NYT
For months now, Senator John McCain and other Republicans have been criticizing Senator Barack Obama for not having visited Iraq in a long time—even running a daily tally that is now well past 900 days. But now that Mr. Obama is about to actually travel there and elsewhere in the region, they seem unable to decide whether that is worthy of praise or an opportunity for payback for Mr. Obama’s unrelenting criticisms of their approach.
Mr. McCain, of course, has staked his candidacy on the success or failure of the surge in Iraq, reminding voters that he pushed for the troop increase when it was politically unpalatable. With conditions on the ground much improved, as even Mr. Obama has acknowledged, he is using that progress to bolster his claim to experience and good judgment and to cast Mr. Obama is untested and dangerously naïve.
“I’m pleased that he is going to Iraq for only the second time and Afghanistan for the first time,” Mr. McCain, who last visited the region in March, told reporters aboard his campaign bus in Kansas City, Mo. “If he was so concerned about Afghanistan and the threat there and the need to send troops, don’t you think he should have gone there?” Mr. McCain also asked.
Earlier in the day, Mr. McCain’s communications director, Jill Hazelbaker, dismissed Mr. Obama’s trip as nothing more than “the first of its kind campaign rally overseas.” But Mr. McCain initially rejected that “damned if you do, damned it you don’t” approach and sought a somewhat more nuanced position.
“I can only give you my opinion, and I will talk to her,” he said. “The fact is that I’m glad he is going to Iraq. I am glad he is going to Afghanistan. It’s long, long overdue if you want to lead this nation.”
It is not yet known exactly when Mr. Obama, with network anchors in tow, will be leaving on a foreign policy trip, meant to establish his foreign policy bona fides and sure to draw attention away from Mr. McCain. The trip is expected to begin in the next few days, with an itinerary that includes Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, a meeting with Palestinian leaders and a stopover in Europe.
Later in the day, in Grand Haven, Mich., Mr. McCain elaborated on his and Ms. Hazelbaker’s original remarks. He differentiated the Iraq and Afghanistan parts of the trip from its other legs, saying that Mr. Obama’s activities in those other countries could have “a political flavor, to say the least.”
Also today, the McCain campaign released a seven-and-half-minute long Web video called “The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand,” criticizing Democratic candidate’s statements on Iraq.
On Monday, Mr. Obama said that, if elected, he planned to move at least two brigades of American troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, part of the draw-down he has promised for Iraq. A day later, Mr. McCain announced a plan to send three brigades to Afghanistan, but has been hazy on details such as whether the troops would be supplied by the United States or Nato or both, and where they would be transferred from.
Iran has also sprung back in the news, in a way that may offer a political opportunity to Mr. Obama. This weekend, the No. 3 official in the State Department is scheduled to go to Geneva to join other members of the United Nations Security Council in discussions with Iranian officials about that country’s nuclear program.
Some conservatives have criticized that step as a capitulation by the Bush Administration, since the American envoy will be talking to Iranians without preconditions, a phrase associated with Mr. Obama. But Mr. McCain said the encounter was actually consistent with his approach.
“That’s in keeping with everything I said,” he told reporters in Kansas City. “That’s in keeping. Henry Kissinger went to China and met with Zhou Enlai, and he was the No. 1 guy at the State Department. Nixon didn’t go and meet with Chairman Mao, OK? So please have no doubt about it.”
In reality, Mr. Kissinger was Mr. Nixon’s National Security Adviser at the time, though he later became Secretary of State.
No comments:
Post a Comment