Katie Couric Questions Obama’s Duplicity On Iraq Surge

• July 23, 2008

An interesting exchange from an interview between CBS’ Katie Couric and Barack Obama which will appear tonight:

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 …
Obama: Yes.
Couric … 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. What I can say is that there’s no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that– not just today, not just yesterday, but I’ve said that– previously. What that doesn’t change is that we’ve got to have a different strategic approach if we’re going to make America as safe as possible.

Here’s what’s interesting about Obama’s claim that we could have diverted the resources we used in Iraq to Afghanistan: Obama’s alternative to the surge in Iraq was to exert diplomatic pressure by setting a date for withdrawal. Obama thought that by setting a date for retreating from Iraq in stone the Iraqi government would be pressured into getting their act together.
If Obama thought that would work in Iraq, why is he proposing another surge for Afghanistan instead of a withdrawal date that would pressure the Afghani government into getting their act together?
Could it be because Obama’s foreign policy is based on political expediency instead of a desire for sound foreign policy?

Tags: Asshats, Domestic Issues, Politics, The Loony Left, War On Terror

http://Array Jeugenen

ISRAEL’S SUSTAINABLE PARASITISM ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Israel and the American Neo-Con/Neo-Lib Diaspora notoriously donate thousands of dollars to elect corruptible American presidential and congressional officials, who then repay Israel a thousand fold from precious tax revenues; with millions of dollars worth of technologically advanced military equipment and services, and with the priceless lives of thousands of young patriots. In the case of the un-Constitutional Iraq War, Podhoretz Neo-Con Bush sacrificed over a trillion dollars and the lives of 4,000 young patriots, to sole benefit of Israel.
lucky13

The wheels are coming off the “CHANGE BUS”, now that he has to explain his overseas policy on fighting 2 wars. I watched the Katie Couric interview and he was a lost for word. Did he think his buddies in the media would not ask any tough questions. He knows best how to fight a war, not the 4 star general in charge of fixing a WAR in Iraq that many thought couldn’t be turned around. I by the way didn’t think we could turn things around, but I will say I stand corrected, and I’m glad we are winning in Iraq.
http://www.kellypersonaltraining.com/method.html John Austin personal trainer

OBH 11-22-06 “Given the deteriorating situation it is clear at this point that we cannot through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have expect that somehow the situation will improve.”

OBH Today — “There might have been improvement without our military”.

He has put all his chips on the surge failing, and it has been a spectacular success. Ask Katie C., today finally she reported the overwhelmingly positive numbers.
http://www.wethepeopleforum.com/forum/forums.asp golfmann

Is he now become clairvoyant in answering questions before they are asked?

Whats up with that?
http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

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.

Whew he sounds like a broken 8 track tape.
Neiman

Obama should support Nuclear Power, because to run his gigantic 24/7 Spin Machine eats up enough power to take care of all the energy needs in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
http://www.larryeubank.com/ lge

That’s such a typical Democrat line! They always pretend to want “something else.” They don’t want soldiers in Iraq because they want them … somewhere else. They don’t want nuclear energy or coal or natural gas because they want … something else. But they’re sure to object if that “something else” ever did come true.

Sneaking, lying hypocrites.
WOOFX

Couric

talking microcosmically

WTF?
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Poodle,

WTF?

Hey, don’t expect us to explain it. She’s one of yours.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Katie Couric Questions Obama’s Duplicity On Iraq Surge

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments