McCain is quickly loosing the perception of a capable C-in-C.

Isn't it annoying how the McCain camp always includes "regardless of conditions on the ground" when talking about Obama's troop withdrawal plan, when he's never said any such thing.

It's not just a mischaracterization, it's an outright lie.

Here's a link to an AP opinion piece that spins Maliki's endorsement of Obama's plan as Iraqi political posturing to get a better deal from Bush:

This is why we don't let the military run the country. Or does John McNeocon forget that we have civilian leadership to set our national policy? Should we ask military Generals about whether or not Social Security is a "complete disgrace" or can we manage that one on our own?

Man, we've sunk pretty far if it is not painfully obvious to every American how dangerous a precedent these guys set with their deification of David Petraeus.

What else can Mullen say if he wants to keep his job.

Just ask Admiral William J. Fallon and countless others... If you oppose Bush, you get the boot.

My, What short memories we all have.

Admiral Mullen is looking forward to his retirement too

Last I checked, Admiral Mullen doesn't speak for the Iraqi people. Oh, and Admiral Mullen is a hack.

McCain does realize that we still have civilian oversight of the military, right? I mean seriously, there's a reason why we have civilians controlling the military, and not the other way around. I'm saying this as someone who has been both.

But really this is too easy. Just ask McCain why he was wrong when he said that if the Iraqi government asked us to leave, we'd have to leave. Obviously, by arguing for an open-ended and indefinite commitment of our forces in Iraq regardless of what the sovereign government there says, Admiral Mullen is repudiating McCain publicly professed beliefs. This is a pretty striking stance for Bush's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to take in actively going on the record opposing the policy of the two Senators in line to succeed his current boss.

Someone should probably ask him about that.

GORDON BROWN SUPPORTS OBAMA"S PLAN!!!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/brown-plans-to-withdraw-troops-as-he-backs-obama-over-war-on-terror-872388.html

Gordon Brown prepared the ground for a historic realignment in the "war on terror" yesterday by setting out a four-point plan for withdrawal of British troops from Iraq by the end of next year.

Although he is refusing to set a detailed timetable for withdrawal, it is clear Mr Brown is in agreement with the US presidential candidate Barack Obama on the need for military action in Afghanistan to take priority. Both appear to be working to a 16-month timetable.

McCain must be having a fit!!

Hey, wouldn't it be nice if the MSM actually reported these facts about Brown and Maliki??

At this rate, US will be another Pakistan where military will run the government.

Eric:

On the next McCain conference call, can you ask them to provide a direct quote where Obama says the following:

get all U.S. forces out of Iraq within 16 months, regardless of the conditions on the ground.

or this:

stubbornly adhering to an unconditional withdrawal that places politics above the advice of our military commanders, the success of our troops, and the security of the American people

I've followed this guy pretty closely over the last year or so, and I don't recall him saying anything REMOTELY approaching what they are attributing to him.

Eric's got the right spin on this. I was reading some centrist and center-right websites today, and they were begging McCain to go the other way -- to say, "sure, okay, obviously if they want us out we'll need to get out." I do think that would have been the smarter move. Though it would have courted short-term "flip-flop" allegations, it would have avoided digging in to an outright imperialist vision of American foreign policy.

But okay, John. Be my guest. Let's make this a nice clear contrast.

http://americasfuture.org/jamespoulos/2008/07/maliki-did-not-just-sink-mccain-will-mccain/

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/07/more-on-maliki.html#more

If I were advising McCain, I would tell him to do the following:
While Obama is in Europe, marshall your forces and set your campaign organization right.
Many of your senior officials are attrited. Some still on board need to be purged prior to the primary.
There are many more scandals to come unless you do the purge now, while no one is looking.
No more Lieberman and fellow jackass Senators who know nothing. Because; everytime they stand up you have the Bidens and Hagels to shut them down.
Caucus his Senate friends and tell them, I go down you go down.
Tell the Religious right the same thing.
Call all the Repup Govs in the romm and give them the same message.
And then shut up till the convention.

Here's the latest on the Maliki quote. The NYT now has the tape in Arabic.

“Unfortunately, Der Spiegel was not accurate,” Mr. Dabbagh said Sunday by telephone. “I have the recording of the voice of Mr. Maliki. We even listened to the translation.”

But the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki’s office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki’s interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama’s position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki’s comments by The Times: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”

He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/us/politics/21obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Admiral Mullen = Damage control.

The fact that FOX News felt a need to get Mullen on to defend the occupation shows the real impact of al-Maliki's statements favoring the Obama plan. It also shows that Obama's trip abroad is going much better than some expected. McCain and republicans see this thing slipping away fast.

Thats nice, turns out President Obama supports it.

Young Voter, if you're still around, there's a nifty way to use the vast New York Times archive as a research tool.

First, in the left column of the main nytimes.com page, you'll find a (tiny) link called Politics. This takes you to a nicely organized and content-rich page that points you to current and past articles in both the NYT and the foreign press, as well as background information on the candidates and their platforms, an index of polls, and all kind of stuff.

There is also a useful link near the bottom of the page to the Politics Navigator, a selective guide to political resources online that was primarily designed, as I understand it, as a research tool for Times journalists.

Now to go deeper into specifics, note that key words in Times articles often appear as links. This morning's story about Barack in Baghdad, for example, has links to "Barack Obama," "Chuck Hagel," "Iraq," "Nuri Kamal al-Maliki" and other such key words. Clicking any of these takes you to a page devoted to that person or subject.

This is cooler than Wikipedia in a certain way. For one thing it's very fine-grained. I mean it's obvious that the Times might have a page devoted to Obama, but try clicking on Hagel instead. There's a biography, photos, video, and links to hundreds of articles and blog posts.

I think it's impressive how aggressively the Times has moved into the digital age. (They were the first news site, along with the wretched AP, to release a free iPhone app to make it easy to browse the paper from your phone or your iPod touch.)