Tuesday, July 22, 2008

According to today's blogs, the katie couric interview disqualifies both candidates

I really like it when the blogs concentrate on the same event. so much of the blogosphere is divided into right and left, and they rant on about different things, but apparently today, katie couric (CBS) interviewed both Sens McCain and Obama. here is a bit form the Huffington Post on McCain's performance:

John McCain made a mistake this evening, which as far as I'm concerned, disqualifies him from being president. It is so appalling and so factually wrong that I'm actually sitting here wondering who McCain's advisers are. This isn't some gaffe where he talks about the Iraq-Pakistan border. It's a real misunderstanding of what has happened in Iraq over the past year. It is even more disturbing because according to John McCain, Iraq is the central front in the "war on terror." If we are going to have an Iraq-centric policy, he should at least understand what he is talking about. But anyway, what happened.

What did Sen McCain do? mispell potato(e)? point to Kansas when speaking of Saudi Arabia? Nope, got his timeline screwed up:

The surge wasn't even announced until a few months after the Anbar Awakening. Via Spencer Ackerman, here is Colonel MacFarland explaining the Anbar Awakening to Pam Hass of UPI, on September 29, 2006. That would be almost four months before the President even announced the surge. Petraeus wasn't even in Iraq yet.

So, scratch Sen McCain, he doesn't know his history.

Over at Instapundit, they are ranting about Sen Obama's disqualifying remarks to katie couric:

That was an amazing segment! CBS did an excellent job. Congratulations.
This could very well be a turning point in this year's election!
Obama came off cocky, confused and crazy. McCain was wonderful- honest, humble and smart.

Sen Obama's mistake? Other than a refusal to say he was wrong about the surge (wasn't mcCain wrong about Iraq to begin with?)....here is the reasoning:

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.
So, now Obama says the Bush surge in troops worked but defeating Al-Qaeda and Iran in Iraq was not worth it? And, if Obama believes that his plan of fleeing Iraq during the worst of the violence would have brought peace in Iraq, he is delustional.

Meanwhile, Jake Tapper is reproting on how Obama stole the victory away from the troops in his interview with ABC.
Here is Obama explaining the surge to Terry Moran:

"Well, you were saying that it would not make a significant dent in the violence," Moran said.

"In the violence in Iraq overall, right," Obama acknowledged. "So the point that I was making at the time was that the political dynamic was the driving force between that sectarian violence. And we could try to keep a lid on it, but if these underlining dynamic continued to bubble up and explode the way they were, then we would be in a difficult situation. I am glad that in fact those political dynamic shifted at the same time that our troops did outstanding work."
That must be Barack Obama's way of saying that he was wrong.

So, both are wrong and disqualified to be president. Whoooo, hoooo....Bob Barr or Ralph Nader???

No comments:

Blog Directory - Blogged The Steiger Counter at Blogged