There is no doubt that the number one reason Barack Obama was able to defeat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president was his opposition to the Iraq War “from the beginning.” Even as events in Iraq faded into the background – thanks to the success of the new counterinsurgency strategy and the addition of 30,000 soldiers starting in January, 2007 – Obama kept up his criticism of Hillary Clinton’s vote to authorize the war while proclaiming to one and all that the “surge” had failed and that a withdrawal of the American military from Iraq regardless of the situation on the ground was our only option.
At the time, it seemed a winning strategy. Polls were overwhelmingly in favor of a withdrawal of American forces while the base of the Democratic party rallied to his anti-war, pro-American humiliation message. In fact, it could be said that Obama’s anti-war position was the cornerstone of his campaign for president.
The only possible risk for the candidate would be if things actually turned around in Iraq and the American people had a change of heart on the willy nilly withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Both eventualities seemed remote as late as the beginning of this year.
As it turns out, Obama was whistling past the graveyard with his Iraq policy. With the dramatic military success of the surge and the equally surprising strength shown by the Iraqi government and army in fighting both al-Qaeda and the rogue Shia militias who were responsible for most of the sectarian violence in the country as well as some timid but definitive steps toward political reconciliation, Obama suddenly finds that he has no place to hide and his Iraq policy as relevant as a week old newspaper.
What do you do when the cornerstone of your campaign collapses and you are exposed as being dead wrong about the number one foreign policy issue of the campaign? If you’re Barack Obama, you write an op-ed in the New York Times and lie through your teeth.
Powerline nails Obama to the wall, calling attention to his blatant fibbing about his position on Iraq by quoting the candidate’s own words in the past and comparing them to the lies he wrote in yesterday’s op-ed:
Obama admits that he opposed the surge, and the attendant change in strategy and tactics, that have brought us close to victory. But he somehow manages to twist his being wrong about the surge—the major foreign policy issue that has arisen during his time in Congress—into vindication:
The op-ed lists Obama’s reasons for opposing the surge – and not surprisingly, they are not the reasons he has been touting for more than a year:
But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.
Oh really? If Obama keeps this up, pretty soon his nose is going to be as big as his ears. John Hinderaker explains:
Actually, however, Obama opposed the surge not because of those “factors” but because he thought it would fail. He said, on January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:
I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.
On January 14, 2007, on Face the Nation, he said:
We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality—we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.
On March 19, 2007, on the Larry King show, he said:
[E]ven those who are supporting—but here’s the thing, Larry—even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference.
On May 25, 2007, in a speech to the Coalition Of Black Trade Unionists Convention, Obama said:
And what I know is that what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric, they deserve a new plan. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe that the course that we’re on in Iraq is working, I do not.
The fact is, Obama simply has no place to hide when it comes to explaining his position on Iraq. His analysis of the situation is no longer valid – if it ever really was. His policies based on that analysis are no longer operative. He has been exposed as a rank opportunist – an anti-war candidate who claimed to be the only candidate who could bring an end to the war.
Except now the war is ending and there is precious little he can say that would obscure the fact that he was as “spectacularly wrong as John McCain was spectacularly right” as Hinderacker points out.
He had two choices; he could go for door #1 and come clean, say he was wrong, and develop a new policy that would refelct the realities on the ground. Or, he could opt for door #2 and lie, obfuscate, and muddy the waters, trying to hide his original positions.
Monty Hall never gave a contestant such an easy choice.
But Obama’s shameless cover-up didn’t stop there. According to The New York Daily News, Obama has actually scrubbed his website of any criticism of the surge!
Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop “surge” in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a “problem” that had barely reduced violence.
“The surge is not working,” Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks – not U.S. military muscle – for quelling violence in Anbar Province.
The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.
Obama’s campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an “improved security situation” paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.
It praises G.I.s’ “hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.”
Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is “not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.”
Oh for God’s sake Wendy, do you think we’re as stupid as liberals? Do you “regularly update the Web site” to cover up your candidate’s most spectacular errors in judgement?
Part of Obama’s furious backtracking on Iraq might be the result of something even I didn’t think was possible. A significant shift in the American people’s perception of the situation in Iraq and what our strategy should be:
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds the country split down the middle between those backing Sen. Barack Obama’s 16-month timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and those agreeing with Sen. John McCain’s position that events, not timetables, should dictate when forces come home.Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, will deliver what his campaign is billing as a “major address” on Iraq today in Washington, part of an effort to convince voters that he could serve effectively as commander in chief. The public is also evenly divided on that question, with 48 percent saying he would be an effective leader of the military and 48 percent saying he would not.
On Iraq policy in general, Americans continue to side with Obama and McCain, his Republican rival, in roughly equal numbers, with 47 percent of those polled saying they trust McCain more to handle the war, and 45 percent having more faith in Obama.
The poll results suggest that months of Democratic attacks on McCain’s Iraq position have not dented voters’ basic trust in his ability to lead the country’s armed forces: Seventy-two percent said McCain would make a good commander in chief.
“The most important number by Election Day is whether a majority of the electorate has achieved a comfort level with Obama as commander in chief,” said Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic pollster who was a strategist for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, and who considers Obama’s 48 percent a strong starting position. “I think this is the one dimension on which he will be tested and where Republicans will try hard to raise big doubts about Obama.”
Obama will be forced to alter his position, moving closer to McCain on Iraq while moving farther and farther away from the netroots who can do nothing but throw tantrums at how they have been betrayed.
Where will all this dizzying manuevering get Obama? Because the press will not call him out for this monumental flip flop – this Mother of All Campaign Backfills – it is not likely he will be hurt very much at all. More likely, the disillusioned left will grumble a bit and still turn out for him in November. Those on the far left always have Ralph Nader or Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. For the center, there is only the here and now in politics which is what Obama is counting on with this incredibly cynical move.
Exposing Obama for the lightweight he is will be the challenge for McCain. Hopefully, Obama will continue to lead with his chin on issues like Iraq and make the Republican’s job easier.
10:55 am
Is McCain up to it? He’ll have to publically call out Obama on his flips, and he will have to some extent call out the MSM for failing to report the truth.
McCain has been a creature of the MSM a long time…now that they have turned on him, does he have the stuff to call them on their lies?
The big nets, CNN, NPR are now part and parcel of the Obama campaign.
11:21 am
McCain has two problems:
First: He needs to grow a pair and challenge Obama on the points and continue to hammer him time and again on the flips and flops of this empty suit. And in so doing challenge Obama not for his inexperience but for his judgement or lack thereof – the one thing Obama himself hammered Hillary about.
B: McCain needs to gain control of the message. He cannot be spending his time reigning in bufoons like Gramm and maintain some level of attack on Obama. Obama has shown himself to be a loose cannon. If McCain can control his side of the message and be free to pound Obama, even a tainted MSM cannot hide Obama’s faults entirely.
11:48 am
McSame is going to lose so badly, you will never recover from the ass-whooping. The MSM is in bed with McCain and the only reason he is even STILL in the race is due to the media lapdogs who want to ride in the kewl part of the plane – or on McCain’s lap. McCain is the sacrificial lamb going to the slaughter and you all know it. It is giong to be brutal for your side. Fun for the entire family.
Blaming flip-flops on Obama, and ignoring the many dozens of similar moves by McCain is typical right side behavior. Pure Rovian, but it is all you got – that and racism. Just a thought? Why not focus on the facts? Oh I forgot, that won’t work for your side. You better start attacking the next president – you don’t have much time to continue to feel superior. After King Bush leaves office, your lives will tumble back to the worthless and uneventful spew it was before 2000.
Jesus Lord God that might be the most incoherent, idiotic rant ever written on this site. Racism? Methinks you’re projecting there, my friend. Playing the race card won’t get Obama anywhere – no one will believe him. And your overwrought hatred of your political opponent only shows how mentally ill you truly are.
Get some help, kid. Going through life fat, drunk, and stupid is no life at all.
ed.
12:49 pm
Both McCain and Obama have been all over the board on Iraq. I was greatly disappointed when Obama began backing off his 16 month plan to get out of Iraq.
It may be a mute point because our corrupt president has been trying to secretly negotiate a long term deal with Iraq without congressional oversight or approval. Fortunately Iraq’s democracy works better than ours in that the parliament must approve any deal. Had their government been as fascist as ours, Iraq’s Al-Maliki could have agreed to a back-room deal in private, one that may have secretly paid him hundreds of millions of dollars – to sell out his people.
The American people who want out of Iraq, will have to rely the Iraqi government to throw us out as the imperialists that we have become. Bush’s terms would have made Iraq a client state with big oil companies taking control of a large amount of their oil fields. You can read more details on this at my post: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/1/201225/9943/763/540291
All of this is at the expense of US taxpayers and the blood of American soldiers to the benefit of large oil company mega-profits.
Hopefully Bush will be stopped and then this issue can be rightfully decided as part of the November election – which gives Obama the upper hand even as he waffles to the center.
“Fortunately Iraq’s democracy works better than ours in that the parliament must approve any deal. Had their government been as fascist as ours, Iraq’s Al-Maliki could have agreed to a back-room deal in private, one that may have secretly paid him hundreds of millions of dollars – to sell out his people.”
You are so far gone as to be beyond belief. Conspiracy nuts are not welcome on this site. G’Bye.
ed.
12:49 pm
[...] Rick Moran: Where will all this dizzying manuevering get Obama? Because the press will not call him out for this monumental flip flop – this Mother of All Campaign Backfills – it is not likely he will be hurt very much at all. More likely, the disillusioned left will grumble a bit and still turn out for him in November. Those on the far left always have Ralph Nader or Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. For the center, there is only the here and now in politics which is what Obama is counting on with this incredibly cynical move. [...]
1:45 pm
Obama was opposed to the Surge before he was for it. Or something like that.
McCain and Obama owe their nominations in large part to their Iraq War stances. With the surge’s success, Iraq has moved down the list of important issue- and has been replaced by escalating pump prices. Neither candidate is well equipped to handle energy policy. Oops.
2:05 pm
—“The most important number by Election Day is whether a majority of the electorate has achieved a comfort level with Obama as commander in chief,” said Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic pollster who was a strategist for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, and who considers Obama’s 48 percent a strong starting position. “I think this is the one dimension on which he will be tested and where Republicans will try hard to raise big doubts about Obama.”—
Rick,
You forgot to mention that the same ABC poll showed that something like 72% of persons polled said McCain would be a better CINC. I find it amusing that the Wash Post did not report that figure after they solicited this quote on CINC relevancy from a Dem pollster. Is it because they do not want to paint a very negative picture of BHO’s actual chnaces at winning this election?
2:16 pm
Rick, fair is fair, but you, yourself were a skeptic of this policy, and as things were turning around, you were constantly playing devil’s advocate highlighting the continued difficulties that lied ahead. As such, you have also softened your own position.
That said, there is one thing that people aren’t giving enough attention to as far as Obama’s Oped, in my opinion. This is what Obama plans to do with the “residual force”
“After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.”
Now, this is frankly the Rumsfeld strategy. He essentially wants to cut off a successful strategy in favor of a strategy we saw spin out of control for four years. What Obama wants is what American forces did for four years and watched the country nearly disintegrate. This is what we should be pointing out. Here is my full analysis…
http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/07/barack-obamas-fatally-flawed-iraq-plan.html
You are basically correct, Michael. I still have doubts about many things in Iraq as far as how friendly they will be in the end, how close they’ll be to Iran (or how much Iran will try to dominate), whether the Sunnis will continue to try and work within the system or whether they will become frustrated and go back on the warpath, and how secular and free the country will be among other doubts. Plus, there are troubling things about our success – walling off entire neighborhoods is just one item – that I don’t know how things will work out.
I think we are rapidly approaching a time – less than 16 months – where we simply must hand things over to the Iraqis and let them take it from there. Ed Morrissey thinks we should keep around 40,000 troops there. I think half that would be adequate. But I would accept 40,000 plus pre positioning of equipment in the event Iran or Syria got any ideas if we began in September. Not a timetable but a rational drawdown with reviews every 3 months – pretty much what we’re doing now. If things get dicey again we can halt and take a breather. But in another year, the Iraqi army will be able to carry out any mission we would carry out – albeit without the expertise or assurance of success – but carry it out they would.
In short, the time is rapidly approaching when the Iraqis simply won’t need is anymore. And that’s been our goal all along.
ed.
2:51 pm
[...] Right Wing Nut House Where will all this dizzying manuevering get Obama? Because the press will not call him out for this monumental flip flop – this Mother of All Campaign Backfills – it is not likely he will be hurt very much at all. More likely, the disillusioned left will grumble a bit and still turn out for him in November. Those on the far left always have Ralph Nader or Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. For the center, there is only the here and now in politics which is what Obama is counting on with this incredibly cynical move. Share This Post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
2:53 pm
“In short, the time is rapidly approaching when the Iraqis simply won’t need is anymore. And that’s been our goal all along.”
No it hasn’t.
3:39 pm
Barack HUSSEIN Obama (PBUH)(SWT)(SAW)
3:44 pm
Jesus Lord God that might be the most incoherent, idiotic rant ever written on this site. Racism? Methinks you’re projecting there, my friend. Playing the race card won’t get Obama anywhere – no one will believe him. And your overwrought hatred of your political opponent only shows how mentally ill you truly are.
Get some help, kid. Going through life fat, drunk, and stupid is no life at all.
ed.
Your line needed attribution. Dean Wurmer might get offended you left out his credit to that phrase – but that is what the right side does, it steals; It does not create.
Obama is not citing race as a factor, your pundits have all done that themselves. You know as well as anybody that racism has been interjected into this political landscape due to the obvious reasons – Obama is black. Not black enough for some, too black for others. Is he Christian or is he Muslim? No, no racism there huh? You can claim ignorance of this – seems you can do that well – but that doesn’t make it valid. There is no hatred of any kind within my words. Only an observation which you surely have seen as well; although you are too right sided to actually admit that.
BTW, Should we discuss McCains many flip-flops and bigamy? Oh, I didn’t think you wanted to do anything useful for the readership – just throw a tantrum. I guess that passes as maturity to the right side.
4:55 pm
Rick:
Get some help, kid. Going through life fat, drunk, and stupid is no life at all.
ed.
OUCH! OUCH! OUCH!
Jimbo:
Get some help, kid. Going through life fat, drunk, and stupid is no life at all.
ed.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!
“... but that is what the right side does, it steals; It does not create.”
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!
This, coming from an obvious Anti-American/Pro-Jihadi Democratic Traitor Leftist Socialist Nutbag™????
ARE YOU SHITTIN’ ME??? From a delusional Leftist who worships the Marxist-Muslim, Barack HUSSEIN Obama (PBUH)(SAW)(SWT), who practices “Taqiyah” like Brittany Spears changes her underwear?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
PS: when you write Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s (PBUH)(SWT)(SAW), please don’t forget the appropriate Muslim Honorifics and Salutations after his name, as required for a Muslim “Messiah”!
Jimbo, were you born stupid or did you just practice REAL hard??
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!
What a tool…
5:01 pm
You’re missing the humor of the situation, Rick. Sen. Obama’s first posture was that his position against the invasion of Iraq—before he was in the Senate and while many Democratic Senators voted in support of the invasion—qualified him for the presidency. That was the basis on which he opposed the surge.
Now his position is that the success of the surge makes his eagerness to withdraw from Iraq just that more possible. That’s not a pivot, it’s a pirouette, a veronica.
5:12 pm
[...] Rick Moran goes for the jugular. Just like Obama thinks he’s better on Iraq because he possesses superior judgment it’s been wrong about the surge. [...]
10:04 pm
[...] Rick Moran goes for the jugular. Just like Obama thinks he’s better on Iraq because he possesses superior judgment it’s been wrong about the surge. [...]
10:26 pm
Jimbo, if you want to talk about McCain’s “bigamy” can we also talk about Obama’s drinking and his statement in his book how he used drugs “enthusiastically”. Or perhaps how he sat in a church for 20 years ministered by a racist pastor that preached Marxism with a bit of the Scriptures thrown in for good measure? (Yes, that is what Black Liberation Theology is). Or how he claims now his mother was a “Christian” although he said in his book she was basically an atheist?
How far do you want to go with Obama’s past because I would love to throw Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, Rashid Khalidi and others in your face.
10:28 pm
Jimbo, one other thing; race was injected in Obama’s campaign when his wife was asked last year on a TV interview if she was worried about her husband running for POTUS to which she replied “I worry about Obama, as a black man, when he goes to the gas station”.
Eat your words.
11:32 pm
“You are so far gone as to be beyond belief. Conspiracy nuts are not welcome on this site. G’Bye.”
Read my post again and tell me where I am a “conspiracy” theorist. Are you telling me that back room meetings, with no US congressional input or over-sight is kosher?
I would be glad to debate you on anything I said, I’d clean your clock.
You seem to be content talking about “fluff” instead of issues that matter.
5:18 am
Obama Web site removes `surge’ from Iraq problem…
Barack Obama’s aides have removed criticism of President Bush’s increase of…
7:55 am
Nobody should accuse Jimbo of bigamy; his mancrush is solely for Urkel X no matter what his position morphs to on anything.