Jed Lewison of Daily Kos points to this post from December 2009 and argues I owe President Obama an apology.

Except that Obama was opposing the expanded use of military force in Pakistan in December 2009 (unless all five of Newsweek’s sources are lying). The article notes, “the White House has been encouraged by Pakistan’s own recent military efforts to root out militants along the Afghan border, and it does not want to jeopardize that cooperation.”

This chart from the New America Foundation shows that after this internal policy dispute went public, U.S. policy changed and the number of drone attacks more than doubled:

Unless Newsweek’s five sources engaged in some coordinated campaign to make the president’s position appear to be the opposite of what it was, Obama talked tough on the campaign trail and then was hesitant once in office. He shouldn’t be entirely begrudged this; avoiding civilian casualties is a worthwhile goal. But the fear of risk can turn into an excuse for inaction. Sometime in late 2009 or early 2010, President Obama’s views on the value of using military force in risky situations in Pakistan changed, and thank God for that. Good for him. I can’t applaud it any louder.

But I don’t see why I should apologize for calling Obama’s previous stance wrong when it actually was wrong.

Put another way, Obama’s campaign-trail pledge to “take out those in our sights” reached its expiration date, and the expiration date reached its own expiration date, as Obama overcame his early hesitation.