Obama is consistent on Iraq

My friend Carlos frets about Obama's credentials as a progressive, linking to an article by Matt Gonzalez that casts aspersions on Obama as any kind of lefty at all. Many of Gonzalez' points are legitimate progressive gripes against Obama, who in many ways is not as liberal as the Republicans would like to think. However, one particular argument in the article bothers me, because it is entirely fallacious:

Let's start with his signature position against the Iraq war. Obama has sent mixed messages at best.

First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute." The Tribune went on to say that Obama, "now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation ­ a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration."

The article then goes on to mention several bills that Obama voted for in the US Senate that funded the ongoing effort in Iraq.

Let's be clear: there is absolutely no inconsistency in a) opposing the war from the start and b) funding that war--or even supporting an extended, indefinite troop presence in Iraq--given that the invasion has already come to pass. It is quite possible that, though the initial decision to invade Iraq was a mistake, it is nevertheless true that--given that we have already invaded--the best course of action is to maintain a troop presence there, or only gradually withdraw troops. Indeed, it is this second option--gradually withdrawing troops--that Obama has settled on.

So it is not the case that Obama has sent "mixed messages" about Iraq--his view has been entirely self-consistent and, in my opinion, correct. Matt Gonzalez's charge is that Obama lacks ideological purity with respect to Iraq--but if ideological purity means elevating pithy charges of inconsistency over the complex and difficult truth, then so much the worse for ideological purity.