Here's the response from Obama spokesperson Bill Burton to McCain's attack today proclaiming that Obama wants us to lose in Iraq out of "ambition":

"All his bluster, distortions and negative attacks notwithstanding, it is hard to understand how Senator McCain can at once proclaim his support for the sovereign government of Iraq, and then stubbornly defy their expressed support for a timeline to remove our combat brigades from their country. The difference in this race is that John McCain is intent on spending $10 billion a month on an open-ended war, while Barack Obama thinks we should bring this war to a responsible end and invest in our pressing needs here at home."

The idea that McCain's Iraq policies are directly at odds with what the Iraqi government wants has gotten scattered mention by Team Obama in statements and ads. Perhaps this is the start of a renewed effort to push it for all it's worth.

A bunch of folks have pointed out already that yesterday's long New York Times piece on John McCain's response to 9/11 is really, really good.

With McCain today questioning Obama's judgment on Iraq, this nugget from the Times piece is really worth flagging -- it highlights very vividly just how eager McCain was to go to war with Iraq in the days after the terror attacks:

Within hours, Mr. McCain, the Vietnam War hero and famed straight talker of the 2000 Republican primary, had taken on a new role: the leading advocate of taking the American retaliation against Al Qaeda far beyond Afghanistan. In a marathon of television and radio appearances, Mr. McCain recited a short list of other countries said to support terrorism, invariably including Iraq, Iran and Syria...

Within a month he made clear his priority. "Very obviously Iraq is the first country," he declared on CNN. By Jan. 2, Mr. McCain was on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, yelling to a crowd of sailors and airmen: "Next up, Baghdad!"

Recall that a key McCain campaign message is that he hates war and that he, unlike the man he would replace, knows its costs and approaches it with great reluctance. In that context, video of this moment referenced by The Times would be gold.

John McCain is ratcheting up his attacks on Obama over Iraq in a speech this morning, declaring flatly that Obama wants the U.S. to fail in Iraq because of "ambition."

In the speech, which is going on now, McCain accuses Obama of having tried to "legislate failure" in Iraq. He adds his familiar charge that Obama would rather lose the war than lose the election, and declares that Obama's desire to lose in Iraq is motivated by nothing but his desire to be president:

Senator Obama still cannot quite bring himself to admit his own failure in judgment. Nor has he been willing to heed the guidance of General Petraeus, or to listen to our troops on the ground when they say -- as they have said to me on my trips to Iraq: "Let us win, just let us win." Instead, Senator Obama commits the greater error of insisting that even in hindsight, he would oppose the surge. Even in retrospect, he would choose the path of retreat and failure for America over the path of success and victory. In short, both candidates in this election pledge to end this war and bring our troops home. The great difference is that I intend to win it first.

Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president. What's less apparent is the judgment to be commander in chief. And in matters of national security, good judgment will be at a premium in the term of the next president -- as we were all reminded ten days ago by events in the nation of Georgia.

Here you have the Roveian strategy at its most naked: Keep repeating that your opponent's strong point -- his judgment in opposing the war, something that majorities agree was a bad idea -- is a negative.

Also, it bears repeating that here McCain is basically accusing Obama of treason. Full speech after the jump.

Late Update: The Obama camp responds.

Read more »

This is really, really perplexing. It turns out that according to a new analysis, troops deployed abroad have donated six times more money to the candidate who wants to bring the troops home from Iraq:

According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain, and the fiercely anti-war Ron Paul, though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago, has received more than four times McCain's haul.

Despite McCain's status as a decorated veteran and a historically Republican bent among the military, members of the armed services overall -- whether stationed overseas or at home -- are also favoring Obama with their campaign contributions in 2008, by a $55,000 margin. Although 59 percent of federal contributions by military personnel has gone to Republicans this cycle, of money from the military to the presumed presidential nominees, 57 percent has gone to Obama.

Interestingly, the analysis notes that in 2000, George W. Bush outraised Al Gore by two to one among military personnel, but in 2004, with the war underway, John Kerry closed the gap somewhat. Now, with the war having gone on for more than five years, the Dem has an overwhelming advantage among troops abroad.

I can't account for this odd phenomenon. Anyone have any ideas why this might be happening?

Looks like we have yet another point in common between John McCain and George Bush: Both are responding to Nouri al-Maliki's inconvenient endorsement of Barack Obama's 16-month withdrawal timeline by saying that Maliki didn't really mean it.

From a new interview with the President...

SEOUL, Aug 5 -- President Bush said Monday he sees little distance between himself and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on how to approach troop reductions in Iraq, dismissing the suggestion that Maliki had effectively endorsed Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's plan to withdraw all U.S. combat brigades in 16 months.

"I talk to him all the time, and that's not what I heard," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post aboard Air Force One on the start of a trip to Asia. "I heard a man who wants to work with the United States to come up with a rational way to have the United States withdraw combat troops depending upon conditions on the ground, that's all."

If that sounds familiar, that's because it is. Last month McCain was asked what he would do as president if Maliki persisted in saying what he said, which is that he wants the troops out in around 16 months.

McCain's reply: "He won't. He won't. He won't."

Maliki either didn't say what he said, or he didn't mean what he said. Life is so simple sometimes...

As noted here on Friday, we've compiled a vast (perhaps too vast) timeline of McCain's statements about Bush administration policy on Iraq -- and it casts some doubt on McCain's claim that he was a broad critic of Bush policy and a prescient predictor of what would happen with the war.

Now we've updated the timeline with a couple of real finds from readers. There's this one from a McCain Op ed in The New York Times (wonderfully entitled "The Right War for the Right Reasons") which shows McCain's predictive powers to have been less than keen...

[N]o one can plausibly argue that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein will not significantly improve the stability of the region and the security of American interests and values....Isn't it more likely that antipathy toward the United States in the Islamic world might diminish amid the demonstrations of jubilant Iraqis celebrating the end of a regime that has few equals in its ruthlessness?' Didn't those who argued that the war 'would not significantly improve the stability of the region and the security of American interests and values,' and that 'antipathy toward the U. S. in the Islamic world' would skyrocket, have a point?

We also added this fun nugget, which casts a bit of doubt on McCain's claim to have "consistently" insisted we need more troops in Iraq...

During a 2005 appearance on Meet the Press, Tim Russert asked McCain, "Do you believe we have enough American troops on the ground right now?" McCain answered, "I think we have in numbers probably enough."

If you all unearth more, we'll add them. You can view our updated timeline right here.

John McCain has unveiled a new slogan against Barack Obama: That Obama's attitudes on Iraq represent "the audacity of hopelessness"!

In his speech today at the American GI Forum convention in Colorado, McCain excoriated Obama for opposing the surge, saying that the surge policies "amounted to a real-time test for a future commander-in-chief."

"Fortunately, Senator Obama failed, not our military," McCain later added. "We rejected the audacity of hopelessness, and we were right."

Full prepared speech after the jump.

Read more »

White House Irony Watch...

The Bush Administration's statement today on its new sanctions against Zimbabwe call into question just how much of a sense of self-awareness they have. Quoting President Bush:

"No regime should ignore the will of its own people and calls from the international community without consequences."

We might point them in the direction of polling data at home -- not to mention international opinion -- showing that people want a timetable to withdraw from Iraq.

In yet another piece of evidence that the GOP really needs to get its online act together, the RNC's Web site still has their counter of how long it's supposedly been since Barack Obama went to Iraq, going all the way back to January 2006:

Um, the correct answer is more like four days.

Check out this new ad from Vote Vets, set to air on national cable. It does what many anti-war voices have been hesitant to do: Declare that by refusing to formulate a plan for withdrawal from Iraq, John McCain's dedication to the basic idea of freedom has been called into question.

"But Senator McCain would occupy Iraq indefinitely, against their wishes," declares Brandon Woods, an Iraq War veteran. "That's not what freedom means. That's not what we fought for. Senator, I thought you would know better."

Okay, this afternoon John McCain pushed back on criticism of his Anbar-surge timeline flub by arguing, in effect, that the overall strategy change that made the Anbar Awakening possible began before the actual surge in troops:

The Arizona senator has told reporters during a stop at a super market in Bethlehem, Pa., that what the Bush administration calls "the surge" was actually "made up of a number of components." McCain says some components of the surge began before Bush ordered more U.S. troops into Iraq.

McCain says U.S. Col. Sean MacFarland started carrying out elements of a new counterinsurgency strategy as early as December 2006.

Hmmm. McCain is crediting the success of the surge to strategic components that didn't involve the actual increase in troops? Sounds a bit like he's undermining the troops, doesn't it?

Seriously, what McCain actually said is that one of the key figures in the Awakening "was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening."

But MacFarland himself, who is cited by McCain above, first started describing the stirring of the awakening in September 2006, months before the surge strategy was announced in January.

Maybe McCain is arguing that we can use the "surge" label on any aspect of the war we want? The surge: It can be whatever you want it to be...

Ooooooooooo-kaaaaaaaay....

Now we have a McCain surrogate explaining away McCain's flubbing of the Anbar Awakening and surge timing by saying that asking for the truth about Iraq undermines the troops...

We listened to that several times, and we're pretty sure that this McCain surrogate, Nancy Pfotenhauer, actually said...

"Barack Obama and his supporters can try to litigate what came first or what was crucial, but that's really an attempt to undermine the significance and the impact of the American troops and their sacrifice and their effort."

A Deluxe TPM Lava Lamp to anyone who can name a single thing about Obama's entire existence that doesn't undermine the troops at this point...

MSNBC teases the results of a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll coming this evening:

With the news that Iraq's prime minister wants the US to set a timetable for withdrawal, 60% of registered voters believe it's a good idea for the US to set such a timetable, while 30% say it's a bad idea.

Twice as many voters agree with Obama and al-Maliki on Iraq than agree with McCain -- after weeks of being buffeted by the McCain message that calling for a withdrawal timeline is tantamount to advocating for surrender, defeat, and even dishonor to the troops.

The Republican National Committee has just unleashed a tough new radio attack ad that hits Obama for voting against the Iraq supplemental without withdrawal timelines last year, casting it as a vote against funding our troops in wartime:

In a somewhat puckish touch, the ad, which is timed to coincide with Obama's trip to Berlin, will run in Berlin, PA; Berlin, WI; and Berlin, NH.

"If Obama can't rise above politics to support our soldiers in a time of war, then how can he claim to have the strength to change the way Washington works?" the ad concludes. "John McCain is ready to lead. Barack Obama is not."

That last clause contrasting the candidates on readiness to lead represents a bit of a sharpening of the GOP message attacking Obama, something Republicans have struggled with, and foreshadows what's ahead.

That said, if Obama voted against funding the troops because he opposed a supplemental without timelines last spring, than McCain, too, voted against funding the troops when he opposed the other supplemental that did have timelines.

Full script after the jump.

Late Update: Just to clarify, the ad is running in the Johnstown-Altoona market in PA, the Green Bay-Appleton market in WI, and the Portland-Auburn market in NH.

Late Late Update: Obama spokesperson Hari Sevugan responds:

"There are honest differences between Senator Obama's position on Iraq and Senator McCain's, but there's no question that both support our troops. Under the RNC's definition, John McCain would have also chosen politics over our military when he urged George Bush to veto funding for the troops, and we know that's not the case. This is the sort of distasteful and misleading attack from the Rove playbook that the American people are tired of, that does nothing to give our troops the equipment they need, and distracts from the honest debate we should be having about how we can keep the country secure."

Read more »

Pro-war Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt has come up with a creative way to deal with al-Maliki's inconvenient endorsement of Obama's pull-out timeline: Pretend it never happened.

A WaPo editorial today On Obama's Iraq trip begins as follows...

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.

The basis for this claim? The editorial continues...

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.

Now, there's a certain beauty in Hiatt's claim that the fact that the Iraqi government's timetable would extend seven months beyond Obama's somehow shows that Iraqi leaders don't support Obama's timing. After all, WaPo's headline writers were pushing this self-evidently absurd claim the other day, something Josh suggested might show that the edit page's slant was bleeding on to the news pages. Now here they are both pulling the same rhetorical hoax, like a pair of bumbling confidence-men who both accidentally play the same part in a two-person con-game.

To reiterate, the "seven month" claim is borderline farce.

Read more »

Okay, here's where McCain's claim that Obama got the surge wrong is headed: Obama isn't merely denying that the surge succeeded; Obama is also denying the success of the troops.

In an interview set to air on CBS tonight, McCain was asked to respond to Obama's assertion that the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government targeting militias was responsible for improving security in Iraq, along with the troops' work.

After a long answer, McCain said the following, according to an advance excerpt:

"Our troops will come home with honor. And we won't be defeated. And there won't be chaos in the region. There won't be increased Iranian influence in the region. And it will have a bearing on what happens in Afghanistan, as well as the entire region of the world. And I'm proud of what they've done. And to deny their success -- I think is a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened. The American people will make a judgment."

McCain also accused Obama of denying that the troops had made possible the success of the surge, calling it "a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed."

All of this is false. Obama is emphatically not denying the success of the troops. He's denying the success of the Iraqi political process. He has repeatedly said for months now that the troops were responsible for reducing violence.

Obama, Feb. 21: "I think it is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. And that's a credit to our brave men and women in uniform."

Obama, July 15th: "As I have said many times, our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence."

Obama, today: "In Iraq, we reviewed the gains that have been made in lowering the levels of violence thanks to the outstanding efforts of our military, the increased capabilities of the Iraq security forces..."

Not that facts matter, of course.

The McCain campaign has come up with an intriguing new way to sell his opposition to a timetable for withdrawal: McCain just might withdraw from Iraq sooner than Obama's 16 month deadline!

"He'd like troops to come home earlier than 16 months if the conditions allow it," said Congresswoman Heather Wilson of New Mexico, on a conference call with reporters just now. "Senator Obama has said it's a 16-month timeline no matter what."

Wilson walked this line back a bit later on, reminding people that any such withdrawal would have to be based on conditions on the ground, and might take longer: "Whether that happens in 12 months, or 16 months, or 24 months, the important thing is that our troops come home with victory and America's vital national interests secured."

One is reminded of George Orwell's classic novel 1984, in which the ruling regime ran an intentionally never-ending war with the frequent promise in news updates that it was "within measurable distance of its end."

Here's the audio from the call:

Click To Play

Obama's presser in Jordan has now wrapped up, and one thing that was striking is how aggressively -- again -- he moved to appropriate Republican rhetoric about the war on terrorism.

Obama said he'd decided to go to Afghanistan first because it's the "central front in the war on terror," the place "where 9/11 was planned" and where terrorists are "plotting new attacks against the United States."

"We have to succeed in taking the fight to the terrorists," Obama said at another point, calling for a broader policy that defeats terrorists, reduces the spread of nukes, and achieves "true energy security."

As we've noted here before, with John McCain painting Obama's Iraq policies as a "surrender," a central political challenge Obama faces is driving home the message that his national security policies constitute going on offense against global threats. He tried to do precisely that today by appropriating language the GOP uses about Iraq and instead using it to describe Afghanistan, his first stop on the trip.

Here's Obama on terror...

And there was one other nice touch.

Read more »

Barack Obama's press conference is underway now in Amman, Jordan, and he's detailing the private conversation he had last night with General David Petraeus.

Obama told reporters that Petraeus asked for "as much flexibility as possible," and revealed that he told Petraeus that he understood Petraeus' desire but told the general that his own job as commander in chief "extends beyond Iraq."

"The U.S. military can't be there forever," Obama said at the presser, adding that he'd had a "terrific conversation" with Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. "The job they've done on the ground is extraordinary," Obama continued.

"In his role as commander on the ground, he wants to attain as much flexibility as possible," Obama said of his talk with Petraeus. "What I emphasized to him was, if I were in his shoes, I would probably feel the same way."

"But my job extends beyond Iraq," Obama said.

More soon.

Late Update: I've removed Obama's answer to the question about the surge, because I can't be certain precisely what was asked. We're going back to check the tape and will bring you the question and answer soon.

Late Late Update: At the presser, Obama was asked something to the effect of whether he was ignoring his commanders' advice. He rejected that premise, saying:

"The notion is that either I do exactly what my military commanders [say] or I'm ignoring their advice. No, I'm factoring in their advice, but placing it in the broader strategic framework that's required."

Works for me.

Late Late Late Update: Here's vid of Obama discussing his talk with Petraeus...

The Washington Post's Dan Balz gets at a point I've been hitting here pretty regularly: That one of the keys to Obama's success is that he's projecting a degree of confidence on foreign policy that has long eluded some Dems...

What is striking is how Obama's campaign differs from past Democratic campaigns. In earlier years, Democratic candidates couldn't wait to move off of foreign policy and onto domestic issues, aware that their party more or less owned the domestic debate, while Republicans generally held the high ground on national security. The more time they could spend focusing the contest on domestic issues, the better their chances of winning.

That was true certainly for John F. Kerry against President Bush four years ago, and it's clear that the polls currently show that national security issues are McCain's one key area of strength against Obama. Obama's advisers believe the economy will dominate the fall campaign, but the candidate shows no indication that he will try to avoid engagement with McCain over foreign policy.

Obama has, with the exception of FISA, largely held to a tenet that has defined his campaign since the beginning: That through persuasion he can win arguments with the GOP on national security; that this turf needn't be ceded to the GOP.

When McCain was attacking Obama's Iraq plan, he gave a big speech doubling down on withdrawal. And on this trip, Obama has managed the neat trick of projecting a sense that he's setting the agenda here, even though it came after weeks of McCain attacks on him for not visiting Iraq (public statements from al-Maliki and an Iraqi government spokesperson supporting Obama's withdrawal time-line didn't hurt in this regard). That's partly what made the trip abroad such a high-stakes gamble, and thus far, it's clearly paying off.

It's worth repeating that the key is not simply that Obama believes that he can win disputes on national security. It's that he keeps saying so. This projects confidence and leadership, and prevents the McCain campaign from being perceived as being on offense in an area where polls show McCain still holds an advantage.

Indeed, asked by CBS on Sunday whether he ever lacked confidence that he could prevail in the foreign policy arena, he offered a one-word answer: "Never." Just in case you were wondering.

Unlike the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times reports it clearly, accurately, and unambiguously: Iraqi leaders agree with Barack Obama:

Iraqi leaders support U.S. withdrawal in 2010

BAGHDAD -- Iraqi leaders told Barack Obama today that they hope U.S. combat troops can be out of Iraq by the end of 2010, according to a government spokesman, a time frame similar to one favored by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

Couldn't be clearer.

Wow, this is getting kind of surreal. As I noted below, The Washington Post has yet to do a stand-alone story on al-Maliki's endorsement of Obama's troop-withdrawal timeline.

Now look how WaPo is reporting on Iraqi government official Ali al-Dabbagh's assertion that he's hopeful that U.S. troops will be out by 2010:

"Eight months later than Obama's proposal." Got that? al-Dabbagh's comments are at odds with Obama's plan.

Can this be real? First, unlike the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and the Associated Press, WaPo buries Maliki's comments -- and now this?

There is still some lack of clarity about what al-Dabbagh said. WaPo quotes him as follows: "We can't give any schedules or dates, but the Iraqi government sees the suitable date for withdrawal of the U.S. forces is by the end of 2010."

On the other hand, the Associated Press' version makes it sound like he wants them out by some time in 2010 and didn't specify that they should only be out by the end of the year, not before.

It doesn't really matter, however. Even the quote that says he wants them out by the end of that year doesn't really preclude them being out earlier that same year. So spinning this as somehow counter to Obama's plan is borderline farce.

You may have heard that Matt Drudge "rules our world" -- the "we" in question being members of the political media, who helplessly march off like pod people to cover stories when Drudge tells them to with his little siren.

That Drudge rules our world is something you hear constantly from members of the press themselves. The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, for instance, recently hailed Drudge's "ability to drives news cycles" and the "power Drudge has to push a particular storyline or a broader narrative in the race."

Except that it turns out that Drudge doesn't always rule the world of political reporters. Yesterday, Drudge blared the following banner headline for around 20 hours straight:

While The Times and the Associated Press finally got around to posting stand-alone stories on Maliki's endorsement of Obama's withdrawal time-line late last night, WaPo downplayed the news on Sunday and only flagged it in the 18th paragraph of its story today on Obama's trip. No stand alone story from WaPo yet. And has this story gotten the sort of wall-to-wall cable coverage that other Drudge-flacked tales have?

The point, as has been made here repeatedly, is that reporters and editors make editorial decisions to follow Drudge. They themselves confer on him whatever influence he has, and then in turn claim to be hypnotically transfixed into obeying him.

As we can see on the Maliki story, reporters and editors do have the power to refrain from treating Drudge as their assignment editor. I thought Drudge ruled WaPo's world. What happened?