Democrats Ecstatic Over Maliki, But May Lack Vehicle To Burn McCain

There is near drunken jubilation among Senate Democrats on Capitol Hill over recent remarks by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other officials explicitly (and then) implicitly endorsing Barack Obama's troop withdrawal plan.

One high-ranking aide to a prominent politico described it as the day that will "be remembered as a turning point that underscored the isolation of McCain's position."

"Compare this to four years ago when [then] Prime Minister Allawi was very publicly in sync with Bush," he offered. Now, "the Americans, the Iraqis, and even the Bush Administration don't share [McCain's stance]."

The aide was joined by Senators who took to the floor and the media to hit away at the remark. Evan Bayh, on MSNBC, dogged the presumptive Republican nominee for claiming superior knowledge of "conditions on the ground in Iraq" than the Iraqis. "Who do you think understands more?" he asked. "And they support Barack Obama's position." Majority Leader Harry Reid, meanwhile, predicted repercussions in the fall. "If Senator McCain fails to join the chorus of calls for a responsible path out of Iraq," he said from the Senate, "the choice in November will be very clear."

And yet, for all the possibilities presented by Maliki's remark, there seems to be little opportunity for Senate Democrats to take advantage of it legislatively.

Normally, in the height of a presidential campaign, political parties are keen on forcing opposition candidates into uncomfortable positions or votes. Along those lines, a Democratic Senator could, theoretically, offer a sense of the Senate resolution declaring that U.S. troops in Iraq had done commendable work but should be brought home at the behest of the sovereign leader of that country. If McCain were to oppose the measure he would framed as a imperialist who has backtracked on prior public proclamations. If he were to support it - which is impossible to imagine - he would be conceding war policy (a core of his campaign) to Obama.

"It would put him in an incredibly tough spot," said a Hill veteran.

Already, House Democrats are moving towards such an end. Rep. Maxine Waters, taking her cue from Maliki's remarks late last week (when he said he supported a timetable for withdrawal before "clarifying" his statement) introduced legislation calling on President Bush to "respect Iraq's sovereignty and redeploy our military if asked to do so by the Government of Iraq."

The Senate, however, may prove more difficult terrain. The body is set to go on recess in roughly two weeks and the schedule between now and then is packed with energy and housing legislation. Any sense of Senate resolution relating to Maliki would likely have to come attached to a bill already under works. A representative for Sen. Carl Levin - who chairs the Armed Services Committee - said she did not know if anything was in the works.

And yet, even if the Democrats lack the vehicle to rake McCain over the legislative coals, the party nevertheless has what it and observers see as a real political thumping stick. As Allan Rivlin, a pollster with Hart Research Associates told the Huffington Post:

"This does seem like another door closing for McCain... Maliki's statement and meeting with Obama did make life a lot easier for Obama. It seems Maliki is representing Iraqi public opinion and standing up to Bush and Cheney and their desires for an open ended commitment and permanent bases. And McCain's geography goof does not help him either. The pace of mistakes coming from the McCain campaign is nothing short of astonishing. As an aside: I saw the Hunter S. Thompson Documentary 'Gonzo' which included a lot of discussion of the 1972 McGovern campaign. Gary Hart (who was McGovern's campaign manager) said McGovern had to run a near perfect campaign to win but instead they made the big mistakes and it never got close. This is starting to feel like that to me [with McCain playing McGovern]."

Comments

[rbspickles]

The Dems don't have to burn McCain. He's doing the job just fine himself.

[Uling]

Again, action, este artwork speaks louder than words. It is time to get clear on the ambiguities of "Horizon Timetable-timeline" Oh boy, I can't make sense hard enough on this spin of words. The McSame administration should straighten out and get clear answer.

http://www.geocities.com/randycrosby/HorizonTimetable.html

[Deparis]

Maybe "char" would be more appropriate then. Lol... Zang!

[boatswain]

If you're still clueless about why we need Obama, the events of the last 3 days should clue you in. He's a true statesman, someone we can be proud to have represent us overseas. World leaders clearly are responding to Obama because he offers real diplomacy. Shockingly, they seem less concerned with having a beer with him than most Americans had imagined.

[ApolloSpeaks]

IRAN'S AUDACIOUS HOPE

Democrats ecstasy over Maliki is nothing compared to the rapture of Ahmadinejad and the mullahs over Obama. If Obama makes it to the White House then makes good on his promise to remove our troops from Iraq and the region, the Sunnis will rise up against the Maliki gov't in an attempt to reverse the clock and take back Iraq from the Shiites. Then with Maliki's consent Iran's Revolutionary Guard will come to his rescue and replace the US as the occupying force in Iraq. THis is not a fanciful theory. In security meetings with the US held in Baghdad last year Iran's foreign minister proposed that Iranian and Syrian troops replace coalition forces as the occupying army of Iraq to keep the peace. Obama is Tehran's audacious hope and godsend a new useful idiot for their nuclear weapons and regional expansionist plans.

[Krikkit]

Nice fairytale. Here's a clue: Ahmadinejad is in serious trouble inside Iran. The Great Iyatollah has publicly chastised him for his inflamatory speech and it looks like he'll be outed in the next election cycle. The ONLY thing that will save his presidency is if the US or Israel conducts limited attacks against Iran. Such attacks would justify his hard-line stance and cause the voting public to rally around him. Obama won't give him the satisfaction, though Israel might be stupid enough to do it on the hope that the US will jump in and save their arses in the aftermath.

Sunnis in Iraq aren't as stupid as your perile analysis suggests. They are buying into the political process now because they know it's the only way they will be able to apply any leverage whatsoever in a government dominated by Shi'a and Kurds. They don't have the numbers to overthrow, or even to attempt to overthrow the Shi'a government.

As for an alignment between Iraq and Iran, you should have thought of that before your glorious leader bull-headedly invaded in the first place. THAT outcome was a foregone conclusion from day one, and it won't take some fantasy war with the Sunnis for it to happen. Ask Biden how many times he tried to warn the President of an Iraq-Iran alignment before we invaded.

[ApolloSpeaks]

IRAQ WAR NECESSARY AND INEVITABLE

When it suited Khamenie Ahmad's belligerent rhetoric was perfectly acceptable. Iran's President is a mouth peice for the Supreme Leader and his policies and a convenient scapegoat if things go awry.

Your view of events is incredibly shallow. The Sunnis ruled Iraq for a 1000 years and are confident of taking it back from the Shia with Saudi-Egyptian and Jordanian support-none of these country's recognize Shia Iraq. The Sunni insurgency was suspended because it couldn't prevail over coalition forces, not because the Sunnis feared Iraqi security forces who alone were no match for the Mahdi Army.

The Iraq-Iran Alliance was not a foregone conclusion. It was the result of the administration doing nothing to counter Iranian money and meddling in the 2005 election. A CIA plan to do just that was quashed by Condi Rice on grounds that meddling was unethical.

The Iraq invasion was a war of necessity to rid the world of a growing menace who was funding, training and arming terrorists on a massive and growing scale (see the Pentagon's Harmony Docs). The collapse of the containment regime under Bill Clinton (the Oil for Food Program) and 9/11 made Operation Iraqi Freedom INEVITABLE.

[Kalima]

"We Seek Him Here, We Seek Him There", but actually,we don't seek Bin Laden anywhere.
Afghanistan, long forgotten and under funded, the promises left hanging in mid air. Oh, how
nice to be a super power, to leave millions in limbo. When I grow up, I want to rule the world.

[Huffingtonposter231]

I Don't believe Maliki agreed with Obama's original plan which was to leave Sadam H in charge.

I don't believe Maliki agreed with Obama's second plan which was to say we were defeated and run away.

And I don't believe he agreed with Obama's third plan which was to declare a surge cannot work and run away.

But now that the surge has worked, now that Al Qaeda is all but gone and the insurgency is evaporating....now Maliki can stick his finger in the wind and say he agrees with Obama that the US should eventually leave.

My how soon the left forgets Obama's original plan which was defeat for the US and running away. Declaring the surge cannot work....which it did.

[drzoon]

Barack's original plan was not to fight "stupid wars"...

but to chase Bin Ladin until we either capture or kill him.

and to clean up afgan! a mess we had a hand in from the very start with Bin help by the way.

That was Obama's plan.

and for the record: Sadam didn't attack us. As a matter of fact, he didn't have to. We did it for him. We just put this country somewhere between one and two trillion in debt with this war in Iraq.

[Krikkit]

Ask al-Sadr if the surge is responsible for the cease-fire... Then ask him what he plans to do if we don't withdraw our troops.

This is the reason the Greedy Old Perverts have been able to stay in power for as long as they have. They spin the fairy tales and shallow people like you eat them up without a single thought to check the reality on the ground.

Just so long as the sitcoms keep flowing, right? Right?

[jupitor]

There you are wrong Huffingtonposter231. The surge initual conclusion was to give the Goverment time to bring itself together and meet aroung 24 goals that was set out for them! the goverment still has 18 goals they have not meet, so in that way the surge failed! However, it did some thing alse much better that Bush did not plan on! It stablized several regions while giveing the army and police time to train and take over more. In this way the surge was a sucess that they didn't really plan on as they were possitive that the Goverment had to meet ALL the Bench marks before they could claim Success! So, you See Niether the Repub's or Dem's was right! But Obama was right about not going to war in Iraq, and he is right about the time to with draw! So, I would say that Obama has predicted/performed better on iraq than Mccain/Bush/Channey. so you still lose Huffingtonposter 231!

[CWAKE]

Time to turn the page. I hope that this will get the rest of Congress in line. Buck the systemic disease of the last 6 years, and admit that we we wrong.
It is time to step up and respect the will of the Iraqi People.

[JohnTalbutt]

To the NeoCons chagrin Maliki, Sadr and the Sunnis have out maneuvered Bush, whose tried to deal separately with each group to keep the resistance to occupation divided.

Biden's plan was well intentioned but still had too much in common with Bush's to gain traction with the Iraqis. Certainly any attempt by the U.S. to oversee a political accomadation could have only been imposed by force of arms, a fact that was not lost upon McCain of 100 years.

The overwhelming majority of Iraqis from all sectors favor U.S. withdrawal. Hence, Obama's straight forward approach for orderly withdrawal based upon our own non imperialistic needs has set the Iraqis into motion working out their differences.

At the same time most of the Iraqis who were involved in armed resistance have ceased to risk their lives for a goal that now appears to be attainable without further blood.

[LizM]

Biden's strategy for reversing course in Iraq is the complete polar opposite of anything coming out of the Bush administration. And, McCain has no idea how to get to conditions on the ground that would make any sense out of the '100 years' scenario...if he does, he's not telling us.

[JaneEyrez]

The Bush administration deceived us into this illegal war, so they must have had a compelling reason, right? Every time their lies were exposed, they came up with a new one. Now they're desperately insisting legitimate reason still exists to continue our illegal occupation. If we believe that Bush should face impeachment for war crimes, shouldn't we scream aloud what the crimes were committed for? War profiteering!
Joe Lauria recently posted:
"But seen from Bush's White House, the war has been "won" and victory is being consolidated. Bush meant it when he said "Mission Accomplished." He had four main objectives in invading Iraq.
They have all been met. That more than a million innocent civilians have been killed or driven from their homes is [for him] beside the point. The fulfilled objectives are:
"Depose the no longer useful Saddam Hussein and install puppets--DONE.
"Take the oil out of the hands of a renegade Arab leader. Get sweetheart deals for American and allied oil companies--NEARLY DONE.
"Make huge war-profits for friends, allies and campaign contributors, like Halliburton, Blackwater, and U.S. Arms manufacturers. Let Cheney still brazenly draw income from Halliburton. Stop Congress from passing a law against war profiteering--ALL DONE.
"Establish permanent bases [to protect it all]--DONE."
Bush/McCain are trying like hell to deny that the Iraquis want us out, because if we leave, they don't get to keep milking the cow they went there for.

[lafrance]

Obama is one to run a flawless campaign and to take advantages of the mistakes.
Hopefully the democrats will find a way to drive a stake into McCain's campaign and if not kill it, at least do some serious damage

[williamg]

Mc.Cain has to be the most tone-deaf politician since...B.ush. Why is he pretending that Maliki didn't say what he actually said? He is acting like a kid with his fingers in his ears -- pretending that he can't hear what is being said.

[torrrep]

That's funny. Maliki has said a lot of things. And every time you libs described him as an idiot, incompetent, a tool, a puppet and many other things. Now all of a sudden he says something you agree with you think his judgement is sound? Give me a break.

[mamacat]

Typical spin. Ascribe comments to your opponent that they didn't say, and try to get them to defend them. Forget it. The nation has had too many years of Rovian politics to be interested in more spin and lies.

[ChiGuy]

This has been getting a ton of attention in the MSM.
Taking advantage of it legislatively or not, it's still a HUGE PR coup for 0 and the Dems.

[VolvoBirkenstock]

Wait until he arrives in Europe.

Can't wait to see the presser with O and Gordon Brown.

[ChiGuy]

McCrackers' and 43's heads might just go POOF.

[adzeman]

Better keep quiet guys or those mean ole goopers will steal your lunch money.

[LizM]

Too bad that the authority of the central government of Maliki doesn't even cover all of Baghdad, much less extend throughout the rest of the country. So what he has to say about anything is pretty much meaningless.

And, Maliki isn't even the problem here. It is the very structure of the Iraqi government that is to blame for the lack of progress toward political reconciliation. There is no reasonable prospect that a strong central government will emerge that can garner the trust of all Iraqis and that has the capacity and inclination to provide services and security throughout the country - not now and not anytime soon!

There is only one way out of the mess that is Iraq and that is through a political accommodation between the warring Iraqi factions based on federalism and the Iraqi constitution. Senate Democrats and their leadership would do themselves, and the rest of us, a big favour by finally paying serious attention to and actively promoting - at every opportunity - what Senator Biden has been advocating for the better part of three years now. Now that would be worthy of a big Huffington Post headline!

[foreffectivegovernment]

LizM: Why doesn't anyone in the Democratic Party listen to Joe Biden? I remember back in the old days, he was trying to promote this idea to no avail.

[Vermontah]

Not necessary. Biden proposes separating the country into three autonomous regions, with a central federalist government. This kind of arrangement barely works in Spain. I'm not sure that Balkanizing Iraq is the solution.

Iraq was truly a multiethnic country, even under Saddam. There was ethic conflict but there was also tons of intermarriage and the folks on the street didn't think much about whether their buddy Mohammed was Sunni or Shiite.

Partitioning implies forced relocation, rewards the ethnic cleansing already under way there, and would almost certainly fail, violently.

As long as we're where we are, I think it's best to try to return to a more secular, stable Iraq by marginalizing violent radicals, creating sensible safe zones and continuing to try to assemble a representative government.

[LizM]

You ask a good question...you ask a very good question. Personally, I think they're all jealous.

Seriously, the Biden amendment to promote a sustainable political solution in Iraq based on federalism passed the Senate by an incredible vote margin of 75 - 23 way back in September of 2006, if memory serves me well. It also passed the House with a majority of Republicans and Democrats supporting it. Of course, it rests on the President's desk to this day and he, no doubt, doesn't understand the first thing about it. The US Embassy in Baghdad, in an unveiled act of pure, unadulterated sabotage, issued an unprecedented statement the day it passed the Senate implying that the plan called for the break-up of Iraq which they knew to be patently false.

Senator Biden also met with the representatives of the permanent members of the UN Security Council and he received unofficial endorsement from all of them - including, interestingly enough, the then US Ambassador.

And, more importantly, Senator Biden has been meeting with many of Iraq"s sectarian leaders over the course of his 10 trips to the region and they have tacitly supported the essential elements of his strategy, some of them even publically! Turkey is also on board because they recognize that it would be the best possible outcome for them, and all concerned.

By the way, I'm all for your username! :)

[Daly]

Perception is reality - Shrub Cain have promoted Al-Ma as THE word from Iraq so; Live by the sword...

[mouselion]

It is not the place of the U.S. to be legislating what type of government the Iraqis create for themselves. If the majority want a federalist government, then they will have to negotiate this politically themselves. As well-meaning as this idea is -- it is not our say.

[LizM]

I couldn't agree more! It is definitely NOT the place of the US government to be legislating for the Iraqis! But, that is not what we are talking about here. The Biden strategy is about changing US policy not creating policy for the Iraqis.

Most Iraqis know the only way out for them is through federalism, which is why they set up their constitution to allow for one or more provinces to form a region with the ability to exercise control over their daily lives at the local level.

If you still believe that a political accommodation will somehow spontaneously materialize as the many Iraqi factions miraculously come together, in the midst of a civil war, to hammer out their political differences, then I would like to live in that world! Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work that way. The Iraqis are going to need a lot of help - from all corners - to facilitate a muscular diplomatic surge that would involve the regional and major powers in an effort to support and secure whatever power-sharing arrangement that the Iraqis are able to achieve, all under the auspices of the UN.

And, make no mistake about it - this process is going to require strong, competent and intelligent US leadership.

The Biden strategy is more than a well-meaning idea. It represents the only hope there is for a stable and united Iraq and for the prevention of the total fragmentation of the country - which is in no one's

[SpaceCadet]

schoolmaster "We have a sacred principle as far as elections go. They should not be influenced foreign governments one way or other. Democrats feeling jubilant over prime minister Maliki's statement regarding our troop pull out is unseemly, as such statements have a tendency to influence our elections irrespective of how genuine they are."

Huh? You're saying that the government of Iraq, which the Bush regime says is "sovereign," doesn't have any right to say when the US withdraws its troops from its SOVEREIGN territory?

Bush/McCain are sounding more and more like the Soviets, who were "invited" to "liberate" eastern European countries but never left once their troops got there. Al Maliki better stay away from open windows on upper floors. He might end up like the leader of Czechoslovakia who accidentally defenestrated himself after he opposed the Soviet presence in his country (which, by the way, no longer exists, John Syndey McCain notwithstanding).

[rubicon101]

Obama is a fraud of a candidate, everyone sees it and he would make a terrible leader. Some even say he is connected to a religious cult