Spiegel and al-Maliki Endorsement of Obama

What is a guy like John McCain, the defender of freedom in Iraq, the will of the people of Iraq foremost to be independent in his mind supposed to do when the Prime Minister of Iraq endorses Obama? I told you here once before that Iraq wanted the U.S. out of Iraq and that that would be the time that they would step up to the plate.

I kid you not, al-Maliki of Iraq supports the Obama plan and that is a nail in the coffin for Senator John McCain’s campaign as a foreign policy expert on Iraq! Mind you, there is still some controversy over this endorsement but it is the biggest news on the region in months. Over at Spiegel they have this on the subject and I have one hell of a follow up opinion…

MALIKI'S PRAISE FOR OBAMA
Iraqi Leader Stirs up US Campaign

Obama is pleased, but McCain certainly is not. In an interview with SPIEGEL, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki expressed support for Obama's troop withdrawal plans. Despite a half-hearted retraction, the comments have stirred up the US presidential campaign. SPIEGEL stands by its version of the conversation.

In the interview, Maliki expressed support of Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. "That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of changes."

Maliki was quick to back away from an outright endorsement of Obama, saying "who they choose as their president is the Americans' business." But he then went on to say: "But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited."

A Baghdad government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said in a statement that SPIEGEL had "misunderstood and mistranslated" the Iraqi prime minister, but didn't point to where the misunderstanding or mistranslation might have occurred. Al-Dabbagh said Maliki's comments "should not be understood as support to any US presidential candidates." The statement was sent out by the press desk of the US-led Multinational Force in Iraq.

A number of media outlets likewise professed to being confused by the statement from Maliki's office. The New York Times pointed out that al-Dabbagh's statement "did not address a specific error." CBS likewise expressed disbelief pointing out that Maliki mentions a timeframe for withdrawal three times in the interview and then asks, "how likely is it that SPIEGEL mistranslated three separate comments? Matthew Yglesias, a blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, was astonished by "how little effort was made" to make the Baghdad denial convincing. And the influential blog IraqSlogger also pointed out the lack of specifics in the government statement. - Spiegel

We live in a world of immediate information and reporting of facts and I'm just guessing that a not so popular guy in our nations capitol has instant access to any information involving Iraq. Maybe we should re-word how the retraction came. Maybe we should say that somebody in a sort of oval office with tons of interest in all events happening in Iraq placed a very angry phone call to the Prime Minister of Iraq? Maybe in that phone call some strong words were exchanged on a one sided basis and the guy in the oval like office told the supposed Prime Minister of Iraq to spin the statement backwards and twist it out of context?

Make no mistake about it, al-Maliki was intimidated into retraction of his endorsement of Obama and his plan for Iraq and we all know what kind of power and influence that was needed to do just that. There is far to much money to be made in Iraq and the pit that the money has gone into to date has been bottomless up to this point in time. How fast would you as Prime Minister of Iraq take a second look at your statements if you were threatened with the loss of hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars coming into your nation that are not accountable for or asked to be accounted for? I’d recant my statements pretty damn quick if I were him and then I would personally put a John McCain for President bumper sticker on my bullet proof limo‘s bumper. I would never ride in that limo again but the damn bumper sticker would be on it!

Make no mistake about it, this next election for President is for sale and the people making the endless amount of dollars off of this war have a friendly ear in a house somewhere in Washingtion, D.C. that just happens to be painted white. Check back soon on the mega dollars being donated to build a Library in Crawford, Texas… That would be another topic on something completely different I swear. Ummm, okay, I'm lying. Sorry.

My thanks to Memeorandum for this post...

Papamoka

Other folks talking about this issue:
The Atlantic
Taylor Marsh
The Impolitic
The Political Carnival
The Swamp… (Loved the Comments)

*****Our good friend Gun Toting Liberal has linked to this post... Thank you GTL!

Technorati Tags:
Bush, al-Maliki, Iraq Prime Minister, Spiegel, Obama Endorsement, McCain and Iraq, War Plan Sunk, McCain Screwed, Presidential Election, Iraqi Endorsement, Political Back Peddling, Election 2008, White House 2009, KBR, Accounting of Iraq War, Lost Funds in Iraq, Republican Party, Maliki Spin, The Swamp, The Political Carnival, The Impolitic, Taylor Marsh, The Atlantic, McCain Camp Spin on Maliki, White House Spin on Maliki

Who is Caroline Kennedy to Endorse Anyone?

By Michael Linn Jones

Henry David Thoreau once said that the state of a man’s mind is dependent upon the state of his bowels. Nothing truer has ever been said…anyone with intestinal flu will argue the point. Visual impairment also has an effect upon one’s state of mind, but fortunately not as drastic as the digestive system. When everything is fuzzy you might assume that fuzzy thinking is to follow.

Perhaps that is true. But I”ve managed to follow most of what has been going on with the primaries. Today I read an opinion piece by Ruth Hochberger in the Huffington Post, Endorsed by Caroline: What Was the Times Thinking?

Much has been written about why someone who has never before evidenced any particular political proclivity felt the need to declare for a candidate in a primary in a state in which there doesn’t seem to be much doubt who is likely to win. Some theorize her recent political conversion may stem from a lifelong search to recapture the dad she never knew or from an antipathy toward the Clintons.

SNIP,

One would also expect that one standard would be that the author has demonstrated some prolonged interest and acquired expertise in the field of the commentary: for example, an academic, a published author, a former government official. To my knowledge, Caroline Kennedy had a brief career as a lawyer, then authored a couple of well-reviewed volumes on privacy and constitutional law, and a collection of her mother’s favorite poetry.

So, why does the Times elect to publish a column basically extolling hope for the future as the prescribed elixir for our children? Could it be (gasp!)… a desire for publicity? A certain knowledge that Caroline Kennedy’s name — just like Britney on the cover of US Weekly– will attract attention, hit the wires, and maybe sell more newspapers or get more eyeballs to the Web? When I looked this morning, her column was the most frequently e-mailed at the moment.

If that’s the case, the Times has declined a bit in my estimation. No better, really, than People magazine. I still believe (I know, I know, I’m too old to be this naïve) that the principal function of journalism — including the editorials and commentary — is to educate. While I have no beef with Caroline, nor with her electoral choices, I am suspicious of the motives of the Times in publishing her opinions. There are way more qualified “endorsers” and way more educated and involved kids of politicians (if that’s what they were after) available. Their last names just aren’t “Kennedy.”

The impression I get is that Ms. Hochberger does not consider Caroline Schlossberg as “qualified” to endorse a political candidate. It is fair to ask if this sentiment would have been expressed had the endorsement gone to Sen. Clinton instead. I don’t know if Obama is the right choice…don’t know if Clinton is, either. But Mrs. Schlossberger is a citizen and entitled to an opinion.

Ms. Hochberger seems to feel that one must be an elite to offer political commentary, yet even that is qualified by what KIND of elite. Blogging (ewww!) allows a whole slew of “unqualified” people to offer opinion on things political. Blogging is the closest thing to a national townhall meeting that modern Americans have ever experienced. It’s quite untidy and full of opinions that vary as greatly as the people who populate this nation. The great unwashed are capable, believe it or not, of common sense from time to time and dare I say…wisdom?

To compare printing the thoughts of Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg to Britney Spears is a blind swing of the axe. I”m a few years older than Caroline, but my unrefined and unqualified memory brings me to make certain observations about Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg:

* Her father was publicly murdered when she was six years old. Each November of her life since 1963 she has to endure the possibility that someone will ask her about the Zapruder film, or something similarly insensitive.

* She was not quite 11 years old when her uncle Robert was gunned down.

* She is married and has 3 children. She has had the unique experience of burying her father, mother, and brother before she was 45 years of age. She has chosen to live a life of relative privacy both for herself and her family.

I probably shouldn’t mention that she is also an attorney, editor, and writer. Such activities are no indication that an individual has what it takes to express an opinion.

At least according to some.

But in my opinion, is Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg “qualified” to post an opinion in the New York Times?

You’re damned right she is. She’s earned it in a way very few could equal.

Originally posted at MichaelLinnJones.com