Mr. Obama in Iraq Did he really find support for his withdrawal plan?

Washington Post ^ | Editorial

[WilliamReading]

THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, "does not want a timetable," Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday. In an interview with ABC, he explained that "there are deep concerns about . . . a timetable that doesn't take into account what [American commanders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions."

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki "wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out." ad_icon

Other Iraqi leaders were more directly critical. As Mr. Obama acknowledged, Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq's rival sects and said they were worried about a rapid drawdown.

[WilliamReading]

The Washington Post takes Obama apart, giving him a very negative review.

[Loyal Buckeye]

They know he is a fake.

[AmericaUnited]

They must be part of Hillary’s “Operation Brutus’.

[nikos1121]

Maliki’s first remark was heard around the world. THe damage was done to McCain.

NOw for round two...

[WilliamReading]

Yet Mr. Obama’s account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is “the central front” for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country’s strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world’s largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama’s antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.

[LearnsFromMistakes]

I don't quite get the spin...

The news should have been - surge successful, violence decreasing, Iraqi's being trained and taking control of their country, US may be able to get out soon.

Instead, all we heard was ‘US may be able to get out soon...just like Obama wanted...see how smart he is...’

Sometimes, I think the press is somewhat disingenuous.

[Allegra]

Is the media’s adulation of Obama beginning to fade?

[libs_kma]

Hmmmm, why are they questioning that the Obamessiah knows more about military strategy than Gen. Petraeus?

He's not called the messiah for nothing! /s

[syriacus]

Obama: "16 months....16 months...16 months."

Sounds like Obama is talking the gestation period for a walrus or a giraffe.

[syriacus]

Meant to say "Sounds like Obama is talking about the gestation period for a walrus or a giraffe."

[webstersII]

“THe damage was done to McCain.”

Yep. Even Fast Eddie Rendell was on H&C last night insisting that, yes, Maliki absolutely did agree with Obama. They will keep saying it and most of the press corp, like Chrissy Mathews with a tingle up his leg, will just nod their heads in agreement.

[Miss Didi]

RUSH: Here's David Rodham Gergen, this is on CNN last night, Anderson Cooper 360. Question: "What do you make of these moves by the Maliki government saying it wants American combat troops out of Iraq by 2010?"

GERGEN: Barack Obama made the first mistake of his trip in releasing a statement in which he said exactly what Maliki had said in those conversations. We have a long tradition in this country that we only have one president at a time. He's the commander-in-chief and the negotiator-in-chief. I cannot remember a campaign in which a rival seeking the presidency has been in a position of negotiating a war that's underway with another party outside the country. I think he leaves himself open to the charge tonight that he's meddling, that this is not his role, that he can be the critic but he's not the negotiator. We have a president who does that. I think the underlying facts support him, but I think it will be a real mistake and I think it was a mistake to get into these conversations and let it be used politically.



RUSH: There has to be a backlash, folks, on this media coverage of The Messiah. There just has to be a backlash against the Drive-By Media. I was telling Snerdley in our kitchen back there, Mikhail Gorbachev, Lenin, Stalin never got this kind of coverage from their media. And they owned it! And they dictated to it! I mean, this is amazing. McCain gets off the plane in New Hampshire yesterday with one reporter and one cameraman. The Drive-Bys talk about themselves all the time, and now they're defending this, and they're analyzing this. David Rodham Gergen at CNN said Obama made a big, big mistake. There's only one president at a time, and he's out there negotiating with Maliki and all these other foreign leaders as though he's the president. Now, it's a mistake if Obama pays for it. I don't know how he's going to pay for it, but I'll tell you, we got countless examples of it. The Messiah did a presser today in Amman, Jordan, and the media is all upset because they chose an outdoor site for the presser, and the media had to sit there and sweat waiting for Obama and conducting the press conference.

I watched the press conference and I heard the answers. I heard the answers. I didn't hear too many questions. I mean, the questions were asked, but I don't know what the questions were. A couple of reporters got to a microphone, you could hear their questions, but I got Obama's answers, I don't know what he was answering. But I'll tell you, one thing I noticed, he was stuttering like Ed Koch. I told Cookie, put together a montage of this, uh, uh, uh. It was bad, folks. He was stumbling all over.(cont.)

Get Ready, Drive-By Media: Backlash Brewing over Obama Trip

Mistakes Pile Up on Messiah Tour

[phs3]

"Sometimes, I think the press is somewhat disingenuous."
where's the /sarc...

[Allegra]

LOL - I saw the whole thread on Rush's Obama montage. Uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-um...

I wonder how much longer the media is going to be able to conceal this guy's ineptitude?

[Miss Didi]

The Drive-Bys can continue with their cheerleading, but Americans can see through his arrogance. And the fact that the guy is a dunce. Stay tuned...Mrs. Clinton is doing cartwheels right now. Expect a few bombs to drop after Little Barry's trip to summer camp.

[Gemsbok]

This needs to be turned into a political advertisement or late night comedy joke, with BHO “thinking he is Pres.” acting in WDC and then the scene fades back to reality of his campaign office or the TUCC pulpit in Chicago.

[AmericaUnited]

Walter Mitty

[wazoo1031]

Is it just me? Am I being oversensitive? If I hear one more “Umm” or “Uhh” out of that idiot’s mouth I will not be responsible for my actions. Let’s just say there will be no more “Umming and/or “Uhhing! This guy is nothing without his little cue cards is he?

[SoFloFreeper]

Pretty damn pathetic when you get MORE details about Obama's failures in his conversations in an editorial than in the "objective" (ha ha) news stories.

And from the Washington Post, no less.

Just goes to show you how WEAK is the current state of what pretends to be journalism.