Attempts to come to terms with, and to defend, Barack Obama's sudden attempt to walk back the centerpiece of his presidential campaign -- unwavering opposition to the effort in Iraq, regardless of facts on the ground or of new information -- have abounded over the last few days, with each falling well short of anything even remotely resembling intellectual honesty or seriousness.

A couple of the latest have come from the New Yorker's George Packer, and from our old friend Andrew Sullivan -- someone whose writing contains intellectual honesty only rarely, and intellectual seriousness never.

Sullivan has this to say about Obama's sudden lurch to the right on Iraq:

"Any potential president who is uninterested in the facts on the ground in calibrating his Iraq policy would be another George W Bush."

All I have to say is, whoever usurped Bush's presidential duties from December 2006 onward, and is therefore actually responsible for effecting a wholesale change in the entire strategy of operations in Iraq as a result of the deteriorating situation on the ground there, while Sully's ideological allies on the left side of the legislative aisle were fighting tooth and nail to prevent any changes from being made, did one heckuva job.

There's no doubt the situation in Iraq progressively worsened over a long enough period of time that the administration has little or no excuse for not recognizing and responding to it with a series of adjustments in how the postwar was being waged. However, for Sully to make that claim after 2006 is simply ridiculous. Fortunately, none of us are surprised to see such ridiculousness emanating from that dank, musty corner of the blogosphere.

The New Yorker's George Packer took a slightly different tack, deciding that acknowledging progress in Iraq as a result of President Bush's willingess to change strategy was an Okay thing to do -- but, in the process of twisting things around as much as possible to defend Obama, he screwed up his timeline royally (while also doing wonderful imitation of Sullivan in terms of abandoning intellectual seriousness). According to the UK First Post:

George Packer writes in the New Yorker that the situation "on the ground" in Iraq today is entirely different to when Obama originally told voters about his plans for troop withdrawal. As a result Obama should not be criticised for adapting: "In matters of foreign policy, flexibility is a President’s primary defence against surprise." Packer writes that the improved conditions in Iraq can be attributed to "President Bush’s surge, the change of military strategy under General David Petraeus [Ed: Both of which Obama opposed], the turning of Sunni tribes against Al Qaeda, the Sadr militia’s unilateral ceasefire and the great historical luck that bought them all together at the same moment." So this is no time for a withdrawal.

Obama needn’t be bashful about admitting his Iraq policy was flawed - he simply needs to adjust his presentational style when talking about the war: "Obama has shown...that he has a talent for candour...One can imagine him speaking more honestly on Iraq...he could say 'That was always a goal, not a blueprint. When circumstances change, I don’t close my eyes - I adapt.'"

Let's (quickly) work the timeline on this, just using events related to Packer's "analysis":

• Fall 2006: The "turning of Sunni tribes against al Qaida" begins in Anbar Province (known as the Anbar Awakening)
• December 2006: President Bush announces a change of course in Iraq in response to the three-year-long deterioration of the situation on the ground there
• January 2007: General Petraeus is confirmed by the Senate to be the new commander of Multinational Force-Iraq. He brings with him a counterinsurgency strategy that is to be bolstered by an increase in combat troops in Iraq by 20,000 (this is what Packer refers to as "Bush's surge"; he is apparently confused enough to think the 'surge' and the counterinsurgency strategy implemented by Gen. Petraeus are separate developments in the prosecution of the Iraq postwar).
• August 2007: The Awakening spreads to Baghdad, where, in Salman Pak, the first Concerned Local Citizens group is formed to augment coalition and Iraqi forces in the fight against militias and terrorists
• August 2007: Muqtada al-Sadr declares that the Mahdi Army is in need of "purification," orders six-month cease fire
• December 2007: The Concerned Local Citizens program, modeled on the successful Anbar Awakening, becomes a phenomenon, with over 72,000 Iraqis serving in these citizen's groups in 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces, including 35,000 in Baghdad
• March 2008: Sadr declares another cease fire, ordering his Mahdi Army not to attack Iraqi troops and citizens and demanding amnesty from the country's government
• May 2008: The U.S. suffers 19 casualties in Iraq -- the lowest monthly total since the 2003 invasion
• May 2008: Leaders of Sadr's Mahdi Army sign a cease fire agreement with the Iraqi government allowing ISF unfettered access to Sadr City

Now, let's listen to Barack Obama in April 2008:

...and on July 3, 2008:

Packer is all wet on the timing of the events he claims Obama's position can be legitimately swayed by. At least he, though (and Sully as well), isn't audacious enough to change that position, then claim that it's been consistent the whole time.

Only Obama has that kind of audacity -- and only Obama thinks the American people are so stupid, and that his Jedi powers are so great, that such a claim will go entirely unchallenged especially in light of the prominence his out-of-Iraq-now position has held within the his presidential campaign.