Campaigner Obama: “As president I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.” President Obama: “Ixnay on the EnocideJay”
President Obama on Monday declined to repeat his claim that the deaths of up to 1.5 million Armenians during World War I was a “genocide,” stepping back from his campaign pledge to Armenian Americans that the “widely documented fact” would be fully commemorated during his presidency.
During a joint news conference alongside Turkish President Abdullah Gul, Obama said he did not want to “focus on my views” or in any way interfere with delicate negotiations between Turks and Armenians on what the president called “a whole host of issues.”
Obama sidestepped the issue — a key tension point between Turks and Armenians and a rallying cry among Armenian-Americans — saying he was trying to be as “encouraging as possible.”
“I want to be as encouraging as possible around those negotiations, which are moving forward and could bear fruit very quickly, very soon,” Obama said. “What I want to do is not focus on my views right now but focus on the views of the Turkish and Armenian people. What I told the (Turkish) president is I want to be as constructive as possible in moving these issues forward quickly. My sense is that they are moving quickly. I don’t want to, as the president of the United States, want to preempt any possible arrangements, announcements that might be made in the near future.”
When asked if his views had changed or he was tempering them in light of the fragile Turkish-Armenian talks, Obama said he is not interested in “tilting these negotiations one way or another while they are having useful discussions.”
“THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that General Petraeus is planning on delivering the commencement address at the University of Iowa in 2010.” reports Michael Goldfarb.
But everyone knows that the only reason to go to Iowa for anything ever is to run for President…right? How likely is it?
Petraeus going to Iowa, a state he doesn’t have previous ties to, is going to create a huge amount of buzz about his presidential ambitions because the Iowa Caucuses kick off the whole presidential nomination process. If he does, deliver the address—and Petraeus must know this—it will be seen as a sign that he is thinking about running in 2012.
Previously, it has been thought that Petraeus would not run against a president who had been his Commander in Chief. But there are reports of tension between Petraeus and Obama over both Iraq and Afghan strategy.
Very little is known about Petraues’s politics and no one knows how he would make the transition from soldier to politician. But if he did enter the race, it would shake things up dramatically. He would instantly become a top tier candidate and the most serious threat to Obama’s chances of winning a second term.
He’d certainly have a case to make in the Foreign Policy arena, besides his obvious credentials, there is the matter of Iraq policy specifically that led ForeignPolicy.com to ask: Is it the Obama plan of 2009, or the Petraeus plan of 2007?
Is there any difference between the plan for U.S. troops levels in Iraq that President Obama unveiled recently and this plan that General Petraeus presented to Congress back in 2007? My guess, looking at the general’s envisioned drawdown, is: A little, but not much. (Remember that the plan for a post-2010 “non-combat mission” calls for two combat brigades, re-named advisory units.)
How could a famous stickler for grammar have bungled that 35-word passage, among the best-known words in the Constitution? Conspiracy theorists and connoisseurs of Freudian slips have surmised that it was unconscious retaliation for Senator Obama’s vote against the chief justice’s confirmation in 2005. But a simpler explanation is that the wayward adverb in the passage is blowback from Chief Justice Roberts’s habit of grammatical niggling.
Language pedants hew to an oral tradition of shibboleths that have no basis in logic or style, that have been defied by great writers for centuries, and that have been disavowed by every thoughtful usage manual. Nonetheless, they refuse to go away, perpetuated by the Gotcha! Gang and meekly obeyed by insecure writers.
Among these fetishes is the prohibition against “split verbs,” in which an adverb comes between an infinitive marker like “to,” or an auxiliary like “will,” and the main verb of the sentence. According to this superstition, Captain Kirk made a grammatical error when he declared that the five-year mission of the starship Enterprise was “to boldly go where no man has gone before”; it should have been “to go boldly.” Likewise, Dolly Parton should not have declared that “I will always love you” but “I always will love you” or “I will love you always.”
Any speaker who has not been brainwashed by the split-verb myth can sense that these corrections go against the rhythm and logic of English phrasing. The myth originated centuries ago in a thick-witted analogy to Latin, in which it is impossible to split an infinitive because it consists of a single word, like dicere, “to say.” But in English, infinitives like “to go” and future-tense forms like “will go” are two words, not one, and there is not the slightest reason to interdict adverbs from the position between them.
All in all, things are getting off to a bumpy start for the new administration…
Welcome to the post-racial age! *que audience laughter*
This ridiculous poem was made at the inauguration that was made triple-diculous considering its basis is that he hopes for a day when whites will do whats right (good thing that’s not racist). I guess electing the first black president wasn’t enough. C’MON WHITE PEOPLE!
Google News Search for “Rick Warren” and “controversial” and you’ll get hundreds of hits. Warren’s controversy was that he agreed with Obama on same sex marriage, which upset gay activists because they assume Obama is and has been lying about his non-support for same sex marriage, so palling around with this pastor who “agrees” with him is an outrage. Bill Ayers, notsomuch. And the racist poem guy? Ya. not a big deal either.
The recitation of the presidential oath came in fits and starts.
The Constitution prescribes the text: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
But Chief Justice John Roberts, using no notes, flubbed his lines, and Obama knew it.
First, Obama jumped in before the “do solemnly swear” phrase, which seemed to throw the chief justice off his stride. Roberts rendered the next phrase as “that I will execute the office of President to the United States faithfully.”
“That I will execute,” Obama repeated, then paused like a school teacher prompting his student with a slight nod. Roberts took another shot at it: “The off … faithfully the pres … the office of President of the United States.”
The oath then got more or less back on track after that. Close enough for government work.
NBC’s Abby Livingston adds the transcript:
ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama…
OBAMA: I, Barack…
ROBERTS: … do solemnly swear…
OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear…
ROBERTS: … that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully…
OBAMA: … that I will execute…
ROBERTS: … faithfully the office of president of the United States…
OBAMA: … the office of president of the United States faithfully…
ROBERTS: … and will to the best of my ability…
OBAMA: … and will to the best of my ability…
ROBERTS: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
OBAMA: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
ROBERTS: So help you God?
OBAMA: So help me God.
ROBERTS: Congratulations, Mr. President.
This left Fox News Christ Wallace to humorously that he wasn’t sure who is actually President now…
The point is actually valid, as the oath is a Constitutional requirement. Since it was botched, he technically was not president and thus re-took the oath of office, just to be on the safe side. Yes, we’re serious.
Appearing on Fox News’ late night show Red Eye talking about her latest book, Ann Coulter responded to a question asking who she wants in 2012 with none other than Ron Paul, the Libertarian underdog, postulating that by then the war would be over and she agrees with him on everything else so he would be perfect to do the “cleaning up” that will allegedly be necessary after the Obama administration.
The discussion focussed mostly on Ann’s recent appearance on The View, but moved to the main premise of her book about phony “victims” who are really victimizers and her excitement over Obama’s inauguration.
Here’s the video. The Ron Paul part comes at the end.
Be the First to Comment 
