The Economist, Endorsing Obama, Credits Him For an Iraq Stance He Doesn't Have

The Economist endorsed Obama today. Not terribly shocking, despite the fact that the magazine is technically classically liberal and free market, as they endorsed Kerry in 2004.

(I know The Economist has been in an anti-NR mood for a while, but I like the magazine anyway – got addicted when it was the only meaty English-language weekly available in a timely manner in Ankara.)

There are parts of the editorial I strongly agree with, mildly agree with, mildly disagree and strongly disagree. And then there’s one part where I shake my head:
“Part of Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right.”
That’s attributing a flexibility that isn’t there, a flexibility he had to vehemently deny when he initially indicated his position wasn’t set in stone.

In a second, hastily convened news conference, Obama insisted that his policies have not changed, and that he has "not equivocated" or is not "searching for maneuvering room" on Iraq.” ..

Thus far, he added, he has seen nothing to contradict his belief that one to two combat brigades could be pulled out each month over 16 months.
Obama has made such a muddle of his Iraq position that his endorsers can attribute to him a position he doesn’t have.