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.