"That's [political] logic"

I'm having a problem following Obama's line of reasoning on Iraq. It begins with an excellent syllogism:

We should be in Iraq only if Al-Qaeda is there.
Al-Qaeda is not in Iraq.
Therefore we should leave.

Flawless. If you accept the major (stipulative) and minor (factual) premises, the conclusion falls neatly into place. But then the logical structure begins to breaks down:

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in Iraq.
But it is Bush's fault.
[Implied: Therefore it doesn't count]
Therefore we should reserve the right to return to Iraq if Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in Iraq after we leave Iraq.

This sounds like a proposal to dig holes in order to fill them up again. Am I missing something? Can anybody make this make sense?

PS, the post title (as well as the illustration) comes from Alice in Wonderland:

"Contrariwise,'' continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.''

I invite anyone to submit any candidate's statement for similar scrutiny. I'm happy to be Alice to either Dum or Dee. Who knows? This could become a continuing feature. As long as candidates persist in running for office over such a long period of time, we might as well find a way to enjoy ourselves at their expense.

Comments

[Hoodlumman]

You can try but you'll need two things:

1.) A time machine
2.) Revisionist history lessons

[gail]

I don't see how either one of those would save it, unless you could use them more than once.

[Hoodlumman]

Revisionist history is infinitely reusable.

The time machine only works as long as you have enough plutonium from the Libyans.

[gail]

Dang. I'm fresh out. I used all my Libyan plutonium the other day to kill pantry moths.

[Jake]

You know, Obama is very charismatic and I think a smart,decent and sincere guy.. but the more I listen to his plans if elected the more I see a train wreck waiting to happen...

[gail]

Yet he's the candidate I'd be most likely to invite over for dinner and a nice chat.

[iamnot]

Obama,
There's no "there" there.
The man seems to be a dangerous type of Euro-socialist at heart.
God help us all.

[joated]

I'd say the logic was circular but it seems more like a mobius strip. He wishes al Queda were not there so we could pull out but because they are there we would have to go back. Why not just ask them to step back across the border for a few months of R & R? Once al Queda is out (to where ever), he could pull the troops out. Then they (al Queda) could reenter and then we could reinvade. (Actually that sounds like the touchback plan for illegal aliens... mmmm?)

Then there's the curious case of the trade "timeout" while Hillary and staff renegotiate NAFTA...which her husband signed into law.

I'm getting a headache from all this logic.

[dorkafork]

It makes even less sense when you consider Obama's statement that "I do know that Al Qaeda is in Iraq". So the initial syllogism fails. He needs to mind his P's and Q's.

[gail]

Many modern politicians seem to believe that the stinging riposte is an end in itself, whether it makes sense or not.