Iraq (minimum 35 years with permanent bases).
July 19th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
The McCain campaign’s response to al-Maliki:
“His 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.”
“Let’s be clear, the only reason that the conversation about reducing troop levels in Iraq is happening is because John McCain challenged the failed Rumsfield-strategy in Iraq and argued for the surge strategy that is responsible for the successes we’ve achieved and which Barack Obama opposed. Unlike Barack Obama, John McCain has never ignored the facts on the ground in Iraq, he’s never avoided the warzone before proposing new strategy, and he’s never voted against funding our troops in the field. If John McCain was following Barack Obama’s lead on foreign policy, the United States would have already withdrawn from Iraq in a humiliating defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.” —Tucker Bounds, spokesman John McCain 2008.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Hopefully we will be able to pull most of our troops out of Iraq by 2010. If the democratically elected leaders of Iraq ask us to leave we are legally and morally required to do so. Iraq isn’t our colony, it is a sovereign nation.
This is essentially the position McCain has moved to in the last few weeks. He can claim that the surge has allowed us the ability to withdraw in victory. Obama wanted to withdraw in defeat.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Doug,
I fundamentally disagree with you that Iraqis should dictate to us our military strategy. If Maliki doesn’t like our strategy then we need to replace him with someone who does. To just give up our permanent bases because of some stupid Iraqi puppet would be ludicrous. We need to finish the mission and I think that withdrawal = defeat. They don’t even have reliable electricity over there yet - they need us. McCain needs to stick to his guns.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Obama ‘would send US troops into Pakistan’
“There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qa’eda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
It’ll be interesting to see how Obama responds to this:
Pakistan: No foreign troops allowed
Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said Saturday his government would not allow any foreign forces to operate against militants inside the country.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
We are not an Empire. Iraq is not a colony, its an independent nation. We are only legally allowed in Iraq as the Iraqi people and their elected leaders see fit.
We have no more right to depose the leaders of Iraq than the Chinese have a right to depose President Bush.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Iraq will prove strategically indispensable for any possible future ground invasion of Iran. We cannot think short-sited here we must take the long view and stay and look out for our National Security interests.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Doug: I don’t get how you are using the term “colony”. We do not rule over Iraqi citizens who are now enjoying their national freedoms. We have been providing a security force for Iraw and the region this way the terrorists are precluded from terrorizing the world. The conditions on the ground dictate that Iraq requires a security presence to preserve the peace and to block foreign fighters/terrorist/Iran from “colonizing” Iraq.
In the modern usage, colony is generally distinguished from overseas possession. In the former case, the local population, or at least the part of it not coming from the “metropolitan” (controlling) country, does not enjoy full citizenship rights. The political process is generally restricted, especially excluding questions of independence. In this case, there are settlers from a dominating foreign country, or countries, and often the property of indigenous peoples is seized, to provide the settlers with land. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony
July 19th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
I think Ambinder and you all are making waaaay too big a deal out of what al-Maliki said.
It was more off an off-hand remark than an endorsement. And John McCain what McCain says about Iraq isn’t all that different. If Iraq wants us out in 16 months, we’ll be out in 16 months no matter who is President.
And by the way… Raise your hand if you think what the Prime Minister of Iraq has to say about anything will influence Joe Sixpack in Independence, MO to vote for Obama.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Doug,
Respectfully, your foreign policy analysis seems rather naive. You suggest that Iraq is a “sovereign” nation and that “if the democratically elected leaders of Iraq ask us to leave we are legally and morally required to do so.” We are the world’s lone Super Power. We created present day Iraq, we created al-Maliki or whatever his name is, without the U.S. invasion and liberation he would be no one-he doesn’t matter a twit and no one cares about what he says or what the Iraqi people claim to say through unreliable MSM self-serving polls. The American people supported this invasion, the American people support us staying and the American people support permanent bases as does John McCain. If it is in our Nation’s national interest we can do what ever we like. Remember Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran and President Eisenhower’s Operation Ajax? It is naive to think that we cannot shape the political landscape of the Middle East if it suits our National interest. We must stay in Iraq, we will stay in Iraq for both security and humanitarian reasons.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
As Kavon said, we will respect the wishes of the democratically elected Iraqi government. I suspect we’ll have a few non-combat troops in Iraq decades after our combat troops leave.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
During the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing back on April 8th, Obama offered some insight into his definition of “success” in Iraq, and suggested that he would be OK with a long-term presence of 30,000 U.S. troops. What he opposed was setting the bar for success so high that we’d still need to maintain current troop levels (150K) 20-30 years from now.
Here is the relevant exchange between Obama and Ambassador Crocker:
OBAMA: And so my final — and I’ll even pose this as a question and I won’t — you don’t necessarily have to answer it — maybe it’s a rhetorical question — if we were able to have the status quo in Iraq right now without U.S. troops, would that be a sufficient definition of success?
It’s obviously not perfect. There’s still violence, there’s still some traces of Al Qaida, Iran has influence more than we would like. But if we had the current status quo, and yet our troops had been drawn down to 30,000, would we consider that a success? Would that meet our criteria, or would that not be good enough and we’d have to devote even more resources to it?
CROCKER: Senator, I can’t imagine the current status quo being sustainable with that kind of precipitous drawdown.
OBAMA: No, no, that wasn’t the question. I’m not suggesting that we yank all our troops out all the way. I’m trying to get to an endpoint. That’s what all of us have been trying to get to.
And, see, the problem I have is if the definition of success is so high, no traces of Al Qaida and no possibility of reconstitution, a highly-effective Iraqi government, a Democratic multiethnic, multi- sectarian functioning democracy, no Iranian influence, at least not of the kind that we don’t like, then that portends the possibility of us staying for 20 or 30 years.
If, on the other hand, our criteria is a messy, sloppy status quo but there’s not, you know, huge outbreaks of violence, there’s still corruption, but the country is struggling along, but it’s not a threat to its neighbors and it’s not an Al Qaida base, that seems to me an achievable goal within a measurable timeframe, and that, I think, is what everybody here on this committee has been trying to drive at, and we haven’t been able to get as clear of an answer as we would like.
CROCKER: And that’s because, Senator, is a — I mean, I don’t like to sound like a broken record, but this is hard and this is complicated.
I think that when Iraq gets to the point that it can carry forward its further development without a major commitment of U.S. forces, with still a lot of problems out there but where they and we would have a fair certitude that, again, they can drive it forward themselves without significant danger of having the whole thing slip away from them again, then, clearly, our profile, our presence diminishes markedly.
But that’s not where we are now.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Obama endorsed McCain’s plan of actually GOING to the middle east. But Obama’s plan was to already have US troops out of Iraq at this point.
God please let General Petraeus endorse McCain for president.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
al-Maliki owes his position to Bush and owes the surge on his ability to keep his post.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
#9: You are right. I don’t think this is as much of a big deal as some are making it out to be. Would Maliki even be discussin withdrawal plans had Sen. Obama had his way? No! mcCain is not opposed to withdrawing troops in the next 16 months, but only opposes such a plan if it would jeopardize the gains in security and political reconcilitation we’ve made since and because of the Surge (which again, McCain supported and Obama opposed from the beginning). This is more of a status of forces agreement that the US and Iraq together will hammer out. Plus, this is politics, plain and simple from Iraq… Maliki is trying to one-up al-Sadr and forces in Iraq that are trying to drive us out of Iraq. But I’m betting that behind-the-scenes, Maliki and the U.S. (Bush) aren’t saying such stuff.
“During the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing back on April 8th, Obama offered some insight into his definition of “success” in Iraq, and suggested that he would be OK with a long-term presence of 30,000 U.S. troops.”
Isn’t that what McCain has been talking about– a long term American presence of fewer troops to maintain security like we did in Korea, Germany?
July 19th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Maliki would very likely be six feet under if Obama had his way.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Dave, you are duped too easily by the msm. Malaki was covering his ass based on july msm polls that are always wrong. He only agreed to the 16 months and guess what, its not a treaty!
please
What the events of the past week show, esp that Obama uttered the words success and victory in Iraq is that any US w/d will be seen as a result of victory, one we wouldn’t have if we listened to the Obama.
McCain is a day closer to the lanslide win.
July 19th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
The Us will leave on our schedule no matter what al maliki or anyone says. Why?
We paid for the right with blood.
July 19th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Based on what has been posted by Allahpundit over at HotAir, it appears that Der Spiegel has been trying to deliberately interfere in US politics. According to Allahpundit, the first online version of its interview with al-Maliki quoted him this way about the Obama withdrawal plan:
“As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned.” He then added that “Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.” This quote seems to make the argument that withdrawal should be conditions-based, but that the Iraqis think they will be in a position to assume control within the 16 month timeframe. Not exactly Obama’s plan.
Der Spiegel later posted a REVISED version of the interview which stated:
“U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.” THIS sounds like a direct endorsement of Obama’s plan. Very different from the first post.
It looks like the McCain campaign is being screwed by a German magazine that is a HUGE Obama fan. CNN has updated it’s story on the Der Spiegel interview with al-Maliki. It is now titled “Iraqi PM Disputes Report on Withdrawal Plan.” The article reports on the interview and the revised quote, then includes this:
“But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks “were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.”
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.”
The McCain campaign and the Blogosphere need to scream about this to high heaven.
July 19th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Check this out — the German magazine, Der Spiegel, has actually gone back and changed al-Maliki’s answer. Here is how it was originally reported:
SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?
Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.
The “refined” response?
Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.
The Tribune’s Frank James wrote earlier:
“Maliki is clearly doing what he feels he must for his domestic audience which has a love-hate relationship with the U.S. military. On one hand, they welcome the U.S. military’s ability to beat back Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists.”
“But the U.S.’s presence in Iraq is also an affront to Iraqi nationalism and viewed as an occupation by many Iraqis, a necessary evil whose end is devoutly wished for by many Iraqis, according to many reports.”
July 19th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Here’s the link to the report by Frank James, which includes the original quote:
Iraq’s Maliki backs Obama’s exit plan
July 19th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Kavon, could you notify us when Daveg posts a entry, so we are not looking at getting ten minutes of our life back?
July 19th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Here’s the link Allahpundit’s post…
July 19th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
JA Troll, relax. Nobody here really wants to be in Iraq, and we can’t afford for a sovereign gov’t to peacefully ask us to leave without abiding their wishes (well, except for Gamecock, maybe…). The problem is that PM al-Maliki endorsed the idea of this only lasting 16 more months (conditions being considered), not an ironclad drop dead date of withdrawal. It sounds much more like a politician playing to his constituents than a firm intention to have us out in 16 months.
July 19th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Here is the link to the CNN update, pointed out by SCSoxFan:
Iraqi PM disputes report on withdrawal plan
July 19th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
> “God please let General Petraeus endorse McCain for president.”
I’ve always understood that serving officers are not supposed to get actively involved in politics (I don’t know if it’s forbidden, or just frowned upon). In any case, I think keeping the military out of partisan politics is a good tradition, and I hope Petraeus doesn’t become involved.
July 19th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
JA Pruce,
That’s a rather frightening viewpoint. I think it’s absolutely true that the US has, in some past situations, been too hesitant to press on after victory. Our reluctance to press militarily in closing days of the Western Front in World War II arguably led to the complete Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. But, we’re still bound by some rules of moral law. And it’s criminal to try to depose a Democratically elected figure- an ally- who’s only crime is wanting his State’s sovereignty back. It’s fascist and turns us into the villains and caricatures of the left. Regardless, though I’ve seen no indication that Maliki’s referring to a withdrawal time horizon for all American forces, in a sense that would require us to abandon permanent bases.
July 19th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Must you show the foul language? Can you not edit it out? I know young high schoolers who frequent this site…
July 19th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
BobH,
Absolutely. Keeping the military above politics is an old and venerable tradition and one which has served us well. It’s not worth abandoning to win one election (assuming that Petraeus is even a Republican).
July 19th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
DaveG, did you learn a lesson you have needed to learn for many moons from this?
July 19th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Gamecock is 44
He’s been thru all this before
He doesn’t write desperate articles thinking that the fate of the world hinges on msm events
People, we don’t elect known leftists as president in the USA and no der speigel or maliki can change that fact.
July 19th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Dave my Gee, read this and don’t ever play into the MSM’s hands:
http://gamecock.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/06/media_narrative_must_never_let_media_or_liberalism_be_discredited.thtml
July 19th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
#31 Gamecock,
Great comment, that puts everything back into perspective for me. We need to look at the big picture here.
July 20th, 2008 at 12:51 am
It’s not the end of the world. The news that the surge worked and most of the surge troops are already back home is news to most americans. Barack only admitted on sunday @ his website that something positive had happened. All John McCain has to do is issue a statement something like this. “Obviously Mr. Maliki is under pressure from many factions in his government to seek a US troop reduction, especially now that the surge has worked and it is obvious that the Iraqi military and police have responded splendidly in filling the vacuum behind the withdrawal of several US brigades comprising most of the surge troops. As I have said before, if the generals on the ground or the Iraqi government feel we can reduce troop levels, we will start bringing our troops home or redirect them elsewhere, immediately.This will be at a level that the Iraqis and our generals determine is safe for both Iraqi and American troops.”
July 20th, 2008 at 2:48 am
“I fundamentally disagree with you that Iraqis should dictate to us our military strategy. If Maliki doesn’t like our strategy then we need to replace him with someone who does” (JA Pruce, #4)
In some ways this is frightening. Iraq is theoretically a sovereign nation, not a US military outpost. And replacing a Vassal foreign leader for domestic political purposes is a bit tough don’t you think. The Iraqi people wouldn’t be too impressed, would they?
Of course, lets turn it around. What if the Iraqi government decide to appoint Obama as US President, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Happy?
July 20th, 2008 at 3:50 am
Already the Iraqi gov’t is claiming al-Maliki was misquoted and misunderstood, which proves he is a democratically elected politician. More troubling is the penchant for middle easterners to send confusing signals. Iran’s response to the “Freeze, Freeze” proposal is absolutely incomprehensible.
July 20th, 2008 at 4:01 am
I don’t get you guys!
You want your country to stay in Iraq indefinitely whilst soldiers (and innocent civilians) are still dying every day.
I’m all for winning the war. But guess what, wars come to an end! Especilaly when we win! That is a GOOD thing. This war has ALREADY been going on longer than WWI and even after the 16 months post Jan 09 will have been going on longer than WWII!
McCain can STILL benefit from saying the very reason we can leave after a further 21 months is the surge he supported and called for for years! But he will look churlish in the extreme if he appears to be downbeat that we are actually finally winning.
He, and his supporters, are sounding just like the pure politicians they accuse Obama of being.
July 20th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Heath,
I agree with you that wars come to an end. In fact, I would venture to say that this war in Iraq probably ended long ago. What I am wanting, and what I believe McCain’s position is, is for a massive rebuilding effort and sizable security force to remain in Iraq. Look, in South Korea, Germany, Japan…etc. we still have bases and operate freely out of those countries. We need to make sure that we retain our bases in Iran for long term strategic purposes and I would also like to see a rebuilding and Iraqi infrastructure program not unlike what we initiated with the Marshal plan after World War II. Petreaus and the other commanders on the ground make it clear that we need to stay in Iraq - the policy has to be set by these military leaders on the ground.
July 20th, 2008 at 8:52 am
The military does not and should not make policy. And frankly, most military officers prefer a more modest foreign policy. My oldest son is a naval officer. He was stationed in Japan for seven years, but has been back in the states for the last two. He loved being in Japan but he often wrote that he and his friends saw the Japanese presence as a cold war relic.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:05 am
How often do political leaders of 3rd world countries have opportunities to have a huge impact on the US Presidential race? I’m guessing Mr. Maliki is just testing the water and calculating how he can best use this (presidential election) situation to his/his country’s advantage. Let’s hope he’s more like Ben Franklin who played the French against the English for his COUNTRY’S advantage rather than like one of the turncoats we’ve had who sold out their country for personal gain.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:10 am
#40 No way. Apparently, when one looks at the trascript he was totally misquoted, but if anything he was covering his bases with Obama based on his ignorant reading of America based on msm stories and some polls given he lacks historical context: We don’t elect leftists as President.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:12 am
#41
Guess I haven’t seen the transcript. Linkage???
July 20th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Heath,
It would be a problem for McCain if American soldiers were still dying every day.
We’re 20 days into the month of July and seven U.S. troops have been killed in combat in Iraq.
The length of our presence is obviously not a relevant variable, provided Iraq — like Japan, Germany and South Korea — continues to welcome our stay. And, despite the double-talking rhetoric we’ve heard in the last couple of days from al-Maliki, the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people do not want us to actually leave their country anytime in the near future, or before conditions on the ground, and the abilities of the Iraqi military permit a safe drawdown. The Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds may not see eye to eye on a large number of issues, but they each have their self-serving reasons for the U.S. to prevent genocide, to protect their interests, or to ensure their gains made in a post-Saddam Iraq.
From a piece that appeared in the NYT three days ago, exposing the concerns many Iraqis have with Obama’s talk of a premature withdrawal:
Saad Sultan, the Iraqi government official, said his travels in Germany, where there have been American bases since the end of World War II, softened his attitude toward a long-term presence. “I have no problem to have a camp here,” he said. “I find it in Germany and that’s a strong country. Why not in Iraq?”
While the American people are, admittedly and unfortunately, not fully committed to a successful outcome in Iraq, their opinions are far more divided than the perception you maintain.
Here is some polling data from the past couple of weeks to illustrate my point:
Washington Post - ABC News poll
Obama has proposed a timetable to withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq within 16 months of his taking office. McCain has opposed a specific timetable and said events should dictate when troops are withdrawn. Which approach do you prefer - a timetable or no timetable?
Timetable 50%
No timetable 49%
Do you think the United States is or is not making significant progress toward restoring civil order in Iraq?
Is making significant progress 46%
Is not making significant progress 51%
Please tell me whether the following statement applies to Obama/McCain, or not?
He would be a good commander-in-chief of the military. (Yes/No)
John McCain 72% / 25%
Barack Obama 48% / 48%
Rasmussen poll
Will the situation in Iraq get better or worse over the coming six months?
Better 37%
Worse 25%
CBS - New York Times poll
“How would you say things are going for the U.S. in its efforts to bring stability and order to Iraq? Would you say things are going very well, somewhat well, somewhat badly, or very badly?”
Very/somewhat well 45%
Somewhat/very badly 51%
Pew Poll
“Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?”
Keep in Iraq Until Stabilized 43%
Bring Home As Soon as Possible 52%
“Regardless of what you think about the original decision to use military force in Iraq, do you now believe that the United States will definitely succeed, probably succeed, probably fail, or definitely fail in achieving its goals in Iraq?”
Definitely/probably succeed 50%
Probably/definitely fail 42%
Madge, your son and his friends are entitled to their opinion, but I am quite certain the Japanese government does not view China’s current military build-up as a relic of the Cold War.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:23 am
ogrepete,
Read my posts/click on the links in #20-21, 23 and 25.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Rasmussen Reports: If Israel Attacks Iran, 42% Say U.S. Should Help
If Israel attacks Iran, should the United States help Israel, help Iran, or do nothing?
Help Israel 42%
Help Iran 1%
Do Nothing 46%
Most Republicans say the U.S. should help Israel while most Democrats and unaffiliated voters say the U.S. should do nothing.
Fifty-two percent (52%) of all voters say that preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons is more important than preventing war between Iran and Israel. Republicans overwhelmingly hold this view while Democrats are evenly divided. Among unaffiliated voters, 50% say that stopping Iran’s nuclear program is more important.
Just 8% believe the Iranian government’s claim that its nuclear enrichment program is to generate energy, not weapons.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:43 am
JA Pruce/Ganecock
Words escape me… I can’t fathom how you can possibly believe that directly and openly subverting the will of democratically elected leaders in Iraq would be a wise course of action at this point in time. Why don’t we just install a dictator that does exactly what we say and rules exactly how we want? Surely that would solve our problems…
It’s truly scary that there are people who thing like you.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Aron,
I think that an invasion of Iran is inevitable and both Bush and McCain should be doing a better job of getting America on a war footing for this event. The United States cannot let the grave threat of Iran fester without military action. We also need to be planning for an eventual democratic constitutional government in Iran for the aftermath of regime change.
July 20th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
#46 I’m not suggesting we do. My hypothetical presumes that an Iraqi President orders us out under circustances that would threaten our security interests, for which we went to war and shed blood to acheive, to do so.
Would the fact that the government has an elected president make any difference if our compliance led to more attacks on our soil or to the Persian Gulf going up in flames, etc?
of course not
July 20th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
One of the reasons Iran hates us is we overthrew their elected president and installed the Shah. Any talk of overthrowing Iraq’s government is not only foolish but besmirches the lives lost so that Iraqi’s could vote. I find it unpatriotic if not treasonous.
July 20th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
There is no way in hell the USA will be invading Iran (or any country for that matter for the next 20 years)! Surely Iraq has taught you at least that?!?! At most strategic air-strikes - much more fun than invasions anyway.
July 20th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Gamecock, he wasn’t misquoted. This is a deliberate strategy by the Iraqi PM. See this article:
http://www.gulflive.com/newsflash/international/index.ssf?/base/international-0/1216584545298650.xml&storylist=international
July 20th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Like most folks I’m all for getting out too, as long as the job is done and we won’t have to be going back. And I guess the military folks can best determine when and how that can be accomplished. Maliki is just window dressing until the key to the country is handed back to him. We have temporarily purchased it with our soldiers blood, expecting nothing in return except the personal assurance that we don’t have to spill anymore due to flaky policy and not finishing the job.
July 20th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Yes, I said he was covering bases but all he indicated was he could envision major troop reductions in 16 months. That is also consistent with success under the current victory plan as well as the Obama end the war in Us defeat plan.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:03 pm
[...] see here. Then head over to Redstate where Mark Impomeni has the details. by admin @ 12:03 pm. Filed [...]
July 21st, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Aron: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566852-2,00.html
This is the link to the English translation of what Maliki said. It doesn’t have “assuming positive developments continue” part in it. Are you making that up? Or do you actually have an actual link to the ‘original” interview? Look, I’m persuaded to believe you, as Maliki’s spokeman did say Maliki was misquoted. But… tonight it was reported that Maliki said the withdrawal should occur by 2010 (which is within 16 months of Jan 2009).