« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Who should I believe? Greg Sargent or Claire McKaskill?
Today Greg Sargent posts a piece titled "Obama Reiterates: Combat Troops Out Of Iraq In 16 Months".
No ifs, no buts.
But Claire McKaskill told MSNBC Tuesday, as reported yesterday by the Kansas City Star, the following:
“Barack Obama has never said this is written in stone,” ...“He’s
always said ‘I will obviously take into account what commanders on the
ground say.’ ”
Obama, then, shouldn't be saying that it probably take 16 months to withdraw, because of course, commanders on the ground might disagree with the 16 month plan.
Who to believe?
Advertisement








Comments (4)
"Taking into account" is not the same thing as saying allowing them to set the agenda. He's made it quite clear that he'll be the one giving the highest level orders, but the generals will make decisions on how to carry out those orders.
That said, I think he's also said that if significant changes to realities on the ground dictate a change in timetables, then he'll change the timetables. Any candidate who'd say otherwise is either lying to you, or a reckless idiot. The context around how he said this convinces me that it'd take very, very strong changes (e.g., Iran invading Iraq might do it) before he'd do more than add a couple months to his timetables.
If I say I'm going to take out the trash, I don't need to qualify that statement with "probably", even though I know that I could suffer from a heart-attack before getting to the trash can.
July 4, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you thought about, I dunno, thinking for yourself?
July 4, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some one please cut up Andrew Perez' meat into small pieces, perhaps chew it for him, and also tie his shoe laces, since he clearly is a congenital idiot.
Here is what Senator McCakill actually said. I also find it very ironic tht this Perez Moron, who claims to be a stickler for accuracy in the Media, spell the Senator's name as McKaskill
“He doubtless realizes that his original plan, if implemented now, could revive the badly wounded al Qaida in Iraq, re-energize the Sunni insurgency, embolden Muqtada al-Sadr … and return the central government to a state of collapse. The question is whether Obama will publicly change course.”
No, McCaskill said on television. “If you can’t leave Iraq when it’s stable and you can’t leave Iraq when it’s not stable, that means we are stuck with George Bush and John McCain (and) we can never leave Iraq,” she said.
Her statements brought criticism from Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign.
“I don’t think there’s any question that Barack Obama should change his plan in Iraq,” said Rep. Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican, in a conference call. “An overwhelming number of pundits (say) that his plan of withdrawal is the wrong way to go, given the progress on the ground.”
McCaskill said that Obama, based on conversations with military advisers, still believes troops can leave Iraq at the rate of one to two brigades a month.
July 4, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You simply pasted other paragraphs from McCaskill's words. Did she or did she not say the timetable pledge is not set in stone?
And don't tell me that this is what she "actually" said, as if my excerpt were made-up, or did not represent part of McKaskill's words.
July 5, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment