Hitchens says: "Shortly after Baghdad had fallen at a then-cost of perhaps 100 U.S. fatalities, he (Obama) said publicly that there was no serious difference between the Bush position and his own."

Does anyone know when Obama said that? Is there a video of it? An archive of the speech or interview? I would love to find the context.

Thanks.

He said it to the Chicago Tribune in March of 2004. You should have no trouble finding it; it's been reported often by those who take a look at Obama's actual record on Iraq as opposed to his "opposed all along" bullshit.

"As I have long said" has become such a frequent introduction to an Obama flip-flop that it's becoming a trademark like "I voted for it before I voted against it" or "This is not the [Jeremiah Wright] [Tony Rezko] [whoever] that I knew."

That's just selective quoting Varian and you know it.. Pro war supporters like you Varian would have it committed to memory as though it were carved in stone and McCain/Rove would have produced an add by now linking to it.

Here are the facts and the context, which explains why Varian didn't link to it directly:

In that same interview, Obama also reiterated that he would not have voted for the war, and he offered serious criticism of Bush’s handling of it, saying, "I don't see them having the credibility to be able to execute." And in a New York Times interview given the day before, Obama said that "from my vantage point, the case was not made" for the war, and he rebuked Democratic leaders for "the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass" on proving the case for the war.

As you can see, there is no flip flop other that what passes for grey matter in the wingnut fraternity.

Another predictably idiotic neolefty "reply." Nothing in what you quoted contradicts the fact that Obama at the time ("at this stage") agreed with Bush, including his saying that he would have voted against the war, which we already knew ('he would have voted against it, before he supported it') or his doubts about Bush's competence. Fact is, Obama supported the war then, with reservations about Bush's execution of it--welcome to the club--and said so.

Obama, according to his The Audacity of Hope, reversed himself and started supporting the war right after it began. He maintained that position in multiple speeches and statements, agreeing with Bush's idea of staying long enough to stabilize Iraq, until October 22, 2006, when he first proposed withdrawing without regard to stabilizing anything.

For anyone interested in a complete history of Obama's statements on Iraq, see Peter Wehner's, "Obama's War" <link>

Wehner has another excellent Commentary piece on Obama's current bullshitting about the surge. ("Obama in Iraq's Quicksand") <link>

Obama ranges from being a weasel to a brazen liar--all the while claiming to be better than other politicians..

well, the fact that Barry Christ Obama is a weasel and a liar only makes him that much more attractive to NeoLoony; remember, this is a guy who absolutely adores and worships Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad...not only did Neo's response not contradict what you wrote, he just unwittingly highlighted Barry's flippy-floppiness to a greater degree.

"Unwittingly" is probably the best adverb to describe Neo's ravings in general. (Can't wait for the next installment of Neo's lame attempts to explain to us why Chavez isn't trying to make himself another absolute dictator.) It just occurred to me that if Neo wants to support Obama, thinking that he shares Neo's consistent opposition to the Iraq War, why should I disillusion the schmuck? I thought I'd make sure that frisch knew that he'd gotten a straight answer to his question, though.

Nothing in what you quoted contradicts the fact that Obama at the time ("at this stage") agreed with Bush

What part of " Obama also reiterated that he would not have voted for the war" don't you understand? Never. Ever, has Obama supported the war. End of story. And if your pathetic little conspiracy had any legs whatsoever, the McCain campaign would have been all over it rather than wasting time distributing tire pressure gauges. It's hardly surprising that the same lunatics who interpret Obama's popularity as a sign he's not fit to be a leader also insist that his vote against the war is evidence he must have supported it.

Wehner has another excellent Commentary piece on Obama's current bullshitting about the surge.

Excellent if you like fiction. For example, Wehner refers to Obama's statement that Saddam posed no “imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors.” This has been proven beyond a measure of a doubt, yet Wehner insists it cannot be - even tghough Saddam had no WMD, no plans to attack the US or it's allies and and no links to AQ.

Of course, with regards to the surge, Obama is correct, whereas McCain is the one bullshitting at every opportunity.

Wehner has another excellent Commentary piece on Obama's current bullshitting about the surge.

Except that Wehrner is ful lof shit. Not only does he claim to speak for the sheiks of Anbar, who apparently claim that the surge helped them enormously in their effort (of course anyone who's bribed and amred to the teeth will tell you that) but he falseley states that the surge was a proactionary policy rather than a last minute desprate reaction from the Bush amdinustration when the news in Iraq was desperately bad. What independent military analysts will tell you is that Patreaus got very lucky and that the Anbar awakening was taking place at the same time that Washington was looking for a reason not to leave Iraq.

Obama ranges from being a weasel to a brazen liar--all the while claiming to be better than other politicians..

Too funny, when you are supporting a man who's every appearance and statement about Iraq amounts to nothing more than a brain fart and who's lies are dismissed as one of his never ending harmless senior moments.

What is it about Chavez that get's you two little Eichman's so boned up? I haven't even mentioned him in the last 6 months, yet you can't get him off your brain.

As I last recall, Chavez had a referrendum on expanding his powers and he lost the election, and accepted the outcome - behavior at odds with the MOD of an aspiring dictator.

I thought I'd make sure that frisch knew that he'd gotten a straight answer to his question, though.

Except that your answer was a typical example of selective quotation. Your failure to link to the news article that you claim to be the smoking gun was a glaring example of you knowing full well that the very article only underlines Obama's opposition to the war.

told ya! he can't stop gushing about Hugo!

MOD? he's even trying to crack down on Venezuelan retro-fashion, apparently.

You are so much fun Varian, I almost feel guilty for hitting such a soft target.

Obama, according to his The Audacity of Hope, reversed himself and started supporting the war right after it began.

I ssume you read the book Varian? It would be useful if you were able to list the page number(s) from the The Audacity of Hope that supports this argument.

In October of 2002, Obama made a speech not only opposing the war, but maintaining the focus on AQ and working towards energy diversity and independence. So at what point, "right after it began" did Obama start supporting the war?

One of the Clinton campaign arguments was that Obama's book states he thought that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, and that he still coveted nuclear weapons, but his judgment was that, at the time in 2002, we didn't need to invade Iraq. Perhaps the Clinton's missed the pages you are referring to. Pitty. You could have made godo money with your "unique" observations.

He maintained that position in multiple speeches and statements, agreeing with Bush's idea of staying long enough to stabilize Iraq, until October 22, 2006, when he first proposed withdrawing without regard to stabilizing anything.

Please link to the "multiple speeches" he made through October 22, 2006, maintaining this position. Maybe it's just bme, but I can't seem to find any that support the Iraq war. And while you're at it, explain how support for stabilizing something we broke equates to support for the Iraq war in the first place.

You begin from the hate-crazed presumption that Obama is "a weasel and a liar" and simply build whatever other case you think you have on those quaking sands. With Neocons the hate and resentment come first; the facts, if there are any, and the loud assumptions and attacks come later.

Claims like "this is a guy who absolutely adores and worshipts Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad" don't have to be justified with facts (obviously, they couldn't be, since they're pure fiction); what's important is the hatred of Obama and the dishonest pretense of his 'un-Americanness' that's expressed by them.

In short, you're a phony and a liar. Stuff it, punk.