wsj: obama is change we can believe in!
By shag carpet bomb • Jul 8th, 2008 • Category: Election 2008, Iraq war, Obamathe wall st journal lurvs obama’s stance on iraq!
Man of Refinement By JAMES TARANTO Nineteen days ago, we speculated about Barack Obama that he would soon abandon his promise to bring about an American defeat in Iraq:
Could it be that Obama is planning to pivot? That is, what if he goes to Iraq and declares upon his return that he has been persuaded that the surge has made a difference, that things are going much better, and that he is now convinced victory is both possible and crucial? Last Thursday, just as we had put our last pre-July Fourth column to bed, Obama himself said more or less exactly this. As the New York Times reports on its blog The Caucus:
“I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed,” he said. “And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.” Later the same day, he called a second news conference, where he insisted that his position on Iraq had not changed:
“We’re going to try this again,” Mr. Obama said, standing behind a lectern that was hastily set up on the lawn of a park here. “Apparently I wasn’t clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq.” . . . “Let me be as clear as I can be, I intend to end this war,” Mr. Obama said. “My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in and I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war– responsibly, deliberately, but decisively.” There is a word for ending a war responsibly. It’s called “winning,” and it is what George W. Bush and John McCain–though they have at times disagreed about tactics–have agreed on all along. It’s good to see Obama adopting, or at least seeming to adopt, the Bush-McCain position.
Maybe Obama has always been for victory in Iraq, as he now claims; or maybe he was and remains pro-defeat and his latest pronouncements are merely a verbal smokescreen intended to obscure his actual views so as to appeal to people on both sides of the debate.
But if his “refinement” is real, it is an example of change we can believe in.
shag carpet bomb is
Email this author | All posts by shag carpet bomb
“WSJ loves Obama”==”Hezbollah Endorses Kerry!”
No?
I should have said it here. Sistani has endorsed Obama.
Considering that the Iraqi Parliament just voted to force the US to provide a timetable for withdrawal, if not withdraw immediately, it would be kinda impossible for BHO to spin his way rightward on this one….but considering his most recent events, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he did exactly what the WSJ noted.
Then again, this may just be agitprop by the WSJ editors designed to blow up the Democratic Party “unity” by dividing “liberals” from “moderates” and clear the way for McCain to look sane in comparison. Not that Obama hasn’t done a spendid job of that himself…
Anthony
why would it be hard to do. he has already moved rightward. er. i mean he already was rightward. i think any careful consideration of his words, even the famous antiwar sentiments the groupies championed, were clearly not the progressive statements they wanted them to be.
furthermore, the iraqi parliament ain’t stopping idiotic presidents and presidents in waiting like obama, if they want to secure the middle east for what the u.s. will pretty much consider its oil.
as if’ve often said in the past, i’m not convinced any candidate running on a supposedly antiwar and lefty platform, would manage to get those goals accomplished once in office. they are, after all, running for ceo of the imperialist state of the u.s. of a.
but, i just can’t get into the bullshit of major parties and third parties and change via electoral processes anymore. it’s a fun horse race to observe and shoot torren tomatoes at the fuckups that end up running for office and the people who sink their energy into helping them get elected — or lose.