Ahmadinejad Over Petraeus?
Two Presidential candidates walking side-by-side surveying the situation in a foreign land is nothing I’ve ever heard happen in American politics. Sen. Lindsey Graham floated idea of Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain jointly visiting Iraq and meeting with Gen. David Petraeus and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The only thing similar I can think of was the idea of President Kennedy traveling and campaigning jointly with Sen. Barry Goldwater in 1964. An American electorate tired of political bickering would welcome two competitors traveling together to Iraq to learn about any improvements or setbacks.
McCain’s offer wasn’t as generous as it could have been. Telling the AP he would “seize that opportunity to educate Senator Obama along the way” was condescending even though Obama is quite inexperienced and hasn’t been in Iraq since 2006. Still, the Obama campaign had a chance to show off some of that “post-partisan” “new politics” I keep hearing from them. That didn’t happen. Obama spokesman Bill Burton responded to McCain’s offer:
John McCain’s proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don’t need any more ‘Mission Accomplished’ banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq’s leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don’t want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer.
Over the last year, Sen. Obama has mentioned he’s willing to meet with the United States’ enemies without preconditions. That makes Jim Geraghty ask:
And isn’t Obama vulnerable to the argument that a man who’s pledged to meet unconditionally, one-on-one, face-to-face with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad really ought to meet at least once one-on-one with Gen. David Petraeus?
That’s not the only thing confusing about Obama’s foreign policy. He’ll talk with Iran, a state sponsor or terrorism but not Hamas. Then there’s Sarah Power’s truth telling that Obama’s planned Iraq pull out was a “best case scenario.” For Obama when talking about “hope” and “change” such details as consistency isn’t as important.
“Is Obama Willing To Meet Ahmadinejad, But Not Petraeus?”
[picture via jurvetson]
UPDATE: John Tabin sees risk in Obama going to Iraq:
According to the Military Times poll, more than 60% of active-duty servicemen believe the US is either “somewhat” or “very” likely to succeed in Iraq. But less than 20% of them think “the Iraqi military will be ready to replace large numbers of American troops” in 2 years or less. That suggests that a sizable number of the troops on the ground think that a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would amount to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Imagine if a soldier, marine, or guardsman were to express that opinion to Obama’s face, in public, on the ground in Iraq.
I doubt that would happen. For one think anyone talking to Obama would realize there was a chance they would be serving under him. I think most servicemen are professional enough to not create a political incident.
McCain found something he could sink his teeth into and mentioned the joint-visit idea in Reno:
Speaking in a town hall meeting in Reno, Nev., the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said he was surprised Obama’s campaign considered it a political stunt when McCain proposed earlier this week that the two travel together to Iraq.
“The security of this nation is more important than any political campaign. To say that we failed in Iraq doesn’t comport with the facts on the ground,” McCain said to applause.
McCain has hitched on to a talking point that is echoing through Republican chambers of late — that Obama would more readily meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than hold a one-on-one with U.S. Gen. David Petraeus, the head of Multinational Forces in Iraq.
McCain will be riding this meme for a while. It goes after Obama’s foreign policy inexperience and gets pro-war conservatives behind him.
Because the ‘generals’ you speak of are hand picked by your boy-king. Because they are hand picked, they are not loyal to the country, they are loyal to Bush. Does that make sense to you? Patreaous asks the WH what to say and he says it. I can teach a parrot to do that. Patreaous lost his credibility when he signed on to the Bush disgrace. You all have lost your credibility by not understanding that simple issue. Progressives are working to give you back your country. Stay out of our way and we will get the job done. Get in our way, and we’ll run you over without hesitation. If you didn’t want a monarchy, then we wouldn’t have a country in shambles. It’s your fault you are too scared of democracy.