envelopeEmail to a friend

Media Views

Washington Post: Campaigns' Iraq Stances Seem to Hit a Middle Ground (8/1/08) by Karen DeYoung

The basic point of DeYoung's report on the U.S. presidential candidates comes in her fourth paragraph:

In recent days, McCain has said he could support withdrawal over 16 months—the timetable proposed by Obama—provided "conditions" were right. Obama has said that he would "adapt" his withdrawal timeline should "things drastically worsen as we're drawing down." Both advocate leaving a residual U.S. force in Iraq, although neither has specified the size of such a force.

But can we pretend to really know what McCain thinks on Iraq? He has shifted from wanting a 100 year non-violent occupation to predicting "victory" by 2013 to possibly accepting a 16-month withdrawal. Can a reporter really say she knows what his position is? DeYoung further writes of how "factors have emerged in recent weeks to complicate both candidates' positions":

The sustained fall in violence in Iraq has bolstered McCain's contention that the troop buildup succeeded, even as it reinforces Obama's position that a sustained U.S. troop withdrawal should now begin. The Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, under domestic pressure to set a timetable for the departure of U.S. forces, has cited the end of 2010 as a reasonable projection. And U.S. public opinion surveys indicate support for Obama's contention that the war was a mistake, along with backing for McCain's "conditions-based" criteria for withdrawal without a fixed target date.

It remains unclear what aspect of that summary "complicates" Obama's position. All signs point to withdrawal of U.S. troops—except, of course, for the Post's own misleading poll; see FAIR's Action Alert: Washington Post's McCain-Friendly Poll: Deceptive Question Misleads on Iraq Position (7/15/08)

[More Media Views]

FAIR does not endorse every opinion expressed or vouch for facts presented here, except by ourselves. Send link suggestions to jnaureckas@fair.org.