Obama v. Hillary on Iraq Deconstructed

An instant guide to the contretemps:

In the beginning, Obama opposed the war (and was correct). Hillary favored it (and wasn't).

In the Republican Senate, Hillary and Obama had the exact same positions--both favored funding the troops, both favored the Levin-Reed inexact withdrawal plan and opposed the Kerry firm withdrawal date.

In the interregnum, Obama proposed a withdrawal plan based on the Iraq Study Group, with March 2008 as a tentative deadline, which could be extended if the Iraqi government met benchmarks. Clinton also supported the ISG findings, but without a specific end date.

In the Democratic Senate, both supported funding for the troops--without a timetable--if necessary, but both voted for the initial bill with a timetable, knowing that it would be vetoed.

In the aftermath of the veto, Obama said he favored a "clean"--no timetable--bill with a shorter funding period. Hillary kept her counsel but favored a clean bill.

This week, both Obama and Hillary abandoned their principles to cast symbolic votes for the Feingold-Reid Bill, which had a timetable and no chance of passage. This was done for purely political--presidential primary--reasons. (As most Swampland readers know, I'm in favor of a withdrawal without a final date since the means of our extrication will depend on circumstances on the ground too fluid to predict right now. Once again, to paraphrase Jim Webb: We have to be more careful getting out than we were getting in.)

Next week, both Obama and Hillary will support funding the troops without a deadline and with benchmarks--which is the best that can be hoped for right now.

To be continued in September, when the funding runs out again...