Less than six months later, as conditions worsened and after the Iraq Study Group’s report came out, Obama began arguing the exact opposite: that there was no military solution for the ethnic “civil war” in Iraq and that a timetable for withdrawal would put pressure on the Iraqis to resolve their differences. He even went on to say that our withdrawal would send a sign to Iran and Syria to start playing a constructive role. The worst of our options, he claimed, was to send more troops (i.e the surge strategy).

So what changed? He started running for President and saw a lot of room on Clinton’s left and the Iraq Study Group’s report gave him the cover he needed to advocate withdrawal. At that point, he was less concerned about giving the general’s flexibility. Here’s how he said it to Charlie Gibson during the ABC debate:

GIBSON: And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said…we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that.” So you’d give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?

OBAMA: Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie. That’s not the role of the generals. And one of the things that’s been interesting about the president’s approach lately has been to say, “Well, I’m just taking cues from General Petraeus.” Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission.

Wait… does the President set the mission or do study groups? And, of course, now that he’s won his party’s nomination, Senator Obama sees room for “refinements.” He’s also, claiming every new development agrees with his position. Of course they do… he’s taken every one.

Barack Obama’s positions are like the weather in Florida… If you don’t like what you’re hearing, just wait ten minutes.

Friedman goes on to list all the reasons why we need to break our dependence on oil but most of which have to do with foreign oil. Yet he maintains drilling domestically won’t help at all on that front. Instead, he promotes the same tax and spend policies the Democrats have been promoting since Carter. Why must everything include another tax with these people? Here’s an idea: sell the offshore leases to the oil companies and then use that money to fund alternative energy. Use oil as a bridge to alternatives.

Lastly, Friedman praises Gore’s energy plan without pointing out the fact that if we take the steps Gore wants us to take, it will make him incredibly rich. Since when did a man peddling his own economic interests become the height of morality? We’re supposed to swallow the claim that we can’t believe anything Exxon says because they’re just trying to make a profit. Well, the same is true for Al Gore. The difference between the two is Exxon produces the fuel that runs our economy and Al Gore just produces a lot of hot air. And so — based on his recent article — does Thomas Friedman.

Now, lawmakers quietly are talking about raising fuel taxes by a dime from the current 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents on diesel fuel.

Gas prices have risen astronomically since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007. Anyone see a pattern here?

“al qD” is meaningless by itself. [And] The “l” is actually the capital “I” in “Iraq…”

Despite this meaninglessness, ABC goes on to say that the McCain never should have let “a l q D” appear for a split-second in their seven-minute ad because if you type “al qD” into Google, the reply you get is, Did you mean: al qaeda. Therefore, this glimpse of meaninglessness translates into subliminally calling Obama a terrorist.

Of course, the problem with this is that “al qD” doesn’t appear on the screen — “a l q D” does. And when you type that into Google, the answer you get is, Did you mean: a l o u d. So… if there’s any truth to any of this, it would be that the McCain camp is calling Obama a loud mouth.

Still, why not run with it. We here at Spolitics would like to go one better. If you look carefully, you will also see the letters “ID t” which of course means the McCain camp was subliminally calling Obama an idiot.

Lastly… what’s most interesting about all of this is that Rick Klein quoted the “veteran Democratic operative” anonymously. Why? Why on Earth would someone commenting on an ad need anonymity. Unless… the person works for the Obama campaign. Is this just a desperate attempt to change the focus from the fact that Obama has been all over the place when it comes to his Iraq strategy?

Hat Tip: Hot Air.

The United States and Iraq have agreed to set a “general time horizon” for the “further reduction of U.S. combat forces in Iraq” following the improvement in security conditions in the country, the White House said Friday.

But apparently this development wasn’t juicy enough for the Times.  They go on to say:

The White House offered no specific dates for troop cuts, but the inclusion of even just a reference to a time horizon is a significant concession by the Bush administration, which has long resisted setting a timetable for cuts in combat forces. It is a tacit admission that the United States military presence in Iraq is not endless.

The key word the Times left out was “artificial” timetable.  The Bush administration resisted tying a reduction in forces to an arbitrary deadline, regardless of the situation on the ground.  After all, didn’t the surge have a “timetable” element attached to it whereby the additional forces would be reduced by a target end date but only when certain objectives were met?  According to reports, this new agreement between Iraq and the U.S. is no different.  It’s the difference between setting goals and picking a date out of thin air.

Lastly, if the Times is under the impression that Bush has been advocating for an endless presence in Iraq perhaps they can explain what he has meant when he has repeatedly said: “We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed and not a day longer.”

Update: It appears the NY Times has rewritten their article.

It’s time to pony up, Senator.  You said you made your letter to regulators public because you were tired of being ignored.  You also said that Indymac’s failure could be seen coming for years.  Prove it.  Release all the other letters you sent to regulators. 

As for Schumer’s colleagues in Congress, it’s time for you to do something to stop the Schumonster before he strikes again.  You can start by kicking him off the Senate Banking Committee.

“The breadth and depth of the problems of IndyMac were created and apparent for years and they accelerated in the last six months,” Schumer said.

Really, Chuck?  You’re saying it was apparent a year ago when the stock was trading at $30 a share that the bank would fail?  Schumer goes on:

“Everything that was talked about in our letter was already public. So there were no new revelations in our letter at all.”

Bingo, Chuck.  You unwittingly just undermined your own argument.  Yes, Indymac was in trouble, but its situation was already public and yet there had been no bank run.  The bank run didn’t happen until you publicly suggested it was on the brink of failure and that regulators needed to act to prevent it from going under.  As the LA Times put it:

The letter stunned some Wall Street analysts, who said Schumer was in effect sealing the lender’s fate by raising the prospect of its failure.

Prior to your letter, the bank was trying to raise capital to shore up its position.  You cut it off at the knees.  And what was the point of your letter again?  To warn about a bank run and to prevent the bank from failing.  As a result of your boneheadedness, there was a bank run, the bank did fail, thousands of people have lost their jobs and tax payers are getting stuck with a possible $8 billion bill.  

But have you shown any remorse or an ounce of accountability?  No.  Stop pointing fingers.  Be a man and own up to the fact that your actions are a big reason why this happened.  Or better yet: resign.