So, Krauthammer agrees with me. Frankly, given Mr. Krauthammer's record, I find that disturbing. It makes me wonder if I haven't got things wrongs here, somehow.

Talk to us, Hammer-man:

In a stunning upset, Barack Obama this week won the Iraq primary. When Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki not once but several times expressed support for a U.S. troop withdrawal on a timetable that accorded roughly with Obama's 16-month proposal, he did more than legitimize the plan. He relieved Obama of a major political liability by blunting the charge that, in order to appease the MoveOn left, Obama was willing to jeopardize the astonishing success of the surge and risk losing a war that is finally being won.

Maliki's endorsement left the McCain campaign and the Bush administration deeply discomfited. They underestimated Maliki's sophistication and cunning.

(My bold.)

Well, that's a bit like what I suggested was coming down the pike back on the 14th under the title Maliki For Obama?

Think maybe it's just possible that the Maliki government does not believe Mr. Bush is its best defender? That they may not be terribly happy about the prospect of Mr. McCain carrying on Mr. Bush's policies?

Think maybe Maliki isn't too worried about Mr. Obama or his policies?

In other words, you think maybe the conservative commentariat's entire line of attack on Obama's Iraq policy just collapsed?

And an awful lot like what I wrote on the 19th under the title Game Over? And even more like what I wrote on the 21st under the title Yes, Maliki Backed Obama:

Face facts: Maliki just came out for Obama. And John McCain just lost his core campaign issue.

Oh, and look, it seems Krauthammer even agrees with this little snippet I wrote in some comments on another blog:

No, "devastating" would be Nouri Al Maliki explicitly endorsing Obama's withdrawal plan. I can't wait to see how Republicans try to tap dance their way out of this.

Just a little more of Krauthammer to wash it all down with:

Which is why Maliki gave Obama that royal reception, complete with the embrace of his heretofore problematic withdrawal timetable.

Obama was likely to be president anyway. He is likelier now still. Moreover, he not only agrees with Maliki on minimizing the U.S. role in postwar Iraq. He now owes him. That's why Maliki voted for Obama, casting the earliest and most ostentatious absentee ballot of this presidential election.

I've said from the time his story broke, that watching Republicans try to spin their way out of this is like watching Democrats try to deny the effectiveness of the surge or to pretend that the Maliki-Sadr showdown was a Sadr victory.

When the facts conflict with the partisan narrative it usually takes a while for facts to conquer bullshit. I mark Krauthammer's column today as the official surrender of the "No, he didn't!" denialists.

This entry was posted by Michael Reynolds, on Friday, July 25, 2008. You can leave your response.