Posted by
Armanius on Thursday, July 24, 2008 12:40:30 AM
Anyone notice how Obama and the Democrats like to use the word "inartful?" It's like Roger Clemens using the word "misremembered." Whenever Obama flip flops on an issue, neither he nor the Democrats can bring themselves to admit that there has been a change in position. Never mind that a good leader needs to be flexible and ready to change his or her position, IF there are circumstances that call for a such a change in position. Only problem for Obama is that political expedience, his inexperience and ineptitude do not fall in the category of "circumstances that call for such a change in position." Consequently, Obama and his surrogates have to hold the party line that there has been no change in position. Maybe they were "inartful." But heavens knows that "my policy hasn't changed, and it's been very consistent"!!
I suppose Obama was only being inartful when he said that he would use public funds for campaign if his Republican counterpart did the same. Then he inartfully said that he never agreed to it. He was merely "considering" it.
Remember the ban on gun issue? When completing a questionnaire, someone in the Obama campaign answered that Obama believes that the D.C. ban on guns is a good law. Obama himself said last year that he supported the D.C. gun ban. After Obama initially refused to comment about his thoughts of how the U.S. Supreme Court should decide on the lawsuit against the D.C. gun ban, Obama finally said that he believes that the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. When asked about prior representations that he and his campaign made that Obama supported the D.C. gun ban, Obama's referred to the earlier statements as "inartful." Obama's campaign then said that a "clerk" made a mistake when answering the questionnaire.
When Katie Couric interviewed Obama and asked him about his comment about keeping Jerusalem undivided, and then backtracking on that statement after getting flak, Obama's response was: "We just had phrased it poorly in the speech ... But my policy hasn't changed, and it's been very consistent." Way to be "inartful" again Mr. Obama.
I suppose Obama was also being "inartful" when he told Couric that the conditions on the ground in Iraq had improved significantly, that U.S. troops have helped reduce violence in Iraq, while still refusing to support the surge or even directly acknowledge that the surge in troops brought about the current level of security in Iraq.
Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?
Obama: Katie, as ... you've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt.
Couric: But yet you're saying ... given what you know now, you still wouldn't support it ... so I'm just trying to understand this.
Obama: Because ... it's pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that's money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision-- to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.
Couric: And I really don't mean to belabor this, Senator, because I'm really, I'm trying ... to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq would exist today without the surge?
Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals ....
Senator Obama, let me answer your question as to "what would have happened" had your approach to Iraq been applied 18 months ago. Iraq would have been in total chaos, because American troops would not be there to reduce the violence by fighting the terrorists and insurgents. You wouldn't have had the photo op with smiling American soldiers. You wouldn't be touting how Maliqui "supports" your 18 months troop withdrawal deadline. Bottom line is that we would have lost the war in Iraq!! But of course, in the grand scheme of things, Obama and the Democrats want us to lose the war in Iraq. Because losing the war in Iraq is the best and only way Obama and the Democracts can articulate why they should be in the White House. Perhaps if Obama and the Democracts could just stop being so inartful ...
Last but not least, and totally unrelated to flip flopping, Obama said that Wesley Clark was being "inartful" when Clark dismissed John McCain's experience in Vietnam as being anything but relevant for someone running to be the commander-in-chief.
PS: I do give credit to Couric for actually asking tough questions during the interview, and not let her left bias get in the way of journalism for most of this interview. Let's see if she and CBS can keep it up.