McCain's gotta just be sh!tting himself with this kind of stuff. I guess he can continue to argue that this wouldn't have been possible without the surge, but even if you buy that, what have you done for us lately? With everyone converging on Obama's positions on both Iraq and Afghanistan (and probably Pakistan soon?), what rationale is left for voting for McCain - the economy?

And, oh yeah, forgot to mention now negotiations with Iran, which I thought poor Dana was gonna turn herself inside out trying to deny the other day. You really couldn't make this stuff up.

Yeah, but the point of the "general time horizon" is to call it something other than what the GOP has derided for lo these many months in order to avoid hoisting themselves on their own petard.

I'm pretty much finished with the concept of Republicans having better FP creds.

First it was the striking targets of opportunity in Afghanistan without permission if need be; everybody, Dem and Rep derided Obama until shortly after it was announced that the CIA had deployed a predator to successfully strike a target of opportunity without permission to enter the country.

Second was the derision for calling for commiting to negotiations with state sponsors of terror; Dems were on board and the GOP had a field day deriding everyone, then things went quiet presumably because they had talked the point to death. Only we find out several months later that the GOP had initiated secret diplomatic relations with Iran.

Third was the renewed derision for Obama's diplomacy, labelling it appeasement; yet a few short weeks later Bush, from Europe, gets up infront of a bunch of reporters and calls for renewed multilateral talks with Iran. To make matters worse, they are even working out the details of establishing an American embassy in Iran.

Fourth was the call for a renewed focus in Afghanistan by Obama, which was derided by McCain who felt that everyone was peachy-keen in Afghanistan and argued that Obama was just showing his lack of experience by calling for increased troop activity in a conflict which we were winning; only now apparently McCain wants to move 3 brigades from Iraq into Afghanistan because things are getting out of control.

The final straw is the "timeline", argued as consummate proof that the Defeatocrats did not understand war, and did not care about victory; only now it appears that not only are the Iraqi government and Obama on the same page regarding troop reductions and time-tables, but the GOP is building its own withdraw strategy. I bet its going to sounds awefully similar to that "other" timeline, but we'll see.

All of the best news from the last 18 months regarding The War on Terror has come only when the Bush Administration did what Obama says he wants to do. And while I am glad that these gains are being made NOW, I realize that it is only because they adopted the plans of someone they public deride for being inexperienced and naive, and whose cockamamie ideas are proof of his inexperience and naivete; this kind of intellectual dishonesty is disgusting on too many levels.

(and yes, no mention of The Great and Glorious Surge of 2007 because its not a FP issue)

Bring it on cowboy, er cowpoke, er pokey, er ...

heh x 1000.

For a longer, deliciouser post on this topic, see:

andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.../more-realistic.html

hilzoy is subbing for Andrew Sullivan this week, so all of you anti-Sullivans can go there in safety. But you're still all wrong.

Obama on offense:

Now along with the Maliki story, it becomes more of an offensive instead of defense against McCain.

Maliki essentially gave Obama an alley-yoop(?)pass and the Obama team for going for the dunk.

For all those who have much maligned the Obama press organization, here's to you:

"Obama Camp Calls McCain A Follower On Foreign Policy"

marcambinder.theatlantic.com...

Looks to me like the Obama campaign were waiting for the more opportune time of releasing this statement, rather than in response to some lame McCain attack ad, but in response to an actual "official" in regards to Iraq.

psantillana,

I actually read Sullivan, but I'll admit, I didn't know the Atlantic was "conservative-leaning".  But I compare it to eating Alligator sausage without knowing it was alligator sausage.  It's so damn good in your red beans and rice (New Orleans staple) that even though you may have never given alligator meat a chance before, now you almost can't imagine eating your beans without it.

Interesting move by Bush.  

First he takes Obama downtown with the Brandenburg thing, set him up so perfectly  that even Obama - Chicago Obama - had to have kind of admired him for it.  Then this.  

Why would he put such wind in Obama's sails the day he leaves on his big world tour?

I'm sure, Ramboorider, that McCain is shitting himself with Obama's trip.  So is the GOP.  AND THEY SHOULD BE!!!!!!!!!!!  The country and the world will see how postively leaders and citizens from other nations will respond to Obama's style and commitment to wanting to restore the US as a humane global citizen, not a persistent, arrogant bully.  I'm guessing Obama's movements, meetings, and the discourse that follows from them will be too powerful too deny.  Contrast him (someone willing to listen, cooperate and lead) with someone who wants to dominate and dictate.  Obama will return home to a big spike in popularity, the polls, and his FP credentials.  Perhaps once this happens, the details over withdrawal will dissipate.  I hope they do.  It's good enough for me that my president wants to move forward with bringing the troops home AND wants to redefine relations with other nations.  

Sullivan is my first port of call, and it links me to this here site.

Also linked to today, was this article, about Obama's speeches in the context of the history of presidential speeches: nymag.com/.../48007

...and in that was this little aside that raised my eyebrows - a little anecdotal evidence of Obama's international reach:

His words from little platforms in Iowa and New Hampshire carried around the world. (In the central plaza of Marrakech, surrounded by cobras and dancing monkeys, a Moroccan waiter recently recited to me, word for word, long portions of Obama’s New Hampshire speech: “It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation: Yes, we can. It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom through the darkest of nights: Yes, we can.”)

but back to Maliki and McCain - another dish post studded with links, responses, etc:

andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.../both-ways-barac.html

but back to Sullivan: lamh31, I think the Atlantic isn't so much right-leaning as trying to be a variety-pak. It's columnists range from Ross Douthat - to the right of Sullivan I think, but not a total freak - to Matthew Yglesias, who is just now leaving to work for Center for American Progress.

Best McCain react so far from an unnamed sometime campaign advisor, "We're f**ked."

Deafening silence so far on The Corner.

Inevitable, as soon as you talk about timelines, they tend to concentrate minds.

I for one, would not like to see an early withdrawal of US troops. What Obama was thinking going back to timetables, at this crucial stage, is beyond me.

McCain can, and should, make the most of this weakness.

I want the next pictures from the trip to be Barack jumping out of a helicopter under "sniper fire", bare-chested except for a bandoleer of ammo; followed by a surprise touch-down for a tarmac photo-op in Tehran before the Victory Parade in Baghdad.

The Atlantic has traditionally eschewed partisanship in favor of good ideas.

Nice job GSpinks. It would be a great to see your "First, Second, Third & Fourth" as a great :30 second spot for Barack. I'd like a split screen with Obama The Leader -- McCain The Follower. Then hit those four points in short order.  We've seen enough of the bio's filled with whiter than white folks. Dueling bio's are Salter's turf anyway.

Even the dumbest of the dumb will focus when Gspinks four points are drilled into their skull. Snapshots from the family album pale to half a minute that is proof one candidate set a course and stuck to it while the other guy is predictable wrong and can only recover when he agrees with ideas he once trashed.

And for the close...from the leader of Iraq: "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."

[Fade to Obama at some dusty base talking over the few final words,  "I'm Barack Obama and I approve..."]

I realize July is too early to speak about delivering a knock-out. But what is the downside to hitting McCain with a punch that has this impact when we don't know when there will be another opportunity? Plus, it is likely that Leader >>>--------> Follower will be a premise that can be exploited again and again.

The GOP had better have a lot more (and a lot worse) than "whitey" in their quiver. They'll need it.

GSpinks:

In re your #4:   I remember McCain questioning Obama's credibility on Afghanistan, but on a substantially different basis than the one you outlined above.  Could you point me to where/when McCain was saying that every thing was just peachy-keen there, etc.?

Could someone tell whether I can use the standard html tags for posting hotlinks here?  Or do you have to paste in a naked URL?  Didn't want to muck the place up by just winging it without a preview window.

I know this is wrong wrong wrong of me to think - well it's wrong, but here it is - when thinking of the ad that michael proposes [and I agree with the content], I cringe because it's so true and so harsh. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. I know we want to win this thing, and the ad isn't even on something superficial - it's on something very important, but I still cringe. I'm happy to see it in print, an op ed, or certainly from GSpinks, but in a tv ad I would writhe. Also I would be happy if McCain started it/asked for it, and it could be framed in that context. Or if it all came up during a debate.  I know this position is indefensible and I must be a secret Quaker, but there it is.

That isn't Quakerism, it's Machiavellian psanti. Beating up a nice old guy who's also a genuine American Hero has to be done with a lot of finesse. So far, the contradictions between previous Republican "strategy" touchstones and their actual behavior pretty well speak for themselves. Like they say, "never murder a man who's committing suicide." It would be easy to over-reach here.

There is a legitimate area of concern on this subject. If Obama is just pumping Afghanistan to defuse charges that his position on Iraq is weak, fine. He certainly understands that both he and Maliki need political cover to avoid the appearance of some kind of neo-colonial condominium.

 But if he really thinks Afghanistan is anywhere near the geopolitical importance of Iraq, or that all we need to make the place EU-ready is lots more grunts, we've got a problem. We shouldn't abandon Afghanistan, but expectations should be reasonable. We can't "win the war on terror" in Afghanistan no matter what we do. Long after OBL has gone to his just reward, we'll still have a vital national interest in what happens in Iraq, and Pashtuns will still be ambushing foreigners periodically.