NY Times: Obama's Letter to the Editor

Dear TV Guide,

shame, shame, SHAME on you for referring to Star Trek: The Next Generation star Patrick Stewart as a "Star Trek cast member." There is only ONE Star Trek that deserves the colon-less treatment. And, also, why should I remain 500 yards from your offices?"

Oops, sorry. Wrong letter to the editor. The New York Times has published Barack Obama's "Plan For Iraq." Let's see how this slippery flip-flopper "refines" his "position."

The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

Well, OK, but he said before that he wanted to do it within 16 months. I bet he changed that. Run (to the center), Forrest, Run!

As I've said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months.

D'oh! C'mon, there's got to be a flip-flop in here somewhere.

In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected.

The fact is, Barack Obama's position on Iraq has been entirely consistent. You might disagree with it, but to say he's flip-flopped just isn't true.

Even if he had, however, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. I've always hated this moronic "flip-flop" tag, because it gets applied willy-nilly. As the Governator said on "This Week," there's nothing wrong with changing your mind. We've all seen what happens when a president refuses to do that. What matters is why.

Barack Obama has been consistently tagged by the media for "flip-flopping," or "running to the center," often with the yellow codisil, "some would say..." But I have yet to see a real example of this.

It might be a fair criticism to say that Obama's positions are too nuances, that there are too many escape hatches in them. On Iraq, he really has always said that any withdrawal would be subject to conditions on the ground, because any idiot knows that.

It reminds me of those Home Pride bread commercials when I was a kid. "We add butter, (cue shot of melted butter being deliciously poured on top of the unbaked loaf) and let it bake right in." Mmmmm.

In Barack's case, the butter is common frickin' sense, and an almost uncanny ability to inoculate his positions against straw-man arguments. Unfortunately, he can't force the media to actually read and comprehend the lattice of nuance that is the phrase, "...as long as..." or, "if...then...."

As far as his plan goes, it makes perfect sense if you're one of the 68% of Americans who oppose this war. The notion that "the surge is working" is ridiculous. If you transfuse gallons of blood into a surgical patient, you can say, "The transfusion is working!"

But unless that surgeon starts to sew some stuff up, you're really just wasting a lot of blood.