Remarkable New Yorker article re Iraq and Obama
 

George Packer (who is no conservative shill) writes in the New Yorker (that traditional organ of liberalism) that the tide in Iraq may have turned and Al Qaeda appears possibly on the ropes and America may now be winning the war (due largely to Bush's and his supreme commander's policies) and now Obama must confront the problem that the campaign promise that won him the nomination may in fact constitute snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. And his dissembling would make (Bill) Clinton proud:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/commen...o_talk_packer/

And then there is this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...rpc=22&sp=true

Is this article supposed to be inconsistent with Packer's? Because it's not. Have the Iraqis said, "Great idea Obama, be totally gone from here in 16 months come what may. Start ratcheting down monthly starting January 09."

Honestly, Obama's mendacity on Iraq is enough reason for him to lose the election. Let's see if there's such thing as Karma.

I never realized the depth of noah's resentment toward me till he let this soft I gave him pitch fly by.

It shows that Obama's plan may be entirely consistent with what the Iraqis believe to be in their best interest as well (which dulls your argument about "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory"). The Prime Minister's statement is a remarkable one, particularly given the timing. He clearly indicates that the time is drawing near when the Iraqi government will no longer want the US to have the presence in Iraq that it currently maintains.

Obama has said (and recently reiterated) that he isn't wed to a 16 month commitment for withdrawal either (which you apparently also missed).

Obama wants us to leave expeditiously and, if possible, within 16 months. Maliki's comments seem to indicate a clear desire for the US to leave promptly as well. At the moment, Obama's statements appear far more compatible than McCain's with Maliki's statements.

The war isn't popular in the US. Americans don't want us in Iraq. Iraqis apparently are eager for us to leave as well. How do you see that being a negative for Obama in the election?

You're skewing the polls, as usual. It's true the majority in current polls indicate that the war is unpopular, and that think it was a mistake. The picture on withdrawal is far less clear ... people are not so eager to leave if they think it represents an American loss.

The best characterization of public opinion of the war is that Americans are conflicted.

You mean like Americans didn't want us to get involved in the Battle of Britain?

I saw it and passed, but thank you. I don't see the point of this:

Anyone: Look how Obama has flipped on the war.
Cali: No, he's saying basically what he has said all along. He's showing real leadership by being flexible.
Anyone: But wait, he ran to the far left during the primary promising a 16 month withdrawal timetable.
Cali: No, he's saying basically what he has said all along. He's showing real leadership by being flexible.
Anyone: It's basically the Bush policy, without telling the insurgents/terrorists when we will leave.
Cali: No, he's saying basically what he has said all along. He's showing real leadership by being flexible.
Anybody: Okay, I get it, Obama is sinless.
Cali: No, he's saying basically what he has said all along. He's showing real leadership by being flexible.
Anybody: I can't wait for football season to begin.
Cali: No, he's saying basically what he has said all along. He's showing real leadership by being flexible.
Anybody: I'm going home now.
Cali: No, he's saying basically what he has said all along. He's showing real leadership by being flexible.

Then Tex cuts in and he and Cali dance the night away.

The debate about whether or not we should be involved in the war in Iraq is wholly separate from whether or not pushing for withdrawal will hurt Obama politically (which is the point you originally raised).

Once we have the Cali-Tex dance of death, the debate dissolves.

Of course, it's impossible to discuss the foibles of Obama with Cali, as he is a man without blemish to Cali, Sieg Heil, all hail Obama.

Obama is a typical politician. He'll say whatever is politically expedient in order to get elected.

Only foolish sycophants believe he is being consistent in his messages.

Yup.

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

Because the U.S. is winning now. It's all consistent.

What is the basis for your second assertion? Are there myriad polls addressing the "do you want us to leave if it means a loss?"

Okay, I so swore I would not post on politics but I can't help it.

1. if you look beyond the headlines, there are pretty good indications that "the tide has turned" storyline is pretty much a ruse.
2. Even so, I do think, and I believe Seattle and I have discussed this in the past, that Obama backed himself in a corner early on by assuming that the state of Iraq in 2006 would remain the state of Iraq through 2008, and by providing too many specifics, guarantees, deadlines, promises, etc in his proposals for the war. If Obama is elected, Iraq will be come his "no new taxes."
3. Fifteen months later, Tex is still trolling for Cali regarding Obama. That's what I call persistence.

Cali is an easy trolling target, as he worships Obama. He should be trolled.

This is the same reason I troll IPU with respect to gay porn.

Don't honestly care if it is consistent with Packer. More interested in helping you find an answer to your question in the last sentence of your post I quoted.

I don't know about "myriad" but there have been some, yes.

You're a nice enough gal, Barbara, but if this is all you have to offer, I see why you quit posting.

As can I.

If you were a pitcher and the joke was a baseball, you would have put it in the dirt a good 2 feet in front of the plate.

I think in my comment, you were the pitcher. I'm not sure that anything in my comment was supposed to represent balls, but I am not surprised to see you add them in to the story line.

;)

Touche! LOL!