Maybe he'll say he decided to change his policies after a combat vet asked him to, which worked for him on his flag-pin flip-flop.

Senator Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot sustain a long-term military presence in Iraq, but added that he would be open to “refine my policies” about a timeline for withdrawing troops after meeting with American military commanders during a trip to Iraq later this month.

...

“I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed,” he said. “And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

...

“My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything that I’ve said, was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe,” he said. “I said that based on the information that we had received from our commanders that one to two brigades a month could be pulled out safely, from a logistical perspective. My guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable.”

Convenient, eh? But it is welcome, at least, that he finally is willing to publicly recognize that the safest, best, quickest method of withdrawal is now simply winning the fucking war. The pace of victory is amazing, and it seems well-nigh irreversible.

Meanwhile, three of his closest surrogates spin three different versions of what his current possibly is.

So, no one knows what the hell Obama's actual position is, except for Obama himself, and even that seems pretty unlikely.

More: AmSpec says Obama has officially "entered John Kerry territory" as regards flip-flopping on Iraq positions.

True... but John Kerry flipped to the left/defeatist side, whereas Obama has flipped closer to the right/McCain/victory side. That's important too.

Quagmire! So ABCNews headlines a blog post.

There will be only one relevant question now out of ObamaÂ’s trip now: Do you stand by your plan? Obama is unlikely to give a direct, yes-or-no answer -- and thatÂ’s where Sen. John McCain and his allies can and will pounce.

Obama has almost always built in some wiggle room into his proposal -- including promises to consult with commanders on the ground -- but surely not always. For point of reference, go to ObamaÂ’s own campaign Website:

“Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.”

ThatÂ’s pretty unequivocal.

ObamaÂ’s migration to the political center has been well-documented, and is already a frame McCain is building around his candidacy. But Iraq -- this is qualitatively different, an issue that lives on a higher plane, since opposing the war was the rationale for his candidacy in the first place.

Yes, but so what? The Obama phenomenon is a cult of personality. His fanatical supporters are not voting for any particular set of policies; they're voting for the man, plain and simple, whatever his policies may have been or might one day evolve into.

Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. Whatever HighFather says is good, is good.

It just doesn't matter. The liberal anger over Iraq has always been less about Iraq itself than their fury that they were no permitted a Liberal Veto that would trump the decision of the government and general public. They are anti-war, but they are especially anti-war-we-haven't-collectively-consented-to.

If Obama's on board with victory, then it's "our war" as far as liberals are concerned, and they make the necessary adjustments to suddenly support it. Just as Keith Olbermann didn't find it particularly difficult to deem the FISA telecom immunity Obama supported as a show of "strength," rather than, as it had previously been, "definitional fascism."

A bit more at Hot Air, including the expected -- but quite temporary -- DU freak out.

They will learn to love Iraq Victory. HighFather has now given them permission to do so.

Better still-- the actual victory parade will take place on his watch, most likely.

Posted by: Ace at 01:13 PM | Comments (69)
Post contains 794 words, total size 5 kb.

Most AoSHQ morons will begin celebrating their fourth of July weekends soon. If you have an American flag, please fly it. If you do not own one, please pick one up during your next beer/charcoal run. Have a safe 4th and don't blow off any of your damn fingers with that bag of M-80s.

Posted by: Open Blog at 10:55 AM | Comments (48)
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

Viacom may soon have access to YouTube user IDs, IP addresss and details of every video they've ever watched, thanks to yesterday's district court order. Viacom is suing Google for copyright infringement in more than 150,000 video clips.

The US court declined Viacom's request that Google be forced to hand over the source code of YouTube, saying it was a "trade secret" that should not be disclosed.

But it said privacy concerns expressed by Google about handing over the log were "speculative".

The ruling will see the viewing habits of millions of YouTube users given to Viacom, totalling more than 12 terabytes of data.

Viacom said it wanted the data to "compare the attractiveness of allegedly infringing video with that of non-infringing videos."

So Google's secrets, most especially its advertising formulas are safe. Not so much YouTube users' information.

I still don't see why YouTube isn't protected under the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. For that matter, what interest does Viacom have in "comparing the attractiveness" of all video clips? If the case turns on direct infringement, Viacom needs to know only about the viewing of allegedly infringing videos. On the other hand, if the case is about vicarious or contributory infringement, YouTube should fall under the DMCA.

Background:
Openblogger Krakatoa wrote about the case in May.
The Moron-in-Chief wrote about it last year when the parties were still trying to avoid litigation.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:53 AM | Comments (50)
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

Honestly, does this shit play outside of Philly? Does it play in Philly?

This tool (that's right Chris, you're a fucking tool) trots out every wornout complaint against the war, using as many broken one-sentence paragraphs as the finance team will allow, and declares we've 'sinned' as a nation, and must therefore retire the flags and the parades, and retreat to our quiet place to contemplate the error of our ways.

Who the fuck do these people think they are?

It's a boring rehash of the 'torture' claim with a transparent yet refreshingly "j-school yo" backspin attempt to persuade how we dishonor the founders with our cowardice, our willingness to commit "crimes against humanity" to protect ourselves from the (it will never happen again if only "you know what") next 9/11.

It amuses me how leftists think the charge of "cowardice" will unhinge a conservative. It's really very funny to recognize their total inability to comprehend something so simple.

As Ace has pointed out many times, they just don't think they need to hide it anymore. Am I just naive, or does this surprise anyone else? And don't you find my naiveté refreshing?

via Stop The ACLU, who reminded me they're getting awfully tired of you not stopping the ACLU so get with the program already.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 02:03 AM | Comments (103)
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

This one is found by Professor Volokh and is quite nitpicky. A disagreement between Justices Scalia and Stevens boils down to the meaning of the word "it" in an 1876 Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Cruikshank. As you read the following, keep track of what the word "it" is referring to:

The right there specified [in the indictment] is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent on that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.

It seems clear to me (and to Justice Scalia and Professor Volokh) that "it" refers to "the right there specified...'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.'" Justice Scalia used Cruikshank, in part, to show a long-standing recognition that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to firearms from Congressional interference. But Justice Stevens disagrees. He says, contrary to the words right out of the Cruikshank excerpt which you just read, that only the indictment used the phrase "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" and that those words were not adopted by the Court to describe the right protected by the Second Amendment.

The majority's assertion that the Court in Cruikshank "described the right protected by the Second Amendment as '"bearing arms for a lawful purpose,"'" is not accurate. The Cruikshank Court explained that the defective indictment contained such language, but the Court did not itself describe the right, or endorse the indictment's description of the right.

Professor Volokh is charitable about the mistake and includes a bit of good advice. Perhaps future Stevens' clerks will even take it:

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't think I am: It seems to me that the dissent just flatly misread Cruikshank, and in an important way -- and didn't correct this despite Justice Scalia's express and accurate response in footnote 22 of the majority.

So this is one reason I tell my students: Never rely on an intermediate source's characterization (or even quotation) of an original source; always read, quote, and cite the original source. (True, sometimes when the intermediate source is authoritative -- for instance, is a majority opinion -- its mischaracterization of an original source may itself create binding law. [As in the Hamdan case as I shared last week. --Gabe] But the original source still says what the original source always said.)

I promise this post will be the last one of these I put up, at least for Kennedy, Heller, or Boumediene. At some point this just becomes cruel and tends to subject the judiciary to more scorn than it deserves. While Volokh and others are looking through the opinions so as to understand what the justices did, I find myself looking only to find what the justices did wrong. That's not really helping anyone.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:11 PM | Comments (67)
Post contains 510 words, total size 3 kb.

A leftish German rag admits it. NBC still officially deems Iraq in a state of "civil war."

Worth a read, if you have extra time and want to read stuff you already know. I really couldn't find anything particularly juicy to quote, myself.

Posted by: Ace at 04:21 PM | Comments (85)
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

CJ writes that he's "unapologetically happy."

Gerald Van Der Leun observed that, while there are other tangible and serious problems with the news industry, it certainly can't help that newspapers make a considered choice to alienate and insult 50% of their potential audience, and lie to the rest.

Many people would like to have a newspaper delivered to them. Certainly they could afford it, and it's a conveniently-packaged product, despite competition from the Internet.

People are choosing to de-subscribe on principle. Not because they're not interested or can't afford it. Because they've consciously chosen to embargo a dishonest, anti-American, and pernicious industry altogether.

Posted by: Ace at 03:32 PM | Comments (71)
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

The internet's most famous high-quality woman is now married, but wants you to know she doesn't lack for male suitors (presumably of high-ish quality, but not actually high quality, alas):

I've noticed that a hugely disproportionate number of my blog "friends" are single heterosexual males (SHMs). Perhaps this is just an innocent correlation due to a combination of my primarily "male" interests and the additional free time that singles have available to spend socializing online. But I suspect that in many cases it's because their interest is more than friendly. This was flattering when I was single, but now that I'm married I'd prefer that my friends not fantasize about having sex with me.

I realize that sexual attraction is not every SHM's motivation for befriending me (so no need to leave ego-deflating comments about how much you don't want to have sex with me, thanks ) but it's the motivation of enough SHMs that it makes me suspicious of all of them. Especially since I am apparently not very good at reading people in this area — I've been surprised by how many of my SHM "friends" suddenly stopped speaking to me after I got married. (Many of these former "friends" also used to pretend that their interest was only "friendly" when I was single, so I've stopped believing SHMs about their true motivations for friendships with women.)

Meh. I feel guilty linking this, because what she says isn't really all that far-fetched: Guys are horny bastards and the moment a woman identifies herself as such on the internet, suddenly she's going to have a lot of male "friends."

Still, I link it, dirty feeling or not. Because -- maybe this is just my bias against her -- I can't help but hear the triumphant notes of Beethoven's Ode to Fabulousness singing just beneath her words.

Thanks to Dan Collins.

Posted by: Ace at 03:24 PM | Comments (83)
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

Karol at Alarming News asked me to guest-guest for her (yeah, she's the guest, she can't make it probably, she got me as a fill-in, so this time I really do know who canceled) on Sirius radio, "The Blog Bunker," which is Indie Talk 110, whatever that means.

We'll be talking about some topics that interested Karol and I have nothing at all to say about, so it should be some can't-miss broadcasting.

Heh: First caller-- we either have to win hearts and minds or else change the foreign policy that causes the Taliban to hate us.

So, it was that kind of show.

Sorry: It's already over, it was 5 PM Eastern. It was, it seemed, a left-leaning show, where the host repeatedly demanded I explain why troop deaths had gone up in Afghanistan in June. I explained, every eloquently, that I didn't know, and constructed several intriguing variations on this line of thought in response to his repetitions of the question.

Posted by: Ace at 12:54 PM | Comments (50)
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

A survey -- all self-reported, of course -- says that left wingers read more right wing blogs than right wingers read left wing blogs.

The left is going apeshit, as usual, complimenting themselves on their intellectual courage and maverick open-mindedness.

First, there is the pure statistical problem -- only 6.6% of blog readers read "the other side" at all. Within this tiny fraction, leftwingers claim they read rightwing blogs at a 4:1 rate over rightwingers crossing over the aisles to get their information.

So, first of all, 98.9% of leftwingers are partisan hacks only interested in cocooning on friendly sites that will not discomfit them with contrary narratives. How on earth this is some source of pride is beyond me.

Besides that, there is a structural difference in leftwing and rightwing blogs. Rightwing blogs and blog-readers read and critique leftwing bloggers all the time -- but these bloggers are more generally known as "reporters for the MSM." We are reading an awful lot of left-wing propaganda already. We don't need to go to leftwing blogs to do this. We can dial up the New York Times.

Many leftwing bloggers and blog-readers do read rightwing blogs -- but for the same purpose we rightwingers read AP. To critique us, to insult us, to mock us. There's a cottage industry of leftwing blogs that do almost absolutely nothing but cover what rightwing bloggers are writing, if you can imagine something so pathetic. Sadly, No, Alicublog, T-Bogg... a bunch of bottom-feeding leftwing blogs covers the rightwing blogs the way the rightwing blogs cover the media.

There is really no analogy like that on the right. Sure, we all run over to Democratic Underground to find the nutroots celebrating the latest US combat death -- it's an easy post, always fun -- but there are no rightwing blogs (that I know of, at least) whose core mission it is to read leftwing blogs.

So leftwing blogs frequently cite and quote (and send their readers over to) rightwing blogs. We do that on occasion, but not really that often.

Rightwing blogs are working the refs -- the media. We're pushing back against their liberal bias.

Leftwing blogs -- many of them, at least -- are working those (us) who are in turn working the refs of the media, trying to push back against the pushback against liberal bias, that is, push the press to being even more liberal by denigrating those of us who critique the MSM for unfairness.

Given that basic structure, of course more lefties read righty blogs. But they don't do so to enjoy opposing viewpoints or join interesting arguments; they do to mock and troll, because Sadly, No! told them to.

We on the right are too busy doing something similar with NBCNews. We really don't have the time or inclination to carefully patrol whatever the fuck Sadly, No! might be writing about today.

Who cares?

As I've said before, the rightwing blogosphere is the leftwing blogosphere's MSM. They can't really critique the media, because they know it's very leftwing and they don't wish to undermine it all that much. They count on the MSM to deliver their messaging for them. So instead they attack the MSM's harriers, the rightwing blogs, the rightwing blog commenters.

But, of course, the left is once again very, very impressed with itself for... well, pretty much anything at all. These people don't take a wet shit without gazing wistfully at their highly nuanced discharge.

Posted by: Ace at 12:46 PM | Comments (97)
Post contains 601 words, total size 4 kb.