Vote '08

(above clip: near the end, Obama sinks a 3-pointer on the 1st try)

OK, a confession: I have been up all night producing the 2-hour Good Morning Chattanooga newscast, & thus am left a bit groggy today.

But I’d be remiss if I didn’t tell you about Obama’s overseas trip that’s going on right now, even though I’m letting others do the heavy lifting.

Click here to read about his visit to Afghanistan.

(above: Obama interviewed in Afghanistan)Click here to read the latest from Iraq, where Obama arrived early Monday.

Iraq’s prime minister Nouri al-Maliki made news over the weekend by saying he is in favor of Obama’s plan to pull troops out in 16 months.

That dovetails into an issue I think is a fascinating one for this election: how closely are the soldiers following this presidential campaign?

ABC’s Martha Raddatz just got back from her 17th trip to Iraq, & two Fridays ago she had some interesting tidbits that help answer that question on PBS’s Washington Week in Review:

MS. IFILL: Can John McCain do - can Barack Obama or John McCain do what they’ve been promising, in Obama’s case in 16 months? Martha Raddatz is just back from another one of her periodic trips to Iraq and she has tonight’s reality check. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says there should be timetables for withdrawal, so does Obama. McCain says no. Who’s right?

MS. RADDATZ: (Laughs.) I don’t know who’s right, but I think Maliki saying he was timetables is a little ironic since the administration would never put any timetables on them. I think that story about Maliki was slightly overplayed this week. I think that’s all about domestic politics - that Maliki wants to sort of show he’s not being pushed around totally by the Americans. They had some successes in Basra and in Sadr City. And I think in the end what you’ll see, and you’ve already heard the language change a little bit - it’s no longer timetables. It’s time horizons. Doesn’t that sound -

MS. IFILL: Horizons?

MS. RADDATZ: - so soft. The national security adviser there backed off on that timetables just a little bit. Now, Barack Obama - I go to the website. I know he’s added nuance. I know there’s been a little nuance throughout the campaign, but they’re -

MS. MURRAY: He calls it refining -

MS. RADDATZ: - refining, but the core of his plan - and I’m sure it attracted a lot of Democratic voters - is, I will start drawing down immediately, and will withdraw up to two combat brigades a month. That’s a whole lot of combat brigades. It’s a whole lot of people. It’s a whole lot of equipment. And the people I talk to, including commanders, I ask them a couple of questions. They’re not going to talk about politics first of all. They’re not - I’m not going to say, what do you think of Barack Obama? What do you think of John McCain’s plan?

But when you say, if someone ordered you to draw down immediately and pull out two combat brigades a month, and one of the commanders over there who has Baghdad said, you cannot do it unless it’s conditions based, meaning you can’t make those decisions unless you know what’s happening on the ground, or they fail. They couldn’t be successful. He actually said he thought it was dangerous to withdraw on a timetable if it was not conditions based.

MR. GJELTEN: But is that - is it politically impossible or is it logistically impossible? What about - could they - even if you didn’t consider -

MS. RADDATZ: Physically pull out the equipment?

MR. GJELTEN: Could you do it logistically?

MS. RADDATZ: There’s a really interesting point about this. We redeploy troops all the time. We’ve got - we just ended the big troop surge and all of those came out, but what you usually happen is you have more going in. The soldiers and Marines leave, a lot of the equipment stays. And you’re talking about for two combat brigades 1,200 Humvees. So I also went to Kuwait and said, how do you get these out of here? You’ve got one little port in Kuwait, where everything would have to come out. Ninety percent of that equipment would have o come out through that port. They have to wash it all - I was standing in a howling dust storm and they’re trying to wash these Humvees and things like that. So you look at all the complications there. A couple of commanders said to me off camera, there is no way we could do that logistically.

MS. MURRAY: Do you get the sense - we expect Senator Obama to go to Iraq shortly - and do you expect them to confront this issue with him when he -

MS. RADDATZ: I think they will give their honest opinion. And if you look back what David Petraeus has said in the past, he talks about conditions based too. He talks about no timetable. I can’t imagine they’re going to suddenly change their tune because Senator Barack Obama’s there. I think he will get straightforward advice. They certainly know civilians control the policies and civilians control the military. And they do what they say and whoever gets elected, I’m sure they’ll follow orders. But I think he will probably get an ear full.

And the conditions really have improved. This was the first trip - and this was trip 17 - that I’ve been on, where I actually felt we were in an exit phase. It just felt different. It doesn’t mean it’s going to happen in a year. It doesn’t mean it’s going to happen in four years. It obviously depends on who the president is. And John McCain has said that he certainly wants to stay and see this through. But you felt like you weren’t just bogged down there, that you were in an exit phase.

MS. TUMULTY: And what is your sense of how closely the troops are following this election. Does it feel like completely divorced from the reality that they are dealing with every day, or does it feel like it matters to them?

MS. RADDATZ: It really matters to them and they’re under orders not to talk about particular candidates. But I asked one young sergeant - we’re walking around and I said, I’m going to ask you if you’re following the presidential race. And he said, yes, ma’am, I am. I’m undecided, but I have read John McCain’s book and I have read Barack Obama’s book. They knew so much about these candidates. It was really extraordinary. It really - and randomly chosen soldiers, Marines, you can ask questions about it, and they are really, really - there’s a lot at stake for them.

MS. IFILL: And they can give you an informed opinion about whether -

MS. RADDATZ: About the economy, about gas prices - it is not - that’s what’s most surprising. It’s not all about Iraq. That certainly matters to them, but it’s gas prices and my wife says this - so it’s a fascinating look at politics over there.

MS. IFILL: Well, thank you. Trip 17, huh? Well, welcome back again.

Know what I wish? I would love it if every eligible voter in America is following the presidential race as closely as Raddatz says the troops serving our country overseas are. Can we make that happen, people?

Back to Obama. John McCain released what you could call his first negative tv ad of the campaign on Friday. (he has had others, but they were web-only):

RealClearPolitics is a good place to get links to differing views on the Obama trip; they don’t have their Monday pieces in yet at the time I’m writing this but they should by the time you’re reading this.

So what do you think about any of this? The floor is yours!

From a post at today’s Miami Herald’s Naked Politics Blog:

One of John McCain’s fellow POW’s in Vietnam defended the war in Iraq, saying, “The Muslims have said either we kneel or they’re going to kill us.”

In a phone call with reporters arranged by the McCain campaign, Colonel Bud Day added: “I don’t intend to kneel and I don’t advocate to anybody that we kneel, and John doesn’t advocate to anybody that we kneel.”

Muslim leaders have complained that they have been villified as terrorists since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Day, who lives in Pensacola, was part of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that smeared former Democratic nominee John Kerry’s war record in 2004.

Day’s words are exactly the kind of thinking that puts our nation’s security in greater peril.

The statement paints Muslims unfairly with a broad brush, to say the least. Day should clarify that those statements come from Muslim terrorists & extremists, & not all Muslims. I will give John McCain the benefit of the doubt that this is not the way he views this struggle; but there is no question that many Americans who vote for him in November have this mindset.

Part of winning the struggle against terrorism is convincing the vast moderate Muslim world that it’s in their best interest to be on our side. We can not prevail without their support. & therefore it is your duty as an American to discourage this kind of thinking, which pushes Muslim moderates away from us.

Again — this kind of talk only makes us less safe.

UPDATE: The McCain camp refuses to disavow the statement.

Watch the new 8-minute video attacking Obama’s Iraq stance above, then read the full memo here. 

Then read the Obama camp’s response here.

& ABC News discovered that McCain has a worse record than Obama on attending Senate foreign policy hearings, particularly on Afghanistan; read about it here. 

Above: McCain in Albuquerque, New Mexico yesterday, on winning in Afghanistan.

Below: Obama in Washington, D.C. yesterday, on winning in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Who’s right? Post a comment!

FURTHER READING:

–McCain could be the new Nixon in terms of foreign policy - the New Republic

–Obama’s Iraq speech “suffers from fundamental flaws of logic & fact that Obama refuses to confront.” - the New York Daily News

–How talk of a withdrawl - speedy or otherwise - is shifting the the dynamics of Iraqi politics - the Guardian

–Grading the candidates war speeches - Slate

     TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran’s president says there’s no chance of a war with the United States or Israel. But Iran appears to be turning up the heat a bit.
      State television reports the Revolutionary Guards have tested nine new long- and medium-range missiles during war games. One of them has a range of 1,250 miles, which is within striking distance of Israel.
      The report describing missile tests comes a day after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (ah-muh-DEE’-neh-zhahd) played down the risk of war as he visited a summit of developing Muslim nations in Malaysia.
      It also comes about a month after Israel’s military sent warplanes over the eastern Mediterranean. U.S. officials said at the time the military exercise could possibly be a rehearsal for a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

McCain’s response:

“Iran’s most recent missile tests demonstrate again the dangers it poses to its neighbors and to the wider region, especially Israel. Ballistic missile testing coupled with Iran’s continued refusal to cease its nuclear activities should unite the international community in efforts to counter Iran’s dangerous ambitions. Iran’s missile tests also demonstrate the need for effective missile defense now and in the future, and this includes missile defense in Europe as is planned with the Czech Republic and Poland. Working with our European and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy.”

Obama’s response: 

On NBC’s “Today:”

Said the U.S. must respond with “aggressive diplomacy” to Iranian missile tests, called for possible U.S. divestment of Iranian holdings. Said he doesn’t understand complaints he has shifted to the center, saying he has consistently supported faith-based initiatives and the death penalty for acts such as child rape, and that he would “obviously” listen to military commanders in Iraq.

On ABC’s “Good Morning America”:

Called Iran “a grave threat,” expressed disapproval of higher U.S. exports to the country. Asked about potential Israeli strike against Iran, said “Israel always has the right to protect itself from serious threats, and Iran is a serious threat.” On Iraq, said his position has been “crystal clear” and has not changed. Mentioned economic agenda for women, criticized McCain for not supporting reversal of Supreme Court decision on gender pay discrimination.

On CBS’ “Early Show”:

Again endorsed direct diplomacy with Iran. On Iraq, said “I have been entirely consistent that we are going to end this war when I’m president.” Repeated assertion he has not changed position on gun control, the death penalty and other issues. On the recent trouble aboard his campaign plane, said “When you fly as much as I do, some of this stuff’s going to happen.”

We are soooooo glad that we finally have a meaty subject worth of careful, nuanced debate in this campaign; the issue of whether & how we should talk to our enemies is worthy of this year’s campaign, unlike debates over flag pins, Bosnia sniper fire, & preacher problems.

THIS is what we should be talking about. What is the best way to achieve peace & security in the world? Is the carrot or the stick underused in current U.S. foreign policy? What is the best way to win hearts & minds of those in the world who can fall under the influence of people who want to destroy our way of life?

Below, some links & ideas to ponder [we have 2 newscasts to write today, so we’ll add to this post throughout the day - check back]:

“Should the president ever meet with enemies? Sometimes, but only after minimal American objectives — i.e. preconditions — have been met. The Shanghai communique was largely written long before Richard Nixon ever touched down in China. Yet Obama thinks Nixon to China confirms the wisdom of his willingness to undertake a worldwide freshman-year tyrants tour.” - Charles Krauthammer, the Washington Post

“Obama probably shouldn’t have committed to such meetings. All he should have said is that he wouldn’t have a policy of not meeting with such leaders, contrary to the policy of the Bush administration. Nevertheless, the intense criticism of Obama’s position is based upon a view of presidential diplomacy that is outdated and has proven to be ineffective if not counterproductive.” - Robert Robb, Arizona Republic

“President Nixon didn’t demand that China end military support to the Vietnamese killing Americans before meeting with Mao. President Reagan didn’t insist that the Soviets freeze their nuclear arsenal before sitting down with Mikhail Gorbachev. Even George W. Bush – whose initial disengagement allowed dangers to proliferate – didn’t demand that Libya relinquish its nuclear program, that North Korea give up its plutonium, or even that Iran stop aiding those attacking our soldiers in Iraq before authorizing talks. The net effect of demanding preconditions that Iran rejects is this: We get no results and Iran gets closer to the bomb.” - Delaware Senator Joe Biden, writing in the Wall Street Journal

“Talking with terror-supporting states runs the risk of bestowing legitimacy on them and giving them time to gain strength. Such talks can lower US guard to the threat and undercut the implied US military threat that can force concessions. And to enter talks requires the US first know what it is willing to give away and the red lines that can’t be crossed. Obama must address such points.” - the Christian Science Monitor

“When he lashes out, as he did in Israel, Mr. Bush makes it harder for reasonable people to pursue diplomacy. And it is hypocritical. His administration has negotiated successfully with Libya (formerly on the terrorism list) and North Korea (still on the terrorism list) and has had limited, largely unsuccessful, contacts with Iran over its support for insurgents in Iraq. Israel is indirectly negotiating a cease-fire in Gaza with Hamas with the help of Egypt.” - the New York Times

“Who are the bad guys rooting for in 2008?” - Joe Klein, Time Magazine

More later! But you can go ahead and give us your thoughts by posting a comment!

We were way too busy to get into this yesterday, but there’s every indication that this story will be a major headline-getter throughout today.

The core issue of this debate is over the meaning of the term “appeasement,” & the issue of pursuing a diplomatic strategy with those the U.S. considers an enemy.

So let’s take it from the top.

President Bush said the comments above in Israel’s Knesset (Congress) during a speech marking the 60th anniversary of the creation of the Israeli state. His criticism of a presidential candidate in an election in which he’s not a candidate was an unprecedented move [”I can’t imagine there’s a precedent for a sitting president to go before the legislative body of a foreign government and launch a political attack on a major-party nominee running to succeed him,” said Brian P. Murphy, a fellow in American history at the University of Pennsylvania]. It’s more typical for a) an American president to refrain from criticizing his opposition while overseas & b) for his opposition to refrain from criticizing him while he’s overseas. But this is a president who has long demonstrated he cares not for presidential tradition.

Reaction from Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, was swift & severe. Here’s an example from former presidential candidate Joe Biden:

Let’s take a step back & examine the word “appeasement.”

From Dictionary.com:

ap·pease /əˈpiz/ [uh-peez] –verb (used with object), -peased, -peas·ing.

1.	to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.

2.	to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.

3.	to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

The third definition is definitely what President Bush had in mind. He was specifically talking about the most (in)famous case of appeasement, that of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in the years leading up to World War II.

But that analogy is false. Why? Because Chamberlain’s blunder was not in sitting down at the table with Hitler. It was (essentially) giving Hitler a free pass to acquire all territory between Germany & the Soviet Union, as a way to keep both powers at each others’ throats, rather than having Germany turn its sights on attacking England. As we all know, this “appeasement” failed miserably, & hastened Hitler’s plan for world domination. This is a false analogy for President Bush, however, because he is equating sitting down with an enemy with giving the enemy concessions. No candidate on either side has actually spoke of giving any kinds of “carrots” to the other side as a way to reduce terror.

The Bush administration, as we’ve said before, has paid a price for its belligerent & hubristic foreign policy, because it has repeatedly failed to take the long view. How else can you explain the fact that the true victor in the current Iraq war is Iran? Had Bush & his planners seen how a destabilized Iraq would thrust Iran into the strategically enviable position it’s in now in the Middle East, perhaps they would have thought twice about invading.

This gets us back to a theme of this campaign about nuance. For the past 7 years, looking at the world in terms of black & white has hurt our long term interests. Sitting down & talking with enemies is something that all presidents, going back to Roosevelt, Republican & Democrat, have done as tool to achieve America’s long-term interests. Only since 2000 has the U.S. adopted a position that negotiating with enemies is somehow “weak.” It’s not.

Another important issue that was raised by Bush’s comments yesterday has more to do with campaign strategy, specifically McCain’s. He may have come out to support Bush’s indirect Obama jab yesterday, but it’s in McCain’s best long term interest in terms of the general campaign that Bush generally keep his mouth shut. Recall that this is a president who holds the record for the highest & longest-sustained public disapproval rating. They may agree on many issues, but it ma not serve McCain so well to have the current unpopular president be seen as his biggest cheerleader.

MSNBC’s First Read blog has some interesting thoughts on that front:

*** Bush’s gift to Obama: When President Bush — thousands of miles away in Israel — decided to fire his thinly veiled shot at Obama yesterday, it was a giant gift to the Illinois senator and his campaign. Why? One, it essentially kept Clinton on the sidelines just two days after her big West Virginia victory. Two, Obama’s opponent was no longer Clinton or McCain, but the man with the 27% job-approval rating. And three, it rallied Democrats to Obama’s side. Even neutral Dems, like Joe Biden, Rahm Emanuel and Harry Reid, quickly leapt to Obama’s defense. Some Democrats might be deeply divided right now. Pro-choice women are angry at NARAL’s endorsement of Obama; Clinton supporters are upset that Obama is looking like the eventual nominee; and some African Americans are unhappy with the Clintons. But what’s the best way to unify them all? Give them an excuse to turn their attention to Bush. And this will all play out another day — and will likely extend into the weekend — as Obama will respond this afternoon to Bush at his rally with Tom Daschle in South Dakota, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports. Obama will react to both what he considers Bush’s politicization of foreign policy and the substance of Bush’s attack.

*** The power of Bush: Regardless of whether you believe Bush yesterday did the right thing or not as far as the unwritten rules of partisan politics, it is a reminder of how the president can toss an issue grenade into the middle of the campaign and change the narrative in a nanosecond. But we have to ask: Did anyone in McCain’s orbit get a head’s up on this? After all, Bush’s remarks — and then McCain’s response to them — overshadowed McCain’s big “2013” speech that he gave to put more room between himself and Bush. They also undercut that very speech after McCain essentially agreed with Bush’s assessment. As the Obama campaign pointed out, McCain delivered “a lofty speech about civility and bipartisanship in the morning, and then embrace[d] George Bush’s disgraceful political attack in the afternoon.” Now, McCain’s past (and possibly contradictory) statements on Hamas are gaining fresh scrutiny today with an op-ed by Jamie Rubin in today’s Washington Post.

*** Understanding the reality: Another example of how unifying Bush’s speech yesterday was: Clinton also leapt to Obama’s defense, even though she has disagreed with him on this issue of negotiating with unsavory world leaders without preconditions. “This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address, and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced,” Clinton said. But earlier in the day, as NBC’s Ron Allen pointed out, Clinton gave few hints that she’s still fighting for the nomination. “Maybe we’re getting a bit ahead of things, maybe its just the place and time, maybe its that we’re all looking for clues about her intentions, but the vibe feels different,” Allen wrote. And as a top Clinton aide told NBC’s Mitchell: “People understand the reality, but they are still loyal to her.” It’s striking how the Edwards endorsement, and then Bush’s volley from Israel, quickly changed the subject after Tuesday night’s contest in West Virginia.

Friday around noon Barack Obama had this to say in response:

What do you think? Would love for you to weigh in on this.. especially if you disagree with my assessment.