Fisking Barack Obama’s NYT opinion piece on Iraq

First, check out Obama’s opinion piece in today’s NYTÂ in which he wrote aboutÂ where he supposedly stands on the issue of Iraq.

In response, Commentary’s Peter Wehner delivers a fisking of what Obama wrote that is not short, not sweet, but definitely to the point.Â Make sure to read the whole thing, as he makes sure Obama doesn’t get away with rewriting his history on the issue of Iraq.

And speaking of Iraq, the BBC reported today the much-quoted-by-the-mediots statement by Iraq’s PM Nouri Maliki suggesting he was ready for a timetable for US withdrawal wasn’t actually what Maliki said at all (via ST reader steveegg).Â I don’t see the same far lefties linking up to this piece like they did the remarks as they were originally reported a week ago, but then again I’m just now catching up on the news of the day so maybe I missed the massive linkage to this story by The Usual Suspects (hah).

And back to Obama, the leftosphere has erupted over the cover of this month’s New Yorker (it’s a teaser for their feature piece, an article I referenced yesterday). On itÂ is a satirical drawing of Michelle Obama looking like a militant blackÂ radical (complete with Afro)Â and Barack ObamaÂ dressed as a Muslim.Â Â In the background is a framed photo of OBL over a mantle, and the fireplace includes a burning USÂ flag.Â Â I agree with Captain Ed’s post about the cover “controversy”: Obama should worry more about the content ofÂ theÂ article more than what’s on the liberal magazine’sÂ cover, because it’s far more damning … and isn’t meant to be satirical in any way, shape, or form.

5 Responses to "Fisking Barack Obama’s NYT opinion piece on Iraq"

Great White Rat says:

July 14, 2008 at 11:58 pm

ST says:

I agree with Captain Ed’s post about the cover “controversy”: Obama should worry more about the content of the article more than what’s on the liberal magazine’s cover,

I’m not sure I agree, and for two reasons. First, regarding the article content, it’ll be swept under the rug. The blogosphere will spotlight it, of course, but the MSM will spike it. Whatever traction the story gets will be dismissed by convention time as “old news”. And McCain’s campaign seems determined to fight with one hand tied behind its back, so they probably won’t use this wealth of information.

Second, I’m not so sure Obama and his team are worried about the cover or even upset with it. I think they’re actually delighted with it.

Follow my reasoning for a minute: part of Obama’s strategy is playing the race card. You remember this:

“We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”

It’s important for him to position himself as a victim. That gives him a free out anytime anyone makes a substantive criticism. Even in the quote above, he’s declaring that we can’t talk about his inexperience because that’s on the same plane with talking about his funny name.

There’s one problem: the McCain campaign and conservatives in general haven’t cooperated. Except for a handful of loons that almost all conservatives disavow, nobody’s engaging in racist attacks. Instead, we’re concentrating on things like energy policy – you know, real issues. There’s a danger that the whole race/victim strategy might not turn out to be viable after all if the GOP and conservatives refuse to play along.

And just at this moment comes this cover. Perfect timing. Gives the Obamaniacs a renewed opportunity to yowl about the evil racists who don’t plan to vote for the new Messiah, and never mind that this cover is on a committed left-wing magazine.

In fact, it would not at all surprise me if this cover were cleared with the Obama campaign first. Don’t know of any evidence to that effect, but the idea of the New Yorker and the Obama campaign acting in concert would shock no one.
forest hunter says:

July 15, 2008 at 5:34 am

…..and that is another reason why GWR is in the top ranks of my trusted circle of friends and allies.
Leslie says:

July 15, 2008 at 9:40 am

I agree with El Raton Blanco.

The cover is what everyone’s talking about, not the story. I’m in no position to talk about the content of the story, since (duh . . . I haven’t read it), but I’m quite certain that it will quickly be swept under the rug.

As for the cover itself (which, of course, I have seen–here, there, and everywhere), before the news cycle door slams shut on this one, I’d just add that this is a perfect example of what I call “in the bubble” thinking: New Yorker readers are, for the most part, a group of like-minded folks and editor David Remnick (who’s quite good at what he does in my opinion), caters to them–and why wouldn’t he?

So when, say, the art director or whoever is in charge of covers brought him the drawing to illustrate the cover story, he of course “got” it, just “knew” that his readers would, and thought no more about it.

I.e., he never stepped out of the bubble–at least until those not enclosed within the bubble (including, I suppose, that “little old lady from Debuque,” for whom the magazine is not intended) put up signs that he couldn’t fail to notice.

Do I think the cover was “cleared” with the Obama campaign firsts, as El Raton speculates? No, I don’t. But I can’t imagine that they would have objected had it been shown in advance. Why would they?

Everybody wins! Obama can make references to the racist innuendos from the responsible right that aren’t coming; McCain can say, “I’d never do a thing like that”; and Mr. Remnick can appear as a hero to his readers.

And those of us, like yours truly, who appreciate good satire, can cry ourselves a river about those who despoil the genre with such craptastic stuff–for all the good it will do us.
Lorica says:

July 15, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Excellent analysis gentlemen. Very good ideas on both GWR and Leslie. I for one couldn’t make it thru BO’s opinion piece. It was so full of inconsistancies and dualities that it really made little sense. Here is just one example:

Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

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.

How can a terrorist group have grown but at the same time be weakened??

Then after that was the idiocy of BO’s comments about Al-Maliki. Apparently BO was duped, as so many on the left are, by the office of Al-Maliki. But apparently the Prime Minister doesn’t want us out of Iraq as fast as BO thinks. Surprise!! Surprise!! Surprise!!!

I still have my doubts that BO will be the candidate. I don’t believe that Hillary is going to give up until she is the President. – Lorica
alchemist says:

July 15, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Just read the article… I would hardly say the article is damning. It’s certainly grounded in the idea that Obama is more realpolitik than he claims, (but I think more people were figuring that out already). If anything it gave a pretty even-handed look at the why Obama did what was needed to win (even if it bumped against idealism).

Otherwise, it mostly sticks to how Obama learned about politics, instead of how Obama used his leadership. An article about Obama’s “disagreements” with inner-city Chicago groups could have been more damning; but it’s only touched on briefly.

Comments are closed.