The WaPo editors take The One to task for his denial of reality in Iraq:
THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, "does not want a timetable," Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday [link]...
raqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki "wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out."
Other Iraqi leaders were more directly critical. As Mr. Obama acknowledged, Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq's rival sects and said they were worried about a rapid drawdown.
Well, at least he admitted all this.
Mr. Obama's response is that, as president, he would have to weigh Iraq's needs against those of Afghanistan and the U.S. economy. He says that because Iraq is "a distraction" from more important problems, U.S. resources devoted to it must be curtailed. Yet he also says his aim is to "succeed in leaving Iraq to a sovereign government that can take responsibility for its own future."
Peace with honor at a price you can afford. Catchy?
The WaPo's Big Finish:
Yet Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.
Bravo, WaPo...A far thinner but better paper than it was a few weeks ago.
Posted by: clarice | July 23, 2008 at 07:43 AM
Some common sense for a change. Something that's lacking in the candidate. One must admit, however that Obama has mastered Dem/MSM talking points.
Despite his campaigh slogan he wasn't able to change when the facts changed.
He doesn't yet understand (or is unwilling to admit) that the timing of withdrawal should be conditions -based. Clearly not fit.
Posted by: Terry Gain | July 23, 2008 at 08:19 AM
We desperately need a word similar to “Bushism” to remind people of the long parade of silly things said by Barack Obama.
I’d like to offer “Obamagoof” as a suitable term. I don’t have the time to start a web site to collect all the “goofs” but both Obamagoof.com and Obamagoofs.com are showing as available and would be great for the purpose if someone is so inclined.
Of course, if Obama is elected the Obamagoof list will be a huge web site to contain it all and it will make any list of Bushisms seem incredibly articulate.
Posted by: Tom Kelly | July 23, 2008 at 08:32 AM
We desperately need a word similar to “Bushism” to remind people of the long parade of silly things said by Barack Obama.
Or we could just call it what it is ... bullsh1t.
Posted by: fdcol63 | July 23, 2008 at 08:55 AM
Works for me, I find myself mumbling that to no one in particular every couple days as the TV blairs out something or another about the one we have been waiting for.
Posted by: GMax | July 23, 2008 at 09:00 AM
I suggest Obamagaga, a tribute to the old Queen song Radio Gaga. Of course that could be used to describe the press coverage as well:
All we here is Obamagogo, Obamagaga...
Posted by: Ranger | July 23, 2008 at 09:25 AM
Tom Kelly
I like the term Obamagaffe. Obamagoof is a great term to describe his supporters in the MSM.
Posted by: Terry Gain | July 23, 2008 at 09:26 AM
Don't get stuck in Obamagoo.
Posted by: sbw | July 23, 2008 at 09:28 AM
"He doesn't yet understand (or is unwilling to admit) that the timing of withdrawal should be conditions -based."
I think he understands that the nutroots are already P.O.'ed about FISA and he can only tack to the center so much...
Posted by: JB | July 23, 2008 at 09:33 AM
The NY Times will never write honestly about Obama. They are pathetic. And what I see everywhere, even on Fox News, are ecstatic descriptions of how wonderful politically his pseudo-presidential tour is going for him. Mark Halperin yesterday on O'Reilly said it is all about images. Nobody will listen to what he says which, according to Mark, is awful and incomprehensible (about the surge). So, we will photo-op our next president into the White House. If true, this country is surely doomed.
Posted by: bio mom | July 23, 2008 at 09:34 AM
The "Cult of Personality" ... how tyrants and despots are born when a populace places more priority on "image" and "promise" rather than on substance and demonstrated ability, and ignores a candidate's contradictory statements and inane policy proposals.
Posted by: fdcol63 | July 23, 2008 at 09:47 AM
"Yet Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric."
Eccentric - well, he is a millionaire.
Posted by: davod | July 23, 2008 at 10:46 AM
That early '90s tune by Living Color. "Cult of Personality" is particularly apt, possibly serving as the soundtrack for an
counter-Obama ad. What'll you now, Spiegel,
admits it edited the Maliki interview:
http://patterico.com/2008/07/23/der-spiegel-rewrote-the-whole-maliki-interview-of-course/> The Post is right, Iraq is much more important. It's a similar reason, to why the Brits hung on to Egypt for so long, it's the doorway to the Middle East. They wouldn't have been able to challenge the Ottomans during WW2 without it (although that inadvertently liberated the Ilkwan from the 'bottle' of the Nejd. One of the more protracted nature of our experience there, is at least partially due to the fact that we are challenging the Syrian Baathists,(who are not loath to use their native Brotherhood contacts, against us) the Wahhabis of the Nejd and the Iranian mullahs. Maliki, must know theunconfortable fact, that the Wahhabis have always been a greater foe, than any Westerners. If he's forgotten Bayan Jabr, the former interior minister now finance, should remind him.
Posted by: narciso | July 23, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Obama in Israel
What happened to listening and fact finding? Let me know when the Washington Post gets around to saying the junior Senator from Illinois is insufferable.Posted by: JM Hanes | July 23, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Hat tip, Barry, if you're at Yad Vashem, if you don't know what you're talking about, act solemn and shut your trap; if nothing, to avoid confirming you're an idiot, as the saying goes.
Posted by: narciso | July 23, 2008 at 01:02 PM
shut up , narciso. I understand he's going to say that after the bomb fell on Pearl Harbor his grandpa rescused the survivors at Treblinka.
Posted by: clarice | July 23, 2008 at 01:18 PM
Not sure if this has been posted already, but McCain has a great ad on the Obama-MSM love affair, to the tune "Can't Take My Eyes Off of You."
Posted by: jimmyk | July 23, 2008 at 01:42 PM
I agree, it's a great ad. Someone--maybe me--posted it but there are so many threads going, it's worth repeating.
Posted by: clarice | July 23, 2008 at 01:46 PM
Well, here ya go, narciso: Obama at Yad Vashem.
Posted by: JM Hanes | July 23, 2008 at 02:17 PM
Don't know if I'm reading too much into the dates on this polling chart that Mickey Kaus pointed to, but look who appears to be enjoying the bounce from Obama's grand tour.
Posted by: JM Hanes | July 23, 2008 at 02:53 PM
JMH
Don't you love the part where he tells a person asking a question to tell the previous questioner to speak up? Who the hell chides someone on a "look how great I am" tour?
Posted by: bad | July 23, 2008 at 03:35 PM
Disgruntled.
How come 'gruntled' isn't as popular in the English lexicon as disgruntled.? Is it because gruntled has porcine overtones?
gruntle: pacify: cause to be more favorably inclined; gain the good will of; "She managed to mollify the angry customer."
She managed to "gruntle" the angry customer.???
Ok. That gave me the giggles. I think I'll spend the next few weeks trying to work in variations of the word gruntle into my conversation just to see the reaction I get from people.
Posted by: Lesley | July 23, 2008 at 08:36 PM
Do not go gruntle into that good night.
=======================
Posted by: kim | July 23, 2008 at 08:48 PM
The Obamessiah seeks to gruntle the masses.
Yeah. That sounds about right.
Posted by: Soylent Red | July 23, 2008 at 09:14 PM
It took Carter to create a fundamentalist Iran, it will take Obama to finish the job in the Middle East.
Go Dalibama. Allah loves you.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson | July 23, 2008 at 10:20 PM