Hotline After Dark -- The Right Kind Of Wrong

ABC's Moran sat down with Barack Obama in Baghdad 7/21. The interview aired last night on "Nightline." Some highlights:

Obama, on what he first asked Gen. David Petraeus: "The question for me was, does he consider the games reversible when it comes to al Qaeda and Iraq, or some of the Shia militias? And if so, what kinds of resources are required to make sure that we reach a tipping point where they can't reconstitute themselves. And, you know, I think that what came out of the conversation was a sense that this is not a science. It's an art. And he and I occupy different roles."

Moran: "Did Prime Minister Maliki say to you what he said to the European press, that he likes your plan for a 16-month timetable for withdrawal?"

Obama: "What Prime Minister Maliki stated was that he very much believes that there has to be a time frame built into whatever agreements are set up between the United States and Iraq. But, again, I think his view is that he wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out."

After the jump, more Obama and NYT rejects McCain's op-ed.

(KATHERINE LEHR)

Moran, on the surge: "Would you say based on what you see here that you were wrong in saying that the 20,000 troops would not make a significant dent in the violence? They have."

Obama: "Here's what I'll say. I think that I did not anticipate -- and I think this is a fair characterization -- the convergence of not only the surge, but the Sunni awakening, in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided they had had enough with al Qaeda. In the Shia community, the militias standing down to some degree. So what you had was a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think my assessment would have been correct."

Moran: "If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?"

Obama: "No, because keep in mind..."

Moran: "You wouldn't?"

Obama: "Well, these kind of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. I think what I'm absolutely convinced of is that at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with and continue to disagree with, which is to look narrowly at Iraq and not focus on the broader issues" (ABC, 7/21).

Fore more of the interview, see today's Hotline.

ALL THE NEWS THAT'S NOT FIT TO PRINT

There was also a lot of TV talk about the New York Times rejecting an op-ed written by John McCain. On 7/14, the Times ran an op-ed by Obama about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan. The Times told the McCain camp that his op-ed "did not offer enough specifics about his plans for victory in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Ex-UN Amb. John Bolton: "I'm all in favor of the First Amendment. I think the New York Times should be allowed to print who it wants. ... But the idea that somehow the McCain op-ed was less worthy than the Obama op-ed just boggles the mind. ... They said that McCain's wasn't new. Well, Obama's wasn't new either. ... I've published op-eds in the New York Times. I may never publish another op-ed in the New York Times after this" ("Hannity & Colmes," FNC, 7/21).

The Hill's Stoddard: "If you look back at Barack Obama's editorial from last week, he does criticize McCain. McCain's piece that he wanted to submit was answering those criticisms, I thought he should have had a shot to have a say" ("Verdict," MSNBC, 7/21).

Karl Rove: "I thought the decision by the New York Times was arrogant, condescending and stupid. It was arrogant because it said, We're going to dictate to you what you put in your op-ed. It was condescending in its tone that said, You have to mirror what Senator Obama said. And it was stupid because it gives people more reason to believe that they simply can't trust the New York Times to be fair and even-handed" ("On the Record," FNC, 7/21).

Conservative radio talk show host Lars Larson: "I guess it's intelligent in some cases not to let people just do tit for tat on the op-ed page. But when the two people doing tit-for-tat are the two major presidential candidates, it makes perfect sense to let your readers read that back and forth. It tells them so much about the policy issues that are being talked about" ("Election Center," CNN, 7/21).