Another interesting take from
Katie Couric's interview with Barack Obama:
Couric: You said not too long ago that
Jerusalem should remain undivided. And then you backtracked on that
statement. Does that play into the argument that some believe that
someone more experienced would not have made that kind of
mistake?
Obama: Well…if you look at what happened,
there was no shift in policy or backtracking in policy. We just had
phrased it poorly in the speech. That has happened and will happen
to every politician. You're not always gonna hit your mark in terms
of how you phrase your policies. But my policy hasn't changed, and
it's been very consistent. It's the same policy that Bill Clinton
has put forward, and that says that Jerusalem will be the capital
of Israel, that we shouldn't divide it by barbed wire, but that,
ultimately that is … a final status issue that has to be
resolved between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Unlike her exchange with Obama about the "surge," Couric didn't ask
any badgering follow-ups on this point. Obama's "phrased it poorly"
explanation seems rather convenient. It was in a
speech to AIPAC that Obama drew
cheers for endorsing an undivided Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
And it was only after Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas
said he "totally rejected" Obama's statement that the candidate
"backtracked" (to quote
The Washington Post) in a CNN interview.
So, when speaking to an audience of pro-Israel Jews, Obama is
staunchly pro-Israel, but then when the Palestinians complain, it's
another one of those "under the bus" moments for which the Democrat
has become notorious.
topics:
Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Israel