get some zzzz’s and call us in the morning

Arianna Huffington thinks Barack Obama needs more sleep, and that perhaps if he got it, he’d stop straying from his core message. (And she also claims that this is not a critique from the left; she’s lying (you knew that, right?), because on June 30 she wrote a post titled “Moving to the Middle Is for Losers” and we know she’s no longer a Republican insider and right-wing harridan but rather a Democratic operative and left-wing propagandist):

He needs to remain true to himself — and, above all, to make it clear that he will not lead by sticking his finger in the air to see which way the political wind is blowing.

Too late, Arianna dear! Barry hasn’t only changed his stripes on Iraq and the surge—he has rewritten history!

Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop “surge” in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a “problem” that had barely reduced violence.

“The surge is not working,” Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

Barry’s “plan for Iraq” gets thorough responses here and here.

Hitchens demolishes the let’s-leave-Iraq-and-fight-”them”-in-Afghanistan argument here.

Bonus reading: Joe Klein is sticking to his “Iraq was a disaster“ story.

Please note: I’m not saying Iraq hasn’t been a disaster. Indeed it has been—and continues to be—a disaster and a half. But thanks to the shift to the surge, thanks to Petraeus-style counterinsurgency, and, yes, thanks to George W. Bush’s stubbornness in seeing it through (despite getting the bum’s rush from his father’s closest pals), I can see the light at the end of the tunnel (far, far, far away).

I can also see that Iraq will be a losing issue for Barack Obama, whose judgment was so prescient that it had to be erased from his website. Via Gateway Pundit:

Here is Obama’s website before the scrubbing this weekend:

This previous page said: “The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq’s political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq’s civil war.”

And, here is Obama’s current webpage on Iraq and the surge:

And, now… Voila!– *poof* –No more civil war!

Which is why he’s doing the fancy soft-shoe routine now. I also don’t think it’ll help much. Americans like him, but they really don’t like him as commander-in-chief.

One reason McCain can push back on Iraq is his advantage as commander-in-chief — a striking one, albeit perhaps not surprising given his military background. Seventy-two percent of Americans — even most Democrats — say he’d be a good commander-in-chief of the military.

By contrast, fewer than half, 48 percent, say Obama would be a good commander-in-chief, a significant weakness on this measure. (McCain’s rating is much improved from his unsuccessful campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, when 56 percent said he’d be a good commander-in-chief — no more than said so, at the time, about George W. Bush.) [e.a.]

I’m sure you’ve also been wondering about where Obama’s number-one fan stands on all this flip-flopping, waffling, rewriting of history, and purging of his website. Sullivan has got no comment about any of that. Of course, he’s no longer declaring defeat in Iraq, as he did when he endorsed Ron Paul for the Republican nomination. But he’s still banking on the wisdom of the Obama Messiah (who’s right even when he’s wrong):

[J]udging now what we should be doing next February is foolish. Our choice will be rooted in a core judgment of whether Obama’s instincts will be better than McCain’s - in blending the diplomacy, military tactics and strategic vision to win the war on terror.