Obama: In My Defense, That Lie Was Expedient

On "Meet the Press" this week, Barack Obama offered an explanation for his shifting opinions (and his revisionist recollection of those opinions) on the Iraq War, without displaying so much as a glimmer of comprehension that what he said about himself was terribly incriminating.

Contrary to the Congrssional newbie's untestable "I would've voted against the war" assertions, Obama was singing a different tune a few years ago.

MR. RUSSERT:  You were not in the Senate in October of 2002.  You did give a speech opposing the war.  But Senator Clinton’s campaign will say since you’ve been a senator there’s been no difference in your record.  And other critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this:  In July of ‘04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports.  What would I have done?  I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war.  And then this:  “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of ‘04.  And this:  “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.

SEN. OBAMA:  Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on MEET THE PRESS during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war.  And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.

The Senator has no observable interest in refuting the glaring inconsistency or trying to nuance it away.  He genuinely seems to believe that illustrating the a-principled, purely political motivations behind his fairweather war support somehow acquit him.

The extreme brevity of Obama's experience in national politics has, to date, been more blessing than curse, as it's given him an opportunity to invent a pro forma pre-2005 voting record that appeases current public sentiment, then insist on its hypothetical authenticity and the deeply principled beliefs behind it.

So now we're left to wonder - is Obama's eternal, unshakable, principled objection to the war fictional?  Or is it real, but apparently so flimsy that he was willing to publicly disavow it while he was auditioning for a transfer from Springfield to Washington in 2004?  Logically, those two options would seem to be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.  It can't be neither and it can't be both.

Either option involves not only opportunistic bloodlust, but deceit in the course of electioneering.  Since Obama is once again stumping for a political promotion, shouldn't we assume that during this period, his rhetoric is similarly calculated and his principles similarly manufactured?