There's a War On; You're Gonna Lose - You Have to Lose! 113 Days to Go!

Thanks to Wilco for providing the inspiration for tonight's title, focusing mainly on the campaign issue that was the primary focus of the past few days: Iraq. Because, in case you forgot, we are actually doing stuff over there.

--> Barack Obama, under attack on the apparent shift in his position on the Iraq War, published an op-ed in the New York Times today, in which he reiterates his call for withdrawing troops from the country over the 16 months after he takes office. His main points/reasons why Obama is right on this issue, and McCain is wrong:

• Obama opposed the war from the beginning, seeing it as an unnecessary strain on our army, which should have been focused on the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan instead of on a country which posed "no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks." McCain supported the invasion/occupation from the beginning.





• The surge, which Obama opposed initially and still does oppose, has been a mixed bag. Violence levels have gone down, which is fantastic, but the surge hasn't actually achieved its goals: our military is even further strained, more money has been spent, and Iraqi leaders have failed to reach a political accommodation between their warring factions while failing to take control of their constituents. McCain supported the surge from the beginning, and still calls it a complete success.





• Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki has called for a timetable for American withdrawal, and estimates indicate that Iraq's armed forces will be ready to take over security in 2009. Withdrawing may be the only way to put enough pressure on Iraqi leaders to get their asses in gear. At this point, a timely withdrawal is not "surrender," but rather a transition of power to a stable, sovereign Iraqi government.





• Obama remains committed to pulling out troops in 16 months, but is aware that the situation can change due to any number of variables beyond our government's control, and will continue to consult his generals before making any final decisions. By the way, I find it to be INCREDIBLY stupid that the American people expects either candidate to lock themselves in to foreign policy decisions a full calender year before it actually happens. McCain is 100% committed to keeping our troops in Iraq, and the left-wing of the Democratic Party needs to relax and not expect Obama to commmit completely to a course of action that could have potentially harmful consequences. McCain is stupid/irrational enough to fix himself into a position like that, and I've been proud to see throughout this race that Obama has made no such ideological decisions.

And by the way, this is NOT A FLIP FLOP. Obama's rhetoric has changed a bit, as all candidates change their manner of speaking when they reach the general election, but his message on Iraq has not shifted.

--> Meanwhile, a new ABC/Washington Post poll has some surprising results on Americans' views on how McCain and Obama would handle Iraq. Unsurprisingly, 63% of Americans still say the war was a bad idea from the start, and 60% reject the idea that Iraq is critical to our success in the War on Terror. However, because so many more Americans see McCain as a good Commander-in-Chief than Obama (72% to 48%), only 50% of Americans prefer Obama's Iraq policy compared to 49% that prefer McCain's. Like I said a few rants/posts ago, if Iraq is the biggest issue of this election, Obama will lose.

--> Luckily, a key McCain ally gave the Obama camp some great ammunition to use against the Republican nominee when it comes to economic issues. Perhaps the biggest framing dilemma for either candidate is McCain's quest to remain seen by moderates/independents as a "maverick" - distinct from the incredibly unpopular legacy of Dubya. So when Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC), considered a top competitor for McCain's Veep, was asked by Wolf Blitzer to explain how John McCain differs from George Bush on the economy, he didn't do the Arizona Senator any favors by "drawing a blank." Here's the exchange:

BLITZER: Are there any significant economic differences between what the Bush administration has put forward over these many years as opposed to now what John McCain supports?
SANFORD: Um, yeah. For instance, take, you know, take, for instance, the issue of -- I'm drawing a blank, and I hate it when I do that, particularly on television. Take, for instance the contrast on NAFTA. I mean, I think that the bigger issue is credibility in where one is coming from, are they consistent where they come from.

It got even worse for Sanford when Blitzer pointed out that Bush and McCain agree on NAFTA, which prompted to the befuddled governor to explain that he was moving on to another point about "consistency."

When one of his key supporters can't make a valid point, it's gonna be very difficult for John McCain to appear as anything other than John W. McCain - the Third Term of George W. Bush.

--> In another weird demonstration of John McCain not being in touch with the 21st Century, during today's talk with the press McCain referred to being concerned about Russia's "reducing the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia." Of course, at EDC we're concerned about this, too, considering that Czechoslovakia hasn't existed for 15 1/2 years. If it has taken Russia this long to notice that one of its neighbors isn't there anymore, then maybe Putin shouldn't be our biggest worry.

That's all for tonight. I would go on, but I would have to ask, "Do you want to know the terrifying truth? Or do you want to see me hit some dingers?" The answer is obvious - go watch Josh Hamilton.