Obamateurism of the Day
posted at 8:05 am on September 28, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Barack Obama offered an odd answer to a question, caught by Chris at HAP and Ace, following an equally odd analogy. When the White House called Obama’s tough statement following the exposure of the Iranian uranium-enrichment facility a “victory,” a reporter wondered why Obama didn’t reach for that victory eight months earlier — because Obama has known of the Qom facility since the transition. Suddenly, Obama says he’s not interested in victory:
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. You just mentioned sanctions that have bite. What kinds of sanctions — and I know you can’t get into details — but what kinds of sanctions at all would have bite with Iran? Do you really think any kind of sanction would have an effect on somebody like Ahmadinejad?
Secondly, some of your advisors today said that this announcement was a “victory.” Do you consider it a victory? And if so, why didn’t you announce it earlier since you’ve known since you were President-elect?
THE PRESIDENT: This isn’t a football game, so I’m not interested in victory; I’m interested in resolving the problem.
First, this points out the continuing problems with White House messaging. It was Obama’s own advisers who referred to it as a victory, apparently without consulting Obama himself — or possibly with Obama waffling on how to square this “victory” with the eight months of silence that preceded it. But even apart from that amateurish stumble, since when does an American President stand up and say he’s not interested in victory? Resolving this so that Iran doesn’t wind up with nukes would definitely be a victory for the West … one in which this President has declared himself uninterested. That certainly sends a great signal to our friends and enemies.
Got an Obamateurism of the Day? If you see a foul-up by Barack Obama, e-mail it to me at obamaisms@edmorrissey.com with the quote and the link to the Obamateurism. I’ll post the best Obamateurisms on a daily basis, depending on how many I receive. Include a link to your blog, and I’ll give some link love as well. And unlike Slate, I promise to end the feature when Barack Obama leaves office.
Illustrations by Chris Muir of Day by Day. Be sure to read the adventures of Sam, Zed, Damon, and Jan every day!
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
1995
1984?
maverick muse on September 28, 2009 at 9:42 AM
John Bolton’s unloading on Laura Ingraham
maverick muse on September 28, 2009 at 9:43 AM
unloading on Obama /on the show, not on Laura
maverick muse on September 28, 2009 at 9:44 AM
He can decide to flit to Europe on a whim but the filthy liar is dithering with troop deployments to Afghanistan for an indefinite period of time?
Somebody needs to wake me up when they agree that we’re in domestic enemy territory.
highhopes on September 28, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Oh, if Chicago gets the Olympics it will be great! Doesn’t the south side of Chicago have wars over gang turf and more murders than anywhere else? The whole idea is stupid and I do not think Obama cares if Iran nukes the hell out of Israel. He hung around with Kalidi after all.
TXMomof3 on September 28, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Let’s see…victory with Iran would mean:
1) No threat of nuclear attack on Isreal
2) No Iranians or Iranian made weapons killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan
3) No threat of an expanded nuclear war maybe even involving Europe
4) No nuclear weapons threat from Latin America
5) Perhaps an overthrow of Ahmedinijad and the mullas by the people of Iran
6) No Iranian terrorists with dirty bombs coming from the mid-east to the U.S. through our OPEN SOUTHERN BORDER (oops sorry going off-thread).
Yeah…we definitely don’t want victory! /s
What a jerk we have for President.
Christian Conservative on September 28, 2009 at 9:47 AM
I’m not disagreeing with your point. All I’m saying is that for all we know, those children were singsonging some morning prayer that had nothing to do with America and someone put up a convenient translation.
And then we look like the idiots taking it at face value. I don’t know who that youtube poster is. I prefer going to jihadwatch.org or atlasshrugs.com because I trust Robert Spencer and Pamela Gellars research.
CarolynM on September 28, 2009 at 10:35 AM
He DID say he’s interested in resolving the situation. So what’s the problem? He doesn’t want to call it “victory”?
If he’d said that about Afghanistan, then I’d have a real problem with it.
It’s diplomacy, not war.
therightscoop on September 28, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Why can’t he get into details? We want to hear some details! Like, maybe stop selling refined fuel to Iran, since they don’t have enough refineries?
Wouldn’t “resolving the problem” be a victory? Depends on how it is resolved.
Just wait. Bibi Netanyahu will “resolve” this problem. Things might get ugly, but Bibi wants a victory.
Steve Z on September 28, 2009 at 10:38 AM
To paraphrase Pogo, we have met the enemy and he’s in the White House.
Steve Z on September 28, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Can we vote for “Obamateurism of the Week” now?
Left Coast Right Mind on September 28, 2009 at 10:49 AM
If only Obama could think of Iran as like Fox News. I bet he would be interested in victory then.
jukin on September 28, 2009 at 11:27 AM
It was the Won, without his TOTUS.
On your question, this is not an “American President”. This is a Utopian world fiction character. He believes it himself.
Schadenfreude on September 28, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Not so fast there. Give the 0 time to surprise you. He always manages to surprise me with the new depths he sinks to.
Rosmerta on September 28, 2009 at 11:57 AM
This a$$hole of a president is like a piece of tofu which has been marinating in liberal sauce his entire life. Since he has no true flavor of his own, he can only offer up the stale flavors of the liberalism in which he was raised.
He has no moral compass, he and his ilk are Chicago style grifters.
LA Conservative on September 28, 2009 at 12:48 PM
The only war Obama is waging is against the U.S.A.! Everything makes perfect sense when one sees what he is trying to do! A state of war exists between Obama and freedom loving free-enterprise capitalist citizens of the U.S.! As in any war the only acceptable outcome is “WE Win! Obama(and his DemocratCommunists) Lose!!Fight every day, Every way you can against everything they attempt!
Marco on September 28, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Face palm.
Bru on September 28, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Victory can only be achieved by Imperialist Nations, therefore…..
Obama. Emboldening tyrants and dictators since Jan.20th, 2009.
I am a proud American Capitalist Pig, and because of that, Obamas enemy.
Army Brat on September 28, 2009 at 4:54 PM
In what has unfolded as Obama’s uncanny knack of his forward thinking, almost clairvoyant like, he has gone to Denmark to get the Olympics to confirm that they will be held in Chicago, Illinois.
He knows, by this time, he will no longer be president, and can charge Olympic fans for parking in his yard exorbitant parking fees.
Cybergeezer on September 28, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Priorities, people! Priorities!
There’s millions of dollars of graft up for grabs! The Community Organizer in Chief isn’t going to miss a chance to line the pockets of his Chicago Machine pals.
jana on September 28, 2009 at 11:26 PM
He can’t get into details because he doesn’t know anything about anything that’s going on.
Have you *ever* heard him give any details about one of his hare-brained schemes?
jana on September 28, 2009 at 11:28 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2