Calling him a flip-flopper does not accurately capture the level of arrogance and dishonesty present in his campaign:
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.”
Obama praises the heroic work of our troops as well but it always sounds like a forced disclaimer thoughtlessly tacked on to one complaint after another. His position yesterday:
In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.
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.
So yesterday he took a sort of it’s working but I’ll find a reason to oppose it anyway approach and today he’s trying erase his pointed criticism of the entire strategy. Are American’s actually comfortable looking to this man for leadership?
The man is a great orator but an absolute political lightweight and as a Commander in Chief he would, as most Americans recognize, be a complete joke. Just look at the National Review’s attempt to document his ever-changing position.
Others Blogging:
Stop the ACLU
This must be a part of his “change you can believe in” platform.
Power Line
Question of the day: Who is heading up the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth over at the Obama campaign?
Wake Up America
How can a person that has not been to Iraq in 919 days, has never spoken one-on-one with the commander on the ground in Iraq and has not yet gone on his fact-finding mission to Iraq, actually state what his plans for Iraq are?
Political Punch
Another conundrum for Obama: the surge of US troops in Iraq having created a safer and more secure Baghdad, McCain can now (perhaps for the first time) point to an aspect of the war where he is able to argue that his judgment was superior to Obama’s.
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.
Riehl World View
Obama claims to have judgment you can trust. I have to assume he’s talking to our enemies in the Middle-East given the judgment he displayed on the surge.
One Response
Readers are solely responsible for the comments they post. Comments do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of Blogs of War or John Little.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
This is embarrassing.