The Young Turks

Let me start by giving some fistbumps to our resident TYT trolls who have been wise/uninformed enough to avoid this idiocy.  If we have to deal with sad little trolls it is at least nice to know we have smarter than average sad little trolls.

The McCain campaign, Fox News and the Right Wing Noise Machine in general are desperately trying to push a collection of ideas they hope will neutralize the Obama Rocks World Tour.

The first point is some new rule they invented about a week and a half ago that you can't have any opinion about a conflict unless you have gone and walked around a market with 1,000 soldiers and a fleet of Blackhawk helictopters protecting you.  Therefore, Obama, no matter how right every single new development is proving him to be, must be attacked and ridiculed for even having an opinion, even an undeniably correct one.

The problem with this is its never, ever, ever been true. For example, ever seen pictures of FDR being wheeled around the Ardennes Forest? How about all that footage of him rolling up the beaches of Iwo Jima? No?  Cause it doesn't exist.  See FDR was able to capably, in fact brilliantly, execute the most successful and complex war in American history from the comfort of Washington, D.C.  Yeah, I know he went to Yalta but that was well after he formulated his strategy and Yalta, while closer to the war was not really near the war.

How about W?  Did he go visit Iraq before deciding to invade it?  No?  Did the right wing care?  Did McCain visit Iraq before supporting the war?  I don't know but I don't think he did.  Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Has McCain been to Iran?  Has Bush? Has Cheney? No?  So then they would never weigh in on policy towards Iran, would they?

Beyond this cheap tactic, the McCain campaign is trying to bait Obama into a trap.  It works like this.

Step 1- Constantly attack Obama for having an opinion on Iraq and Afghanistan without having been there.  If he doesn't go, they get to keep up the attack, if he goes, proceed to step 2.

Step 2- If he goes, claim everything he does is terrible.  This has, so far, completely backfired.  Demand he meet with the "commanders on the ground" and adopt Bush position that the Commander-in-Chief should cede all decision making responsibility to "commanders on the ground."  Now this is a trap because this commander is David Petraeus, whose only qualification for the job is he is willing to say whatever the Bush admin tells him so Bush can still control policy while blaming it on Petraeus.

Now what are the odds Petraeus is going to blast Obama's position in some way?  About 110%.

Then one of two things happen. 

Scenario A- Obama gives credence to Petraeus.  The McCain campaign claims victory, says it shows they were always right and Obama was always wrong and calls Obama a flip-flopper.

Scenario B- Obama stands by his position and simply says he disagrees with Petraeus.  McCain blasts Obama for not listening to the "commanders on the ground".

The first thing to understand is that B is way better than A for Obama.  Position A is basically surrendering the entire Iraq issue to McCain.  Position B is just allowing them to make the same attack on you they have been for a month which hasn't got much traction anyway.

Obama could be in a better position right now if he would have listened to me in the primaries.  When he was asked if he would take the advice of the commanders like Bush has insisted he must, Obama gave the "The president sets the mission" answer, which was ok.  (This was in an Obama/Clinton debate.)  What I felt he should have said was Bush fired, like, a dozen guys until he found one to give him the "advice" he wanted to hear so lets not pretend Petraeus is some straight shooting military genius maverick.  If I am CinC I would encourage my generals to speak their mind without fear of reprisal so I could get an accurate view of the situation and proceed accordingly."

Unfortunately, the Dems have almost completely failed to point out Petraeus is a poilitical hack and yes man.  Consequently, Petraeus seems to be somewhat respected by those in the middle and treated as an infallible oracle to those on the right.  This makes him hard to go after and Obama will pay some price for that misstep now that he is at odds with Petraeus.  (Didn't help he went out of his way to defend the guy from MoveOn!).

So far, however, Petraeus has done a poor job of trapping Obama.  He, apparently advised Obama that withdrawal had "certain risks".  This seems pretty easy to step out of.  When asked about it all Obama has to do is say something like:

"Any time you are at war and our soldiers are in a combat situation there is some risk to every option.  If General Petraeus, or Senator McCain for that matter, are aware of some risk-free course of action in Iraq I think we would all very much like to hear it.  I think both men would acknowledge that staying in Iraq after the sovereign government that our capable troops worked so hard to establish and the Iraqi people have made it clear we are no longer welcome as an occupying army is, at best, equally risky."

Now Petraeus will have more to say and it will be very interesting how hard he goes after Obama.  If he takes it easy this could indicate a true shift in Bush's Iraq policy and that the administration is serious about setting a timetable for withdrawal.  Or it could indicate Petraeus is no longer happy being Bush's lapdog and sees Obama as a way out and a chance to, perhaps, save his legacy as a general.

Just my two cents on a story that looks to dominate the next few days.

BONUS CONTENT:  I had meant to point out that in the crazy not-hot cross eyed blond Fox Lady vs. Bill Richardson exchange, the Fox "anchor" said, at least once, the NYT shouldn't have published the Obama editorial because Obama might change his position.  Now Obama hasn't actually indicated this in any way, quite the opposite, in fact.  But Fox is now reporting what they think Obama might do pretty just because its what they want him to do.

How obvious is it they have constructed this whole story (Obama will go to Iraq, talk to Petraeus and then come home and flip-flop) completely independently of what is actually happening in the real world.  What this usually means is every Republican in America is about to accuse Obama of flip-flopping no matter what he does. 

Remember when Brownback "put a marker" on Obama flip-flopping, then Obama reiterated the position he has always had and the righties screamed flip-flop and managed to fool about half the liberal blogosphere (sadly including Cenk)?

Its sad we lose these fights at all, its downright depressing we lose when they telegraph their punches so blatantly.