I think Josh Marshall is right: how, exactly, can McCain argue against Obama’s plan when the Prime Minister of Iraq (the guy with the actual power) himself has essentially endorsed it? At least without saying something stupid like the President of Iraq doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or saying that we should stay over the objections of the Iraqis, or that al Maliki supports “American defeat.” I just don’t see where the opening is.
I guess McCain could say something like “I respect the opinion of Prime Minister al Maliki, but I believe that a 16 month redeployment is reckless and is tantamount to American defeat,” but how is that different from saying “al Maliki, STFU and listen to McCain who really knows what you want”? Really, try to come up with a reasonse which doesn’t say that either al Maliki doesn’t know what he’s talking about, is dumb, is lying, or supports American defeat. It’s a tough job.
If the argument is what’s best for the Iraqi’s, and the Prime Minister of Iraq said that Obama’s plan is what’s best for them, how exactly can you argue that it isn’t?
