It’s All About the Photo Op
Claire ‘There’s Nothing Inconsistent’ McCaskill appeared on Meet the Press Sunday. In a short period of time, she tried telling Tom Brokaw that Barack Obama hasn’t changed his policy towards hightailing it out of Iraq. Here’s the video and decide for yourself:
Better yet, study this transcript featuring Claire McCaskill doing her best to spin her way out of a difficult situation:
MR. BROKAW: Senator McCaskill, your own candidate has had his own difficulties this past week in explaining his positions, sometimes in the same day. Let’s begin with a well-known, now, sound bite about what he would do in Iraq. He’s planning a trip there. This is what he had to say two weeks ago in Fargo, North Dakota, something that you supported in the same day in Kansas City. Here’s Senator Obama talking about his plans for Iraq.
(Videotape, July 3, 2008)
SEN. OBAMA: I’ve always said that I would listen to commanders on the ground. I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed, and when I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.
(End videotape)
MR. BROKAW: And later that same day, as you know, Senator Obama called the press together again because he wanted to clarify, as he put it, his earlier remarks. Here’s what he had to say at that time.
(Videotape)
SEN. OBAMA: I intend to end this war my first day in office. I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades per month, and again, that pace translates into having our, our combat troops out in 16 months’ time.
(End videotape)
MR. BROKAW: That confused even some of his most ardent supporters. If he goes to Iraq, and commanders on the ground, to whom he says he will listen, say, “Look, we could use 20 months, or maybe even 24 months,” will he stick to his 16-month timetable in calling the Joint Chiefs in the day after he’s inaugurated?
SEN. CLAIRE McCASKILL (D-MO): Listen, there is nothing inconsistent about Barack Obama’s position on Iraq. From the very beginning of this campaign, he has said very clearly his mindset is we must get out as carefully and as quickly as possible. There is nothing that he has said that contradicts that. Part of getting out carefully and quickly is listening to commanders on the ground. No commander in chief would ever say, “I’m not going to listen to the guys on the ground.” And that’s all he said is he’s going to listen in terms of how we get out. But the mindsets are very different here. You have Barack Obama saying we simply cannot afford, either from a position of national security or our economy, to keep borrowing $10 billion dollars a month from China to be mired in this civil conflict in Iraq, whereas John McCain’s position, his mindset is very clear, “We’re going to stay, and we’re not going to change in terms of our position in Iraq.” So we have two different mindsets, and I think most Americans understand that.
Here’s where Brokaw nails Sen. McCaskill:
MR. BROKAW: But, let me be clear about this, he says he’ll listen to commanders on the ground. He’s going there. But before he goes there, he says, “The day after I’m inaugurated, I’ll have Joint Chiefs in the office with instructions to get them out in 16 months.”
SEN. McCASKILL: But…
MR. BROKAW: So the real question is why even go if you know that you want to do that in advance?
There’s no dodging that. Game. Set. Match.
What’s just happened is that Tom Brokaw just exposed the fact that Sen. Obama’s trip is purely show, that it isn’t a fact-finding mission. Frankly, it’s about CYA, political cover. His mind’s made up. The generals are just photo op window dressing.
The question that keeps lingering for me is this: Does Sen. Obama have such a strident attitude about Iraq that hsi only interest in visiting is for the photo op, the CYA session?
Another lingering question is this: Why should the New Media let him go through with the show as though it was a legitimate trip? This isn’t a substantive visit.
One thing that’s undeniable now is that Sen. Obama isn’t about substance. Sen. Obama is the photo op guy, the unserious candidate.
Here’s a question I’d love to ask Sen. Obama:
If what’s happening in Iraq is irrelevant, how can you say that your policy is based on information, not ideology or on pandering to your anti-war activist base? Unserious candidates make decisions based almost entirely on the wishes of a power special interest group. Serious candidates set policy by listening to the experts.
Now we know which category Sen. Obama fits in.
Technorati Tags: Iraq, Obama, Claire McCaskill, Photo Op, Anti-War Activists, Election 2008
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
July 14th, 2008 at 2:52 am
If he hasn’t shifted opinion, why have elements of the far left and the media begun to turn on him? And why has he had a drop in the polls? We are learning more about Obama as time goes by and it seems stubbornness is one of his characteristics. He can deny he’s shifting positions, which he is, but in the long run it will cost him as more and more people see it to be true.
July 14th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Maybe Goldwater, its because the right wing lie machine is at full speed distorting what he says and the jello heads soaking it up as if it were the truth.
See Goldwater
July 14th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Sen. McCaskill was so eager to change the subject as the truth was undeniable–1) Sen Obama has no clue what is going on in Iraq and how to handle the situation, and 2) He’ll say anything for votes, regardless if it makes any sense whatsoever or is completely opposite of what he said a short time earlier. What always surprises me is some people fall for this approach. I also feel sorry for the young people supporting him as their disillusionment is inevitable as they learn this “change” he is promising is just a lot of smoke and mirrors.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Obama is making it more and more difficult for his constituents to defend his positions on the issues, as they keep “changing” (which I guess is what he promises - “change”). It’s like playing musical chairs with the man, he’ll sit in whatever chair is available when the music stops, no matter which side of the room it’s on. Tom Brokaw did in fact do an excellent job here, and there’s no wiggle room for Sen. McCaskill. I predict it won’t be much longer before there’s no wiggle room for Obama, either. To stand up and say “I haven’t cchanged my position” doesn’t make it so. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, well, it’s probably a duck, isn’t it?
July 14th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Anne, How can you say that Obama has no clue about Iraq when he has been CONSISTANTLY correct on Iraq since before the war started. Hell, even Bush and malaki want our troops out Now. Maybe he is psycic?? OR HE HAS A CLUE ABOUT IRAQ.
Who wanted to get the troops back into the real fight with the ACTUAL ones who attacked us?? Oh yea, Obama.
If McBushocrat wants to see some real flip flops, not ones created by the RNC out of whole cloth, then look at John McBush over the last couple years. WOW, cant wait for the 527 adds on him. we at least have video and tape to show the facts, you just have Sean , Rush, and Faux news to tell you what they THINK OBAMA MEANT.
lol
They are all FOLLOWING HIS LEAD and you laughably claim that he has “no clue”.
Funny stuff Anne