Obama, Clinton Both Cite Iraq Progress, Say It's Not Enough
Sen. Barack Obama addressed the VFW convention crowd today. (Bloomberg)
In the last two days, Democratic front-runners Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both laid out a surprising position for a pair of Senators who vocally opposed a troop surge in Iraq earlier this year: they've said that, at least in some ways, it's working.
Clinton, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Kansas City yesterday, said "we've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it's working."
Asked about his rival's comments, Obama, in a conference call with reporters today said "I didn't see the actual transcript of Senator Clinton's speech, but my assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our troops into Baghdad, that's going to quell some of the violence in the short term. I don't think there's any doubt that as long as U.S. troops are present that they are going to be doing outstanding work."
At the same time -- and ahead of the much-anticipated September report of General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq on progress there -- both candidates signaled that no matter what Petraeus says, they are not going to support allowing additional time for the surge to work. Clinton said "we're just years too late changing out tactics," while Obama argued "it doesn't change the underlying assessment that there's not a military solution to the situation in Iraq. The underlying political dynamic has not changed."
In his VFW speech today, Obama called for "zero tolerance" for veterans from becoming homeless, but he, like Clinton the day before, shaped his comments carefully in front of an audience that has more nuanced views on the war than the Democratic activists the candidates are often addressing.
"I know all of us don't agree on everything," Obama said. "I have heard those of you who disagree with me. I want you to know that I respect the views of all who come to this hall today. I will listen to them as a candidate, and I will listen to them as President."
Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, who spoke before Obama at the convention, took a swipe at both. He said the U.S. must rebuild its military to fight global terrorism because leaders "took a holiday" in the 1990s after the end of the Cold War, no doubt a reference to the administration of Sen. Clinton's husband. And he argued against withdrawing troops from Iraq.
"Some people in this country think if we can pull out of Iraq, our problems will be over," Thompson, who is expected to declare his candidacy for the GOP nomination next month, told the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "You and I know better than that."
-- Perry Bacon Jr.
Posted at 1:35 PM ET on Aug 21, 2007
Share This: 
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Asset Management |
Next: Could Obama Pull Off
His 30 Percent Solution?
Get This Widget >>
Comments
Posted by: gthstonesman | August 22, 2007 7:42 PM | Report abuse
So what do you think? Is the new military surge working to win the war in Iraq? a) yes b) no c) undecided
Vote at http://www.pollicious.com
Posted by: JengoPop | August 22, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse
All I can say is I am voting for the person who changes the things they have the ability to change.
Bush started the military invasion of Iraq. I am not understanding why Dems need to be the experts in fixing it.
Who can fix this situation in Iraq?
Listen to the troops that just came back:::
"At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. "Lucky" Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal."
If the leader of Iraq talks with the leaders in Syria, we hate them.
If the leaders of Iraq talk to the leaders of Iran, we hate them.
How can a leader do what is right when we tell him he cannot do it!
Its our plan that failed. Its Bushes plan that failed.
Only a jerk outstays his welcome.
The US went from seriously stupid to seriously looking like a country of jerks that don't know when the heck to stop doing something there no good at doing!
The problem is the US.
Posted by: vicbennettnet | August 22, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse
The American anti-war left might be much more effective if one of its primary (mis)leaders hadn't spent six months at the offices of the Central Intelligence Agency, at the same time that he was starting his "progressive" blog.
This is a link to the speech by Markos C.A. Moulitsas Zúñiga, presented at the Commonwealth Club on June 2, 2006, in San Francisco. In this speech, Moulitsas acknowledges his CIA involvement and calls the CIA a "very liberal organization" whose "heart is in the right place" and where he would be willing to work in the present.
But, don't take my word for it! Listen to the speech:
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/06/06-06zuniga-audio.html
Posted by: francislholland | August 22, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse
The comments by Democrats citing military progress in Iraq only show what happens when a political party still doesn't have a strategy for foreign policy. It's all prevent defense and will lead to defeat in 2008. Those who cite progress in Iraq especially in Anbar province don't have the facts. Any reduction in violence has happened not because of American troops but because sunni militia's have turned against radical jihadists. This has reduced violence but has probably weakened Iraq over the long run. Stronger sunni milita's mean a weaker central government and more weapons to fuel and civil war against the Shia. The whole purpose of the surge was to give the Iraq's an opening for political reconciliation. Instead we see more conflict between the different groups and a rise in violence withing the various factions as the shown by the killing of two governor's in the south. The result will be a prolonging of a meaningless and cruel war. Democrats in Congress should refuse to fund the war unless a plan for withdrawal of a significant amount of troops is implemented and a transfer of troops to Afghanistan where the real Al Queda exists is implemented.
Posted by: steven08817 | August 22, 2007 10:25 AM | Report abuse
Anbar isn't improving because of the increase in American troops there. It is improving because the local Sunni leaders have united with us (their "lesser" enemy) against their "greater" enemy, the foreign fighters.
They saw a BENEFIT to uniting with us in our efforts to end the cycle of violence.
Until the Sunnis - and the Kurds - throughout Iraq see a greater benefit in working with the Shi'ite majority than in fighting them to the death, NO surge of American troops, HOWEVER large (or long in duration), can address the CAUSE of the violence in Iraq.
Every faction must feel that its rights to safety and equality have been secured.
So the solution to the violence must be a political one.
We need to get it - as a nation - very clearly that peace at the point of a gun is NOT peace. In the short term, it can bring an uneasy truce; but in the long term, it's just another form of tyranny.
We need to get serious about making our leaders here in the US address the cause of the divisions in Iraq - and that means pursuing EVERY avenue that is available - not just suppress its symptoms.
Otherwise, we'll have a virtually endless quagmire on our hands.
Posted by: miraclestudies | August 22, 2007 8:26 AM | Report abuse
Clinton + Obama = clinbambush
What disaster! poor country!
Dems + Reps= Demuripens
Posted by: iece | August 21, 2007 11:56 PM | Report abuse
It's interesting to see Hillary dancing all over
and around the iraq war, now that she has convinced
so many democratic primary voters that she's
anti-war. She'll keep us in iraq, just like the repubs.
Posted by: julieds | August 21, 2007 8:09 PM | Report abuse
>>Uh, Perry, my friend...Clinton was talking about Anbar.
The surge isn't happening in Anbar. Wasn't planned for Anbar and wasn't implemented in Anbar.
Uh, 'warpblauble' do a little research before you insert your foot in your mouth. The troop surge allocated 3,000 (of the 28,000 or so) soldiers to Al-Anbar to quell violence there.
Your ignorance is alarming.
kthxbai
Posted by: pmizell | August 21, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse
Uh, Perry, my friend...Clinton was talking about Anbar.
The surge isn't happening in Anbar. Wasn't planned for Anbar and wasn't implemented in Anbar.
Please do some research. kthxbye.
Posted by: warpbauble | August 21, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.
She is becoming irrelevant as a result of her continuing shifts in position depending on which way the political winds are blowing.
The last couple of days have been very un-Clinton-esque in that she has repeatedly contradicted herself and provided tons of ammunition to her rivals on both the Democratic and Republican sides of the ticket.
If she has many more incidents like this, Obama and Edwards will be the ones fighting it out for the Democratic nomination.
Bill can't be proud.