No, I Meant "Obamafuscation", Thank You

Google needs to get with the times.

And those times will shortly include the most glorious Obamafuscation yet, when Obama's February 2007 position on Iraq collides with the emerging reality of the summer of 2008.  Here is George Packer, author of The Assassin's Gate, writing in The New Yorker:

In February, 2007, when Barack Obama declared that he was running for President, violence in Iraq had reached apocalyptic levels, and he based his candidacy, in part, on a bold promise to begin a rapid withdrawal of American forces upon taking office. At the time, this pledge represented conventional thinking among Democrats and was guaranteed to play well with primary voters. But in the year and a half since then two improbable, though not unforeseeable, events have occurred: Obama has won the Democratic nomination, and Iraq, despite myriad crises, has begun to stabilize. With the general election four months away, Obama’s rhetoric on the topic now seems outdated and out of touch, and the nominee-apparent may have a political problem concerning the very issue that did so much to bring him this far.

The New Republic sees an opportunity for Obama to visit Iraq, pronounce himself to be well-pleased, and "reposition himself without appearing too shamelessly political".  Well, they would say that - I see an opportunity for McCainiacs to ask "If we are going to be fighting a war anyway, who do you want leading it?"  One hopes that will be widely viewed as a rhetorical question, but this has been an odd year.

MORE:  Our incredible, too-good-to-be-believed supersleuths have found a rough draft of Team Obama's statement on the success of the surge and Obama's new hope and change for Iraq:

My fellow Americans...  I have toured Iraq, I have talked with the generals who have worked tirelessly to stabilize this situation, I have talked with the fine American troops who daily make heroic sacrifices for freedom, I have talked with the Iraqi leaders and the Iraqi citizens who have suffered so much under Saddam Hussein and during this war of liberation, and it is time for me to report to you my latest and evolving thoughts.

In the winter of 2007 I denounced the Bush surge, opining that the additional troops could not quell the violence raging there.  However, I misunderestimated the energy and commitment of our fine soldiers.  I also endorsed the conventional view that the Bush Administration had committed so many errors that their venture to create a stable and democratic Iraq had failed.  It now appears that I also misunderestimated the incompetence of the Bush Administration, which has now been able to screw up an all-but-inevitable defeat and turn it into something that has the potential to result in - well, I can't say "victory", so let's call it 'non-defeat'.

This is grim news, I know, and I share the disappointment of many of my supporters.  But it appears that, despite Bush's many blunders and lies, we actually have a chance to win this ridiculous war, and I am not willing to be tarred for the next fifty years as the President who lost Iraq.  So, despite what so many may have interpreted at the time as my assurances to the contrary, I will not be setting a firm timetable for withdrawal of our troops.  I am now convinced that the situation in Iraqis fluid and our continued presence may provide the Iraqi government the vital breathing space it needs to build on its recent successes.

That or something like it.

Comments

[windansea]

this is simple

If the Obama sez we've won it will be okay

Just so it's not that war criminal Bush

[Forbes]

Well, if you believed, as Obama did, that the surge of manpower and the implementation of the Patreus' counterinsurgency strategy was the wrong policy approach, then the success of this policy was foreseen as improbable. You can't have it both ways, as in Packer's construct.

The problem with Obama's rhetoric is not that it seems outdated now--it has been outdated for some time. The surge has come and gone without Obama taking any notice--the "surge" combat brigades sent to Iraq have all returned home.

So why worry now, if the facts on the ground in Iraq never mattered in the first place?

[kim]

We hope to be able to constantly change our mind without anyone noticing.

He makes Bill Clinton look principled.
=================================

[Neo]

Here comes the beginning of that pivot on Iraq ..

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday, in a major speech on patriotism, criticized MoveOn.org for referring to Gen. David Petraeus as General Betray Us last year.

Expect him to say something like .. "I was opposed to the war from the beginning, but we now have to deal with the situation that exists".

After the "FISA" sellout, how long before the "netroots" are in full revolt ?

[Appalled]

Good effort, TM. But I think more - something like this (note -- NON PARODY ALERT):

In 2002, I spoke against the war Bush proposed. The war did not make sense to me. It did not look like the President had serious accounted the costs of war, versuses the benefits. It did not look like he had done anything resembling careful planning.

And, looking over the years from 2002 to 2007, everything I feared came to pass. Because of the war, we became deeper in debt to the Chinese. Because of the war, we lost our standing in the world as a nation that valued human rights and human freedom. Because of the war...etc.

So, it's early 2007, and the group who gave us a war that had to that point been a paramount failure, and a waste of lives, came to the Congress and said: "Trust us again. Trust us with more young Americans. Trust us with more money -- the Chinese will finance us. Because we have a plan, this time."

We were supposed to trust the administration of Katrina and the Cheney Energy Bill and (etc).

Of course I said no. It's what my constituent wanted me to say. It's what 70% of the American people wanted. Frankly, to say yes, to entrust more lives to the man who has wasted our surplus into the worst deficit of our nation's history, who (etc)

But, when I am President, Bush won't be. And when I look at the situation on January 20, 2009, I will have a situation different than 2007. Because, against all reasonable expectation, the Surge has worked. It has worked in the same way a successful lottery ticket has worked. It is a great, grand thing, and has changed how we must look at the situation, and how we must act. But the fact that a riverboat gamble has worked does not reflect that well on the prudence and judgement those who would gamble with lives that really weren't their own.

Now, there are those among you who might be saying -- it sounds like you agree with John McCain now. I don't. I don't look to have bases in Iraq for (insert large number, here) years. Our ambitions are more modest abroad, because they must be more ambitious at home. (Quick shift to economic message)

The awkward problem Obama's got is that McCain was consistantly right about how Iraq should have been fought, even when those positions were not popular. (I think McCain wrong on the initial decision, but I dodn't expect y'all to agree.) I think Obama's got to shift his position in a way that suggests that trusting Katrina-man on issues of life and death was unreasonable for a man not blinded by partisan loyalty.

[Soylent Red]

If he goes to Iraq, declares progress, and reneges on the promises to pull troops out now, the nutroots are going to flat freak out.

And the Obamessiah knows that.

He's going to go, declare victory and tell people there's nothing more to do. The media will comply by burying every piece of news contradicting the victory meme, and that will be that.

Meanwhile. Agent 89 and his ilk will be loudly proclaiming that Bushitler had nothing to do with the win, and that the highly trained and competent Dem Congress actually pushed the Pentagon into the correct way of thinking.

Vice-Presidential nominee (for Obama) Chuck Hagel, will wholeheartedly agree.

[clarice]

Read the Lipscomb article TM cited to see how good the press can be at aiding a friend in burying the truth, Soylent.

[Barney Frank]

If he goes to Iraq, declares progress, and reneges on the promises to pull troops out now, the nutroots are going to flat freak out.

And the Obamessiah knows that.

Yeah, that's why he'll have Axelrod or one of his other numbats doing the old nudge, nudge, wink, wink behind the scenes ala NAFTA and the Canucks.

[Rick Ballard]

"that trusting Katrina-man"

What the hell does "What buses?" Nagin and "Blank Stare" Blanco have to do with this?

Is there some sort of 'Chocolate Nation' riff going on?

[RichatUF]

Barney Frank-

Yeah, that's why he'll have Axelrod or one of his other numbats doing the old nudge, nudge, wink, wink behind the scenes ala NAFTA and the Canucks.

Ole' Pecksniff Axelrod is gassing up the "Bush Legacy Tour" Bus with $4.50/gal diesel to protest the Iraq War, the mortgage meltdown, and high gas prices on a horn blowing tour across America. Obama, even if he wants to, can't nuance his way back to the center on the Iraq War-he can only hope it gets worse. He is only planning a trip this summer, he'll figure a way to weasel out of it.

[Rick Ballard]

11/06 - Dems win majority - Gas $2.20

7/08 - Dems complete second session as majority - Gas $4.08

Vote Dem - all you'll have left is loose change.

[MikeS]

It is time for McCain to make an announcement about Obama's trip overseas.

McCain should say that he is glad Obama is taking his advice to go to Iraq, and that he hopes Obama changes his mind, about removing our troops as fast as he possibly can, once he sees the facts on the ground for himself.

Mac should say that he also hopes that while he is in Europe, Obama will take the time to reassure our allies that he won't sabotage the years of work they've done on multilateral negotiations with Iran.

Lastly, McCain should suggest that he hope Obama will also reassure Pakistan that he has no plans to attack them.

[MikeS]

It's what 70% of the American people wanted

Appalled,
Could you direct me to this poll? The poll that sticks in my mind was an ABC News poll from Feb or March 2003 where, as I remember, something like 75% supported going into Iraq.

[Neo]

It appears that Wes Clark is stuck to the bottom of the bus ..

There are many important issues in this Presidential election, clearly one of the most important issues is national security and keeping the American people safe. In my opinion, protecting the American people is the most important duty of our next President. I have made comments in the past about John McCain's service and I want to reiterate them in order be crystal clear. As I have said before I honor John McCain's service as a prisoner of war and a Vietnam Veteran. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. I would never dishonor the service of someone who chose to wear the uniform for our nation.
John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country - but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed - he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues.

[Appalled]

Neo:

I was talking about opposing the surge, not the initial invasion.

[sophy]

I will thank for my friends bringing me in this world. I am not regret to buy flyff penya .