Barack Obama, Iraqi leader Nouri Maliki appear to be on the same page

John McCain's campaign could not have seen this coming -- the presumptive Republican presidential nominee forced on the defensive by, of all people, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki.

Much as McCain and his staff wanted to hammer home their view that Barack Obama is clueless about Iraq, Maliki seemingly gave the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee a big dose of credibility when word surfaced over the weekend that, as quoted by the German magazine Der Spiegel, he said he would like to see U.S. troops leave his country "as soon as possible."

Maliki, Der Spiegel reported, went on to say: "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

Maliki's office, suddenly finding him thrust smack in the middle of the U.S. campaign, issued a somewhat half-hearted demurral, insisting something got lost in the translation of what he said.

But an audio recording of his comment, vetted by the New York Times, showed that Der Spiegel essentially got it right. And in the initial readout from Obama's visit today with Maliki in Baghdad, the Associated Press reported that the Iraqi government would like to see American combat units gone at some point in 2010 -- a timeframe, the story noted, that "falls within the 16-month withdrawal plan proposed by Obama." [UPDATE: The L.A. Times has the story, as well.]

McCain, during a round-robin set of appearances this morning on the major morning talk shows, did his best to try to change the subject by focusing on how wrong, in his view, Obama was for opposing the U.S. troop surge in Iraq last year, which has been widely credited with restoring a semblance of security there.

On ABC's "Good Morning America," for instance, McCain chided Obama for a "fundamental misjudgment" on the surge. And on NBC’s “Today” show, he said his rival "badly misjudged" what was needed in Iraq.

McCain, though, did not escape unscathed during his interview sessions. In a verbal flub that will spark renewed recollections of his Shiite/Sunni miscue earlier this year while he was visiting the Middle East, he erroneously reconfigured the map of the world.

Asked on ABC about the uptick in violence by Islamic extremists in Afghanistan, he replied: "We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border."

Iraq borders several nations, but Pakistan is not among them -- looming between the two is Iran. (Pakistan's neighbors, however, include Afghanistan).

The Note, ABC's daily political summary, opined that by "appearing to confuse Iraq and Afghanistan" McCain ended up committing "the first big gaffe" since Obama embarked on his overseas trip amid much speculation about mistakes he might make.

-- Don Frederick

Photo credit: AFP / Getty Images

Comments

[Esspy]

Not knowing what the borders of Iraq or Afghanistan look like may be normal for the schmuck on the street, but if you're trying to base your campaign on your foreign policy and military record, that is a serious blunder.

We've already had one military President who's clueless about the middle east, and look at the mess that landed us in. Don't claim that its an innocent mistake when he's talking up border troubles with states that don't border each other!

[demonik]

Frederick didn't say anything derogatory about McCain. He reported what "The Note" said.

[rick g]

Suddenly Nouri Maliki is a genius, eh? Now the media finds something good to say about him?

I thought he was inept and just a Bush flunky?

[Candace in TX]

President Bush, General Petreaus, John McCain and PM Maliki have ALWAYS said that the situation on the ground would dictate when withdrawing troops would be possible.

Senator Obama has ALWAYS (well, nothing is "always" with him but that seems to be his position) said that we must immediately begin withdrawing, regardless of the situation, because this is the "wrong" war and we never should have invaded in the first place.

The Surge and the hard work of the US and Iraqi militaries - not the politicians - should get credit for the reduction in violence that makes the possibility of withdrawing even possible. So now the media is giving Senator Obama all the credit just because he has always wanted to leave and now we might actually be able to??? Are you kidding me?? I don't care which candidate you support, give credit where credit is due!!

[Thad]

Chris,

Confusing Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't seem like such a problem if the current administration hadn't spent years conflating Saddam with Osama in order to gain public support for the war in Iraq.

A significant number of Americans still believe Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

When politicians confuse the issue, it's bad for America.

[T-Bone]

Chris, what are you reading? He called it a "verbal flub" and quoted ABC calling it a gaffe. Whoa, what a liberal rant! A conspiracy I tell you.

Perhaps you would have preferred if they didn't call it an error, and just pretend it's what McCain believes.

The Republicans of course would never take anything out of context or claim a misspeak is proof that the opposition knows nothing... hahahaha

[Adrienne]

Chris - I agree, we should stop calling out candidates for every slip of the tongue they utter. Just like when Obama was attacked when he started to say that he had visited 50 states and then mean to correct to 47 states but said 57 by mistake. It goes both ways, and it's not appropriate in either direction. There are much bigger issues to address in the US and world today.

[Gorefan]

"McCain chided Obama for a "fundamental misjudgment" on the surge." But it was McCain's fundamentally flawed judgement - he didn't even bother to read the reports that contradicted the Bush administration's claims about WMD - that got us into this situation in the first place. Between the two mistakes, McCain's is the more serious since it has resulted in the death of over 4000 service personnel and help to fuel the resurgence of the Taliban in Afganistan.

[Reenie]

I think it is disgusting and totally out of line for Obama to be speaking with any heads of state - he can preach all he wants what he will do IF (hopefully not) he is elected president, until then he needs to stay out of it. It's the president's job or whomever he appoints, to speak with the leaders of other counries.

[Bonnie]

Republicans have always been clueless about Iraq.
I've know a lot people from the Middle East, including Iraqis, over the years. Those I know would have preferred covert help, which they know the U.S. is good at, to get rid of Saddam, to an all out hazardous military invasion and occupation. And It wasn't lost on many Iraqis that we rushed to guard their oil ministry first.

Does McCain think he can get the whole picture without talking to Iraqis? Apparently. Then there was his statement about defeating Al Q'aeda in Iraq, when even the US military would tell him that Al Qq'aeda's role is Iraq is very small.

[EJLima]

The republicans will do what they do best. Steal the glory and smear Obama.

[that1guy]

"A simple mistake"? Give me a break. McSame's whole campaign strategy is centered around the war; he of all people should know the geography intimately.

This was yet another symptom of incipient senility for the poor old guy, It's clear that the campaign is taking its toll on him. Of course, the same puppeteers that got that fool W elected want McCain to be as malleable as possible; they'd program you Republibots to vote for a sweat sock if they could get away with it.

[Jeff S]

Maliki has already said that his statement was translated incorrectly. LA Times is about 36 hours behind.

[Al R.]

8 years have really changed Mr. McCain's abilityto react to changing time. He seems to be willing to say anything, do almost anything and has changed almost all the positions he espoused tht made him so popular in the past. This is truly a shadow of the man of 8 years ago .
If he bcomes President, I fear for this nation.....

[M Oliver]

It is amazing how in one meeting Obama has solved the problems in Iraq. It's such a shame while he was a state sentator of Illinois, he voted present on over 100 bills. Just think what he might have done for the state of Illinois, if he would have done. Judge a man by his actions, not his words.

[hinnis]

Of course, the LA Times is pro-Obama; them and just about every other major news outlet. Both McCain and Obama have made some pretty silly gaffes (remember the "57 states" statement by Obama); both of them have flip-flopped on various issues (with Obama seizing the prize for most flip-flops over the last month or so); and both of them have been less than honest on some issues. So, what choice are we faced with? Well, we can choose either an older, experienced, centrist Republican, or an inexperienced, far left, divisive, racist Obama. I think I'll choose the old guy.

[EASY]

If all those folks want to continue to blow themselves to hell, let them. We want Osama's head. All the coalition forces are not international police.
They do not want us there lets get out. Stop the deaths of our American and coalition brothers and sisters and moms and dads
Unless of course our leaving will cost the US financial control of their oil. In that case lets just kick their ass and take the oil.
Easy

[Pbase]

Well, Chris, your boy McCain makes it so easy for we pro-liberals to go off on our rants.

[hinnis]

SPEAKING OF BIAS IN THE PRESS: The New York Times on Friday blocked an opinion piece submitted by John McCain to the newspaper shortly after it printed a piece by his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, McCain campaign officials confirmed to FOX News on Monday.

Obama’s piece detailed his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan. While McCain’s proposed piece also discussed Iraq, The Times told McCain’s advisers that it would not accept the op-ed in its current form because it did not offer new information. Obama’s speech previewed a series of speeches leading up to a highly publicized trip to war zones in the Middle East.

[Careful Reader]

"vetted by the New Times"

Has the NY Times be renamed to reflect a new approach to reporting?

[TommyT]

This article is sophomoric. It represents everything that is wrong with politics. This is sad Mr. Frederick. Sometimes if you have nothing newsworthy to write about it is best to write nothing at all.

[Look at old BigMac]

Look at the picture of our Old BigMac since he became a marionette of the NeoCon Roveites that almost destroyed our beautiful country economy and respect, both self and world's respect. He looks older and morally destroyed... America won't stand 4 years more of gas rising prices to make Bush, the Republicans and the Oil Baron richer! And now even the world leaders are bowing down before Obama's ideas! It is time for a new Golden Age of American dominance in the World, it is time to set a new Pax Americana that will last forever! A world of peace, prosperity and happiness for all! And Obama is the only one that can bring it! The ones that are against him just represent a terrible evil that doesn't want to die! Time for the America's light to shine, with Obama, and for the forces of darkness to be sent into the pits of forgetfulness forever!

[sloLes]

Maliki was installed as an American stooge. He has stepped up big, sort like the many of the cases John Kennedy wrote about in his book 'Profiles in Courage,' to ensure that the American public will insist that troops come home alive! Obama was his tool, and McCain is holding an empty bag.

The vital American interests are in Afghanistan. We were attacked from there. Bin Laden is still probably there. And the Taliban are narrow-minded bigots, who will destroy world cultural property in Bamian. So, Obama should credited with focusing on the right ball, even if he doesn't understand the game in Afghanistan.

It time that Americans wake up an begin changing our lifestyle to blend seamlessly into a new world order, where hydrocarbons are deemphasized and and more sustainable forms of energy are the norm. Once we re-focus our energies, we can thrive.
----

[Bill]

Obama's plan = withdrawal in 16 months

McCains plan= withdrawal maybe in 100 years.

We report, you decide.

[Ekcnho]

I think nearly everyone would like combat troops to be out of Iraq sometime in 2010 or sooner, but the difference is setting a firm deadline for it is recipe for another mistake there. The surge has worked because the conditions have gotten better. Iraqi troops are leading more of the charges now. However, if the situation backslides for any reason, Maliki will be very anxious for the troops to stay. Then where will Obama be? Either pulling out troops that are still needed because of ideology, or looking like a fool for setting a hard deadline. Sound familiar?

McCain's position that he'll leave the forces there until the job is done sounds like a more seasoned voice.