Let me be clear: I was for the mosque before I was against it

  Over at Time Magazine is a joke of an article written by the leftwinger Mark Halperin exhorting Republicans not to use the mosque issue against Obama. Apparently it's too...emotional, and the rhetoric is too....intense and therefore people might get hurt, or something. The truth is that 80% of this country is against Obama on this issue and democrats rightly see it as an incredibly potent wedge issue to use against every single democrat candidate running in this country for the November election. IOW, Time mag is running interference for the brilliant duds in the White House.
  On this same issue, as most people know by now, Obama has taken both sides of the issue. One day, he's speaking at a dinner for Muslims celebrating a Muslim holiday supporting the mosque in no uncertain terms and the next day "the White House" clarified that these opinions were Obama's personal opinions and not "the White House's."
  One day last summer, Dear Leader saw fit to intervene and comment on a local Cambridge police event, while this weekend he said it was inappropriate to talk about local events. One day he supports the mosque, the next he walks it back. This brilliant politician just may not be as smart as he thinks, as Meyer at The American Thinker asserts:

Yet no one, anywhere in the world, ever had trouble understanding what President Bush was saying.

President Obama, on the other hand, is invariably described by these same people as brilliant -- indeed, the most articulate carbon-based life form ever to have walked the Earth.

So how come every time President Obama opens his mouth to state his position on some issue -- as he did this weekend, speaking about his support for that mosque near Ground Zero -- the White House scrambles to issue a "clarification" -- followed less than a day later by an "elaboration" of the clarification?