Redstate

Posted at 4:05pm on Jul. 7, 2008 Attempts to defend Obama's shift on Iraq lack logic, seriousness, chronology

By Jeff Emanuel

Attempts to come to terms with, and to defend, Barack Obama's sudden attempt to walk back the centerpiece of his presidential campaign -- unwavering opposition to the effort in Iraq, regardless of facts on the ground or of new information -- have abounded over the last few days, with each falling well short of anything even remotely resembling intellectual honesty or seriousness.

A couple of the latest have come from the New Yorker's George Packer, and from our old friend Andrew Sullivan -- someone whose writing contains intellectual honesty only rarely, and intellectual seriousness never.

Sullivan has this to say about Obama's sudden lurch to the right on Iraq:

"Any potential president who is uninterested in the facts on the ground in calibrating his Iraq policy would be another George W Bush."

All I have to say is, whoever usurped Bush's presidential duties from December 2006 onward, and is therefore actually responsible for effecting a wholesale change in the entire strategy of operations in Iraq as a result of the deteriorating situation on the ground there, while Sully's ideological allies on the left side of the legislative aisle were fighting tooth and nail to prevent any changes from being made, did one heckuva job.

There's no doubt the situation in Iraq progressively worsened over a long enough period of time that the administration has little or no excuse for not recognizing and responding to it with a series of adjustments in how the postwar was being waged. However, for Sully to make that claim after 2006 is simply ridiculous. Fortunately, none of us are surprised to see such ridiculousness emanating from that dank, musty corner of the blogosphere.

The New Yorker's George Packer took a slightly different tack, deciding that acknowledging progress in Iraq as a result of President Bush's willingess to change strategy was an Okay thing to do -- but, in the process of twisting things around as much as possible to defend Obama, he screwed up his timeline royally (while also doing wonderful imitation of Sullivan in terms of abandoning intellectual seriousness). According to the UK First Post:

Read on...

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | New Yorker | Obamafiles — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Read More »