The I-Can’t-Afford-Another-Flip- Flop Timetable
posted at 9:40 am on July 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Washington Post editorial board rips Barack Obama for what it calls The Iron Timetable, but that doesn’t quite capture the willful ignorance Obama shows on Iraq. The Post notes, as did John McCain, the fact that Obama wrote his policy on Iraq before speaking with the commanders on the ground to determine the facts, and concludes that Obama is “ultimately indifferent to the war’s outcome,” but that’s not the real problem. Obama has to stick with his Iraq policy, not for the good of the country, but because he can’t afford to cut his last tie to the Left.
BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: “They said we couldn’t leave when violence was up, they say we can’t leave when violence is down.” Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might “refine” his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.
Mr. Obama’s charge against the Republicans was not entirely fair, since Mr. Bush has overseen the withdrawal of five American brigades from Iraq this year, and Mr. McCain has suggested that he would bring most of the rest of the troops home by early 2013. Mr. Obama’s timeline would end in the summer of 2010, a year or two before the earliest dates proposed recently by members of the Iraqi government. The real difference between the various plans is not the dates but the conditions: Both the Iraqis and Mr. McCain say the withdrawal would be linked to the ability of Iraqi forces to take over from U.S. troops, as they have begun to do. Mr. Obama’s strategy allows no such linkage — his logic is that a timetable unilaterally dictated from Washington is necessary to force Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.
At the time he first proposed his timetable, Mr. Obama argued — wrongly, as it turned out — that U.S. troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. He conceded that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a “spike” in violence. Now, he describes as “an achievable goal” that “we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future — a government that prevents sectarian conflict and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge.” How will that “true success” be achieved? By the same pullout that Mr. Obama proposed when chaos in Iraq appeared to him inevitable.
Does it make sense? Of course not, and no one seriously thinks it does, except maybe Joe Biden. Obama won’t talk to the generals first because he knows that they will laugh him out of the room if he suggested that we could win the war by retreating. Even the Iraqis, who want to establish their sovereignty, want to have a continuing American partnership for at least the next several years, especially with an increasingly hegemonic Iran next door.
After his reversal on FISA reform and to a lesser extent with public financing, though, Obama cannot afford to reverse himself on Iraq, regardless of how wrong events proved him to be. The Left nearly pitched him overboard this month during the FISA vote, and any weakening on Iraq will prove fatal to his presidential aspirations. It could even result in losing the nomination, if the floor-vote momentum gains ground, as it surely will if Obama departs from his impossible 16-month Iron Timetable.
That’s why the headline the Post uses is unintentionally deceptive. It implies that Obama shows strength in a misdirected fashion. This, however, is the exact oppposite — it’s a demonstration of weakness. Obama cannot stand up a second time to the hard Left, and unlike John McCain, would rather America lose a war rather than see his own presidential ambitions go unrealized.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Hope! Change! Scathing Editorial by a Lefty Paper That’s Even Come to Recognize Reality!
amerpundit on July 16, 2008 at 9:49 AM
dead on
tottoritodd on July 16, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Hoisted on his own petards. Excellent.
I’m glad this dope took out Hillary. He’s going to get stomped this fall by McCain.
Looking forward to seeing all those bewildered Democrat faces the day after election day again. When Democrats lose elections, it should be a national holiday.
NoDonkey on July 16, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Obama to Gwen Ifill on the News Hour last night.
It was LOADED with gems.
tree hugging sister on July 16, 2008 at 9:51 AM
David Axelrod better start getting on message.
Hint: This is not 20 years ago when the MSM could control 100% of the message. Ever since AlGore invented this internet thingy people can fact check you.
roux on July 16, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Look for a minor refinement of his timetable after his trip to Iraq. All he needs is enough to demonstrate his flexibility and objectivity, now that his foolishness has been criticized in the MSM. He can still retain the nutroots if he just makes a wee change.
a capella on July 16, 2008 at 9:53 AM
“Barack Justanotherlyingpolitician Obama”
NeighborhoodCatLady on July 16, 2008 at 9:55 AM
In other news, JibJab is back at it!
Yakko77 on July 16, 2008 at 9:55 AM
This from WaPo? Oh snap.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 16, 2008 at 9:56 AM
It’s not just about the hard Left here. This boob actually believes his own rhetoric about Iraq. He can’t totally walk away from it because it’s the core of who he is and why he thinks he ought to be President. He has talked about Iraq as an abstraction for 6 years and he isn’t capable of even looking at it realistically. I’m not sure why he is even going there now, he has nothing to gain and everything to lose.
rockmom on July 16, 2008 at 9:57 AM
“Willful ignorance”
Yes,
And, with a large majority of support in urban areas, I’m amazed, that he isn’t recognized for the two-bit street hustler that he is.
franksalterego on July 16, 2008 at 9:57 AM
This won’t lose him anything in a floor vote between him and Hillary. Even if he flips, she is still to the right of him on the war. Why would they abandon a reformed pro-war candidate for a staunch supporter? At least with the flip-flopper there is always the chance he will flop back.
If he loses in a floor vote, it will be because he has done something that clearly and unequivocally demonstrates his un-electability. This may be one of the nails in that coffin, but personally I believe the Democrats have painted themselves in to a corner with Barack and cannot escape.
JeffC_95 on July 16, 2008 at 10:00 AM
With all the flip-flopping he has been doing as of late, B.O. may wind up flip-flopping himself right out of the nomination come convention time.
Not saying this would be a bad thing, of course.
pilamaye on July 16, 2008 at 10:01 AM
from huffnstuff herself
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-latest-media-blind-sp_b_112740.html
Bush could have easily raised his finger in the wind and rolled out of Iraq years ago. That’s leadership. And I’m pretty sure that Hagel voted for the war…not so sure on the principles there
yakwill83 on July 16, 2008 at 10:03 AM
I heard someone else say that about a candidate back in ‘92.
fogw on July 16, 2008 at 10:03 AM
The Post editors supported the invasion and have pretty much backed Bush most of the way since, much to the consternation of a lot of its lefty readers. It’s been a real voice of reason within the MSM for a long time. It also loves John McCain and has for a long time. I think it will endorse McCain, mostly over Iraq.
The Post has had a front row seat for all of the disastrous first terms of presidents that came in with no foreign policy experience, going all the way back to JFK. I don’t think they really want to watch another episode of Presidential Potty Training.
The Post also has a lot of knowledge about the 9/11 attacks and how much of Washington was spared when Flight 93 went down. It knows how badly Al Qaeda wants to come back and finish the job it didn’t finish that day. On the afternoon of 9/11, the Post published a special edition, and the lead editorial was simply titled, “War.” While idiot leftists like Barack Obama were simpering about poverty and a lack of opportunity in the Muslim world, the Post knew immediately that we were at war and had damn well better win.
rockmom on July 16, 2008 at 10:03 AM
If Obama flips on the war, he’s not going to flip back — especially that close to election day. Any flip would be the result of him considering his position a vulnerability - as you can see even the left is going after him - and flipping back wouldn’t benefit him.
amerpundit on July 16, 2008 at 10:04 AM
“Can’t I just finish my waffle?”
carbon_footprint on July 16, 2008 at 10:04 AM
… Mr. Bush has overseen the withdrawal of five American brigades from Iraq this year …
And how many people are even aware of this??? Why can’t Bush do what the Vets for Freedom are capable of doing? Approval would be in the 50’s if they’d just TELL US WHAT’S GOING ON!
Tony737 on July 16, 2008 at 10:04 AM
I have to admit, I’m a bit of a flip-flopper myself.
I used to hate Hillary.
Now, I’m praying for her.
franksalterego on July 16, 2008 at 10:05 AM
I like Ed’s posture and most of his analysis on this, but I think you have it right: the nutroots are the single most monolithically partisan segment of the voting populace, and they will support him with full force quite literally no matter what he does.
He could get caught in bed with the Bush twins; he could announce that he’s Dick Cheney’s illegitimate son; he could get caught in the Minneapolis airport bathroom with Larry Craig; he could be seen with the Danish cartoon author; any of these things, and it wouldn’t matter.
The Moonbats are his to have his way with. They have no principles.
Jaibones on July 16, 2008 at 10:06 AM
quick question: is there a reason the “Obama purges site of surge criticism” post isnt viewable on the frontpage anymore?
mythicknight on July 16, 2008 at 10:09 AM
.
That is a really powerful phrase - hope you don’t mind it I borrow it from time to time.
Think_b4_speaking on July 16, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Newer posts have pushed it off the page. It’s available here.
amerpundit on July 16, 2008 at 10:11 AM
The walls are closing in.
Too much finesse, too much nuance.
Too much bulls**t.
Obama is not a serious politician. He should not be taken seriously.
drjohn on July 16, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Bing.
Jaibones on July 16, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Of all the things to not like about Bambi (and there are many…), this insistance on disasterous policy just so he doesn’t have to admit a mistake is the one I dislike the most. When he said in a debate over a year ago that he would meet the Iranian President without preconditions, it was a stupid error. But instead of admitting the obvious error and correcting it promptly, Bambi elevated his mistake to the level of doctrine, and wedded himself to negotiations that can only end in disaster. This 16-month timetable will be even worse, because it virtually guarantees a US defeat, when victory is relatively easy to achieve. Many will die, just do Bambi does not have to admit that he is wrong.
gridlock2 on July 16, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Well, he can’t stand up to them at least until after Denver — Not that he’s going to, but the Obama campaign tried to morph from hard-left to the Clintonian triangulation strategy under the impression that the left has no place to go without remembering that they still have the nomination at the moment only through the good graces of the superdelegates, with whom they’ve also (according to news reports) been arrogant towards since early June.
The story that a couple of the superdelegates were thinking of switching to Clinton was a shot by them across Obama’s bow, and the only way Obama and his crew keep the career politicians in line is by having the messianic devotion of a large swath of the party’s true believers, who would riot if Barack was denied the nomination. But that’s “Barack the Liberal Messiah” they’re enraptured with, not “Barack the Chicago Hack” who adjusts his strategy to meet the impending political situation. So he’s got to remain The Chosen One to that group at least through the DNC convention to maintain his base — If he loses their passion over changing his position on Iraq, taxes or oil drilling, he loses his power over the superdelegates (and anyone who doesn’t think Hillary would love to swoop in and steal the nomination at the last minute hasn’t been paying attention for the last 17 years).
jon1979 on July 16, 2008 at 10:18 AM
But deep down, you still hate her, right?
Isn’t it scary to know that of the two, Hillary is at least a principled Marxist/socialist?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 16, 2008 at 10:25 AM
I’m not sure that is even correct. Who knows what this guy thinks? He made his big speech against the war before being in the Senate and getting all the info. After that, He was Hillary. She pulled the rug out from under him on the last vote. He always seemed to wait for her to vote and then vote on what helped him the most. She hoodwinked him on this one.
yakwill83 on July 16, 2008 at 10:26 AM
This, of course, is a lie and it is not noted as such by the suck-up media.
drjohn on July 16, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Think of a sleaziest salesman you’ve ever encountered.
He’s not selling you the benefits of his product, he’s obsessed with the procedural details of getting you to sign the contract and hand over your money.
That’s Barry. He doesn’t even try to sell us on the benefits of his plan. He’s actually annoyed that he has to fashion a coherent position at all!
It was supposed to work like this: We were supposed to faint, and he would revive us — he’d ask if everything was okay, we were supposed to sigh: O Senator Obama, you had me at change!
Seriously, this is how the man and his handlers work. To their mind, all this crap about national security is a distraction. Their eyes are on social engineering; they can’t wait to get this election over with and start the real transformation!
jeff_from_mpls on July 16, 2008 at 10:30 AM
I’m not too sure about that.
I think, he knows exactly what he’s doing.
You underestimate him at your own peril.
franksalterego on July 16, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Yes,
I’ve come to the conclusion, that what the Clinton regime did by mistake, is what an Obama regime would do on purpose.
franksalterego on July 16, 2008 at 10:36 AM
I agree with your post but I do wonder how many of his devoted followers are even capable of seeing the “hack” behind their “messiah.”
The personality cultists will follow their leader no matter what. Policy can’t be very important to most of his sycophants - their childish demonization of Hillary Clinton, with positions almost identical to Obama’s, made that clear.
Gilda on July 16, 2008 at 10:38 AM
It’s racist to expect him to make sense all the time.
Akzed on July 16, 2008 at 10:38 AM
The fact that the usually-liberal Washington Post published this as an unsigned editorial (not by a known conservative columnist) could be a huge problem for Obama. They write that “Mr. Obama’s charge against the Republicans was not entirely fair”, “both the Iraqis and McCain say” that the withdrawal should be linked to conditions on the ground, and that Obama argued “wrongly” that American troops could not settle an Iraqi civil war.
This is the liberal Washington Post saying that Obama was wrong and McCain was right! The Washington Post is read by a lot of people in the heavily-populated suburbs of northern Virginia. If they start breaking for McCain, or there’s an even split, Obama loses Virginia, which could be a big blow to his hopes of winning the Presidency.
Steve Z on July 16, 2008 at 10:52 AM
All Obama reminds me of is Matthew 4:8-9.
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
That’s pretty much the Democrat Platform today.
kirkill on July 16, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Love it! Waaaaa! They won’t flop around like a fish out of water like I’ve been doing!!! Waaaa!
Hilarious! , Ok, I’ll finish the article now.
4shoes on July 16, 2008 at 11:14 AM
From Bush’s presser yesterday:
It was clear that Bush was trying to give Obama a way out his corner and he very diplomatically called it exactly as it is.. Obama bends with the wind of his poll numbers and this time it is Soros and Moveon.org.
I really enjoyed the subtle comment at the end though .. wonderful newspapers and calling Newscast, TV Shows.
Texas Gal on July 16, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Obama is touted as being brilliant. I’ve read that his IQ has been placed as high as 175. That’s nonsense. His is an affirmative action career, and nothing more. An Asian with the same intelligence level would never have made it this far.
Buford Gooch on July 16, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Loved the JibJab bit! Hate this election having to chose between these two idiots, however! In a nation of over 250 million people it would seem that we could come up with better but the two parties have come to this… Two lame-ass Senators who don’t have a clue! I would rather watch paint dry than listen to either one of them give a speech. Really really inspiring for the American people…
sabbott on July 16, 2008 at 11:30 AM
But now he’s got the WaPo kneecapping him for not changing his position, and he can also thank them for coining a phrase, “the Iron Timetable,” that will hang heavily around his neck from now on.
The concrete is definitely starting to congeal around Obama’s feet. Dowd, WaPo, LA Times (for his reaction to the New Yorker cover), these are all in the last few days, and if he gets hit with another couple of shots from formerly reliable media buddies, the rest of them might start to pile on, in typical group-think fashion. There’s a lot of stuff they’ve been ignoring that they might decide to pay attention to. And after all–wouldn’t a messy convention, and the resurrection of Hillary make tons of great copy?
And what is Obama going to say when he comes back from Iraq? The generals, and the Iraqi leaders don’t know what they’re talking about? Better start making room under the bus for the nutroots–unless Obama wants to wear the Iron Timetable Cross until the convention.
smellthecoffee on July 16, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Yesterday I saw that videotape of Obama back when the surge idea was first being floated. He says it won’t matter if we send 10,000 or 20,000 or even 30,000 more troops to Iraq — it will not end the violence, it will just make it worse.
Well we sent 30,000 more troops, and the violence has lessened dramatically. The Iraqi government has met almost all of the benchmarks, and the majority of the American public now feels that we are winning.
Barack “I have superior judgment” Obama was proven to be dead wrong. Yet instead of admitting that he was wrong, he’s been trying to re-write history — flat out lying to the American public — and claiming that he said all along that the surge would work (despite the video evidence to the contrary).
There’s a lot I don’t like about John McCain, but on the issue of the surge, he deserves a lot of credit. It was not a popular idea when it was first proposed, but McCain insisted that it needed to be done. He was right — and Barack Obama should at least have enough integrity to admit that. But integrity — like superior judgment — is not a quality that Barack Obama possesses.
AZCoyote on July 16, 2008 at 11:36 AM
I’ll actually give the left more credit for fealty to policies, even though they’re totally wrongheaded, like pulling out of Iraq as soon as possible and not drilling for new oil and natural gas sources everywhere. What got them into a state of orgasm over Obama was here was a candidate who was with them on all their key positions and was not only black (assuaging their liberal guilt), but was a non-threatening black, whom they believed could get moderates to vote for him, in a way past presidential wanna-bes like Jackson or Sharpton could never hope for.
But the Obama campaign understands that to get moderates, they have to moderate at least the rhetoric, even if they plan to be as liberal as they were during the primaries if Barack gets elected. Their problem right now is they acted as if Hillary’s suspension of her campaign in June was the end-all, and it’s not, because Obama still needs the superdelgates to win in Denver, and in thinking that Obama’s personality trumphed anything he might say now among those on the left, who are still more devoted to their loopy causes than they ever would be to one person.
So by being arrogant jerks to the career pols while at the same time moving towards the center to battle McCain, they’ve managed to piss off both sides, and now have to run back to the left to shore up their fidelity to Obama, which in turns prevents any of the more wavering superdelegates from trying to stage a convention uprising for Hillary.
jon1979 on July 16, 2008 at 11:49 AM
All Hail Barack HUSSEIN Obama (PBUH)(SWT)(SAW); he is the new Messiah, HE KNOWS BEST! Infidels…
Dale in Atlanta on July 16, 2008 at 11:52 AM
(emphasis added)
The above noted words, from the Washington Post’s editorial are stunning and powerful. They have essentially said that Sen. Obama’s message in Iraq is “irrational”. That is quite a word choice from one of the country’s most influential dailies when speaking about the policies of a Presidential candidate widely favoured to win.
I think that this is something that ought to be emphasized repeatedly. If the WaPo. sees Sen. Obama’s policies this way, given its political slant, it could spread.
Blaise on July 16, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Worth repeating.
4shoes on July 16, 2008 at 12:03 PM
He will find a way to slither out of going to Iraq.
baldilocks on July 16, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Obama doesn’t flip-flop. He doesn’t even issue clarifications. He issues blurifications. (Credit this great coinage to Jacob Sullum at Reason.)
glendower on July 16, 2008 at 12:13 PM
When the WaPo is knocking you for your “foolish consistency”
that’s gotta hurt.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson
rockhead on July 16, 2008 at 12:52 PM
I would prefer that you be more correct about this than I am. If policy really does play a larger part then appeals to reason, statements of facts and pointers to Obama’s position shifts may give McCain a better chance both with independents and by alienating the most rabid Left.
The fluffy emotionalism of much of Obama’s support does seem impervious to the usual arguments though. FISA tantrums aside, many on the Left just think he’s doing whatever’s necessary to hoodwink the rubes into handing him the Presidency and he’ll revert to his ultra-liberal roots on Jan 21, 2009.
Gilda on July 16, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Phone call from Bill to Hill in the waning hours of the Dem convention…..
“Is Denver Burning?”
44Magnum on July 16, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Hoist by his own Retards.
ronsfi on July 16, 2008 at 3:52 PM