Gut check time for Republicans and Sen. McCain supporters?

Obama wants defeat in Iraq because of his 16-month plan? Really? "So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat," Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki told SPIEGEL. "But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias."
That's right folks, not only is the Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki getting President Bush to discuss a "time horizon with most likely some set dates" but now an interview with Iraqi's Prime Minister Maliki supports the overall premise of Sen. Obama's plan being a short term plan. As some have said before, nothing about Obama's current plan is accepting defeat or would directly lead to it. The spin, as well as very truthful facts we'll be hearing on this, on both sides if we are to be honest, should be priceless.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566841,00.html

Actual quotes from Maliki (with italics/bold added):
"US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
"Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business," he said.
"Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems."
"would like to see the establishment of a long-term strategic treaty with the United States, which would govern the basic aspects of our economic and cultural relations."
security agreement..."remain in effect in the short term."
"So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat," Maliki told SPIEGEL. "But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias."
"It is a fundamental problem for us that it should not be possible, in my country, to prosecute offences or crimes committed by US soldiers against our population," Maliki said.

One could argue and rightfully point out that had we removed our troops way back when some in this country first started saying we should we wouldn't be where we are today, for some that is irrelevant as many feel we should have never gone there in the first place. It isn't likely that when immediate troop draw downs were first discussed that Iraq would've felt like they were in a position to want it as quickly as some here in the States wanted. The truth is we'll most likely never know except that it is a fact that some Iraqi's-quite debatable how many-did in fact want us gone as soon as we removed Saddam from power. Obviously others wish we had never invaded at all. Sounds like Americans doesn't it?

The answer to the headlines question is: No. Sen. McCain has always said what the Iraqi's want we'll abide by.

Edited 7/22; 7/26