It’d be interesting to see where this story goes from here. It’s too much to summarize here, but I find one part inparticular to be extremely interesting. This was Senator Obama in April 2004, saying he opposes artificial deadlines and supports finishing the job:

But this was the same man who was rallying against the war from the very beginning. Why now was he reversing his position and supporting staying the course? Common wisdom says it was because the campaign was going better than expected but, as Fernandez points out, that doesn’t align with the facts.

April 2004 was the bloodiest month to date by that time, with insurgents killing and mutilating multiple American contractors just days before the interview.

So why, at what was the height of violence, was a man who opposed the war from the beginning advocating staying until the job was done? Find a possibility further on in the article, where we discover something else, involving an infamous friend of his, was taking place that same April.