Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1 Couric tries to pin down Obama on the surge 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,626
    Meanwhile, Couric gets slammed by George Soros's Huffington Post for pointing out Obama's doublespeak about the surge. Obama wants to say it didn't work and he wouldn't support it, but he can't really say it didn't work so he just keeps throwing out lots of words hoping that Katie Couric will go away and ask him about something else. But Couric, to her credit, is like a dog with a bone here and is trying to get a straight answer out of someone who doesn't want to give it. Good for her, but the Huffington Post insults her journalistic technique. Here's the transcript:

    COURIC: Before the surge, as you know, Senator, there were 80 to 100 U.S. casualties a month, the country was rife with sectarian violence, and you raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, "Why?"

    OBAMA: Well ... because ... what I was referring to, and I've consistently referred to, is the need for a strategy that actually concludes our involvement in Iraq and moves Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.

    COURIC: But didn't the surge ... help do that?

    OBAMA: Let me finish, Katie. What happens is that if we continue to put $10 billion to $12 billion a month into Iraq, if we are willing to send as many troops as we can muster continually into Iraq? There's no doubt that that's gonna have an impact. But it doesn't meet our long-term strategic goal, which is to make the American people safer over the long term. If that means that we're detracting from our efforts in Afghanistan, where conditions are deteriorating, if it means that we are distracted from going after Osama bin Laden who is still sending out audio tapes and is operating training camps where we know terrorists' actions are being plotted. ...

    COURIC: All that may be true. But do you not give the surge any credit for reducing violence in Iraq?

    OBAMA: No, no ... of course I have. There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our U.S. forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence, just as making sure that the Sadr militia stood down or the fact that the Sunni tribes decided to flip and work with us instead of with al-Qaeda - something that we hadn't anticipated happening.

    All those things have contributed to a reduction in violence. So this, in no way, detracts from the great efforts of our young men and women in uniform. In fact, that's one of the most striking things about visiting Iraq is to see how dedicated they are, what a great job they do - all those things ... are critically important. What I'm saying is it does not solve the broader strategic question that we have been dealing with over the last five, six, seven years. And that is how do we take the limited resources we have, both militarily and financially, and apply them in such a way that we are making America as safe as possible? And I believe that my approach is the right one.

    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. 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.
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    no-man's land in Texas
    Posts
    2,168
    I was never a Katie fan, but I have more respect for her now, after this.
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member LibraryLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    3,748
    There was a thread about this unusual interview yesterday

    http://www.conservativeunderground.c...t=katie+couric
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •