The R's are trying to put a flip-flop jacket on BHO, in hopes of replicating
the Kerry "I voted for it/against it" theme. Their other related line is,
who is this guy, nobody knows. One potential benefit is discord among
anti-war constituencies. So one has to discount this line from sources
like the WSJ.
Of course, there was always the danger that BHO would shrink from his
commitment, such as it was/is, to withdraw and end the war. Or if you
like, a danger that he never had such a commitment in the first place.
So you get loyal Obamanians attacking the flip-flop line coming from the R's,
and some of the same talk coming from those who would criticize BHO for slippage
towards the center. Fun, eh?
My view is you have to criticize objectives and malignant, basic principles, both
of which lead to bad policies. For instance, if you concede Iran can't go nuclear,
you got trouble. Or that Iraq has to be "stable" before the U.S. can get out.
Etc.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Doug Henwood
> Sent: 07/07/08 04:50 pm
> To: lbo-talk
> Subject: [lbo-talk] WSJ likes Obama's Iraq turn
>
> [from the WSJ's daily opinion roundup]
>
> Man of Refinement
> By JAMES TARANTO
>
>