Iraqi Change Vexes Obama

Iraq's free, boisterous and critical press is another example of genuine change. Its existence is unarguable. It is there, alive and signaling the birth of liberty, which is also a huge victory in the Global War on Terror. It signals an emerging democracy in the predominantly Arab Muslim Middle East, an alternative to the terrible non-choice of tyrant or terrorist, the vicious ying-yang that has savaged the Arab heartland.

Astonishing news, isn't it, especially since three years ago Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., declared the war in Iraq was lost. Sen. Obama agreed. Moreover, this defeatist cant energized Obama's entire campaign. To disagree with Reid and Obama's hokum made one a liar or a rube in the overwhelmingly pro-Obama national media. Obama himself engaged in the name-calling. Recall he impugned rural Pennsylvanians when he told a bucks-up smorgasbord of San Francisco billionaires that his Keystone State opponents were benighted yokels who "cling to their guns and religion."

Obama knows what he said in 2007 and 2008. He knows he framed the war in Iraq as separate from the Global War on Terror, yet Iraq's emerging democracy is the biggest political and psychological defeat yet dealt to militant Islamist extremists. In February on CNN, Vice President Joe Biden touted Iraq's emerging success and wanted to claim it for the Obama administration.

This evident conflict between what he said then and what is now haunted Obama's Aug. 31 speech. He must know his withdrawal deadline was artificial -- his generals in Afghanistan are complaining about the one he has imposed in that War on Terror theater.

In his Aug. 31 speech, Obama pledged to "support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world." Nice words, describing goals that a reliable American ally could help the Iraqis achieve.

But apparently a substantial number of Iraqis don't believe his nice words. And with good reason.