COURIC PRESSES CANDIDATE ON CONFLICTING, CLUELESS IRAQ POSITIONS
CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric catches a lot of flak from media watchers and other news organizations for giving cupcake interviews with softball questions, but last night she proved she has what it takes when she challenged Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama over his shifting position on the Iraq troop surge.
In an interview shot in Amman, Jordan, Couric showed that she is one of the few members of the mainstream media who isn’t going to give Obama a free pass. When the Illinois senator tried to duck a question about his plan for a 16 month timed troop withdrawal, Couric fired back.
“You talk about a residual force remaining in Iraq, but you’ve been hesitant to really give a number… to people,” Couric asked. “You haven’t been specific, though some of your advisors have said it could be tens of thousands of troops. Why can’t you be more specific as to what you envision?”
Obama proceeded to do the one thing he learned during his two-and-a-half years in the Senate: filibuster. Couric asked again, and again, and again until — after the sixth question — Obama finally admitted that, while he opposes the troop surge, “there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There’s no doubt.”
Couric tried to clarify, “given what you know now, you still wouldn’t support [the surge]… so I’m just trying to understand this.”
And Obama, realizing he screwed up, stalled again and then reaffirmed that he wouldn’t have voted for the surge.
The result is that speaking in hypotheticals and prancing around through the Middle East is great, but when it comes to our national security during a time of war, Obama is absolutely clueless.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 23rd, 2008 at 2:58 pm and is filed under Democrats, National news. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
He insists that he was prescient in opposing the invasion of Iraq, but has never said how he would have dealt with Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime. Embargos, perhaps? We all saw how well those worked. But I suppose the oil-for-food scandal and Hussein’s bribing France, Germany, Russia and certain mucky mucks at the U.N. with sweetheart oil deals somehow slipped his mind, just as Jeremiah Wright’s racist screeds did.
As wzpected, since he has no foreign policy except the shifting political winds.
This as opposed to McCain, who keeps showing the early onset of Alzheimer’s as he continually flubs what happened when and where to whom in Iraq, I mean Pakistan, no, Afghanistan, no wait, that’s Iran training al Qaeda, not that’s just insurgsents, right Joe?
I have been a long-time doubter and detractor, but Katie deserves her props for this interview.
You go girl!
If you oppose high troop levels in Iraq, you’re kind of required to oppose the escalation. (Surge was not a word used in U.S. military doctrine until the Bush White House invented it, BTW.)
In 2006, the JCOS unanimously opposed the “surge”. Does that make them “absolutely clueless” on issues of national security as well? Gen. John Abizaid said the “surge” would not be a long-term fix. Was he “absolutely clueless”?
Yep. No better use of America’s limited resources then rooting out and “fixing” all the world’s problems.
Not like we have $1.6 trillion in deferred public infrastructure maintinence, or $10 trillion in federal debt, or a hundred billion dollar federal budget deficit, or any one of hundreds of other domestic problems that need fixed.
Is this the same “clueless Iraq position” that was endorsed by the Iraqi Prime Minister? And how can you slam Obama for not giving specifics when McCain refuses to give any specifics about when we leave, final troop levels, or anything other than “it depends on the conditions on the ground”?
Shush! Mr. McCain knows win when he sees it, but you don’t, so just sit back patiently and wait for him to tell you when win happens. However, right now, he can tell you that his political opponent’s plan is certainly not win.
If anyone had handled the war ” right”, according to everyone involved, the surge would not have been necessary………
I am glad violence is down. When can we leave?
Charlatan wrote that Obama “has never said how he would have dealt with Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime.” Would you be happier if he said “by some means other than invasion?” So how should we deal with other brutal autocrats? Shall we invade Zimbabwe, Charlatan? Burma? Venezuela? Cuba? If not, how would you deal with those brutal regimes? Economically and diplomatically, in cooperation with our allies and regional players, I would hope. Just saying.
………….uh, there is still no written STRATEGY for our efforts in Iraq . There never has been any , no guidance from the civilian leaders in the form of a written strategy(Wolfie?- he wanted the war ,but No , ‘Barney’ Fife? - no, VP Cheney? He declared that we were gonna do this at some DAV speech and surprised everyone long before we got involved with it , but No , Gen T. Franks ? (great tactics , but strategy)-no , The Bush Administration?-no , Gen Sanchez?-no-but a very likeable macro guy , remember Rummy?-no , Gen. Petraeous?-probably , maybe our only hope) ….no formal orders from the top brass with a clear and written strategy….no stategy from the CPA ( what authority does the CPA have ? Fed? Mil? ) .
There has been many great Tatcics employed , some aimlessly , some effective , but all seemed to be successful thanks to the hard work of the troops and civillian volunteers over there , but , gee-whiz ….what is the ultimate roadmap /endstate that clearly States what we are supposed to see as the result ?
How about we eventually learn from VietNam that we have to have an idea of what endstate we want before we go and do something like this again? Maybe , say , not let the congressmen give the Pres the nod to go ahead without some WRITTEN formal declaration of what our country is going to do BEYOND the fighting component (which we do very very WELL thanks to our professional Armed Forces) and exactly state what we are going to do after the bullets slow down and infrastructure and democracy building begins….to lead us to the ENDSTATE which we can measure and use an idea of how to get out of the situation once we have ‘finished’ ? Right now we have no idea written or otherwise for what constitutes ‘finished’…so we have to keep going and going and…..’til when?
You nibble nuts have been brain washed, and will continue to remain mind pimped to thinking
the Iraq war had any thing to do with 9/11. It’s all about the OIL$$$. Bin Laden live in a cave in Afghanistan not Iraq. Wake Up! Ask the many families who has lost their love ones due to this republican lie. Your Republican candidate has been in Washington for over two decades. Why hasn’t anything been thus far. Yes, he is a true American Hero and if elected will give you the same as the last 8, ZERO. Since you so called republicans have had control of the White House for the last 8 years and been economically enriched, buckle up. You will be saluting a new change for all Americans in Nov. That candidate will be President Obama. So, take the sheet off your head, it’s a new sheriff town. Peace!!