Krauthammer falsely claimed that Clinton "concedes that the surge 'is working' "
In his August 24 nationally syndicated column, Charles Krauthammer wrote: "When the Democratic presidential front-runner concedes that the surge 'is working' (albeit very late) against the insurgency ... the terms of the Iraq debate become narrow and the policy question simple: What do we do right now -- continue the surge or cut it short and begin withdrawal?" Krauthammer appeared to be referring to comments by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) during an August 20 speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) national convention. In fact, Clinton did not say in her speech that President Bush's troop increase in Iraq "is working," as Media Matters for America has noted. Instead, Clinton linked the improvements in Iraq's Al Anbar Province to new "tactics," not Bush's troop escalation.
According to an August 21 New York Times article, Clinton told the VFW: "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it's working. ... We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again." The Times also reported that "[a]ides to Mrs. Clinton said her remarks that military tactics in Iraq are 'working' referred specifically to reports of increased cooperation from Sunnis leading to greater success against insurgents in Al Anbar Province." And according to an April 29 Times article on improvements in Al Anbar, the progress there "began last September" -- months before Bush announced his plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq.
Furthermore, Clinton's statement to the VFW that the new "tactics" being employed in Al Anbar Province are "working" is not new. An August 23 New York Daily News article on the VFW speech reported that she made similar comments in March: "Camp Clinton insisted she was talking only about a limited improvement in Anbar, linked to better relations with tribal leaders -- a claim she made to the Daily News in March." Clinton was also quoted in a May 7 New York Observer article saying, "We are making some progress it turns out, in what is called Al Anbar province against al Qaeda, and the reason we are is that our military leaders have learned a lot in the last several years there and they have made common cause with some of the tribal leaders."
From Krauthammer's August 24 column:
As critics acknowledge military improvement, the administration is finally beginning to concede the political reality that the Maliki government is hopeless. Bush's own national security adviser had said as much in a leaked memo back in November. I and others have been arguing that for months. And when [Sen. Carl] Levin [D-MI] returned and openly called for the Iraqi parliament to vote out the Maliki government, the president pointedly refused to contradict him.
This convergence about the actual situation in Baghdad will take some of the drama out the highly anticipated Petraeus moment next month. We know what the general and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are going to say when they testify before Congress because multiple sources have already told us what is happening on the ground.
There will, of course, be the Harry Reids and those on the far left who will deny inconvenient reality. Reid will continue to call the surge a failure, as he has since even before it began. And the left will continue to portray Gen. David Petraeus as an unscrupulous commander quite prepared to send his troops into a hopeless battle in order to advance his political ambitions (although exactly how that works is not clear).
But the serious voices will prevail. When the Democratic presidential front-runner concedes that the surge "is working" (albeit very late) against the insurgency, and when Petraeus himself concedes that the surge cannot continue indefinitely, making inevitable a drawdown of troops sometime in the middle of next year, the terms of the Iraq debate become narrow and the policy question simple: What do we do right now -- continue the surge or cut it short and begin withdrawal?
MMFA has performed a valuable service. By citing the various incarnations of this lie, we get to see the GOP propaganda machine in action, as it circulates a talking point among the usual suspects.
Clintonspeak to her anti-war base; Tactics does not mean surge.
Clintonspeak to her moderate base; Tactics might mean surge, not sure yet?
I don't think that Clinton HAS an anti war base, as she voted for the "war" orginally (or authorization to use force in Iraq) and has continued to support funding it throughout her Senatorial duties. I don't believe that anyone would actually believe that Clinton could be anti war. SHe hasn't proven that as of yet.
AIPAC also loves here. Not the most mundane bunch those folks.
If I'm looking for an anti war candidate, I'd be looking over towards Kucinich, or even Obama to a certain extent, not Clinton as moderate as she is.
Clinton's been anti-war ever since the Democratic primary race started. She's a political opportunist just like most other politicians. Mitt Romney's the same way on the Republican side.
"Clinton's been anti-war ever since the Democratic primary race started. She's a political opportunist just like most other politicians. Mitt Romney's the same way on the Republican side."
Well Rino I do agree with you about that but I think her being anti war today is more than just the Presidential race. The war has been a disaster.
Even though she says she is, her votes, and you know, those pesky facts state otherwise. If she were so "anti war" as you wish that she were, she would stop voting to fund it, but alas, she doesn't, so she's not. Again, don't let facts get in the way of a good story of opportunism from you, and the whole "both sides do it" argument.
Hillary was one of just 13 Democrats in the Senate to vote against the last war funding bill. She's stated over and over again that we should withdraw from Iraq.
If Clinton wants to win her party's primary, the least she can do is pay them lip service, or the least she has to do.
Magnolialover, you may want to rethink Obama if that is your criteria. From what I have seen he has voted the same way Clinton has (with the exception of the original vote which he wa not in the senate for). His plan for Iraq pretty much matches up to Clinton's. Neither believe in immediate withdrawel so if that is what you are looking for in a candidate Obama may not be the one for you either. Kucinich and Gravel are the only ones I have heard about that would fit the bill.
This is why, right now, I'm behind Kucinich. He is the liberal I've been looking for in this race. Sadly, he won't get the nomination, but I can back him until he loses out on primary season at least. I like his ideas and what he's saying a lot. I would have liked to have seen a Kucinich/Feingold ticket.
Actually, I kind of had this fantasy of a Kucinich/Obama ticket. Feingold already has the right attitude, and the senate can use him. But Obama could use the experience for a run in 2016. By then, it would be a cake job for anybody, anyway...
Tactics never meant the surge to any Clinton base.
It never meant the surge to anyone within earshot or anyone who could read the written word.
It only meant the surge to people determined to make Hillary look bad, which furthers the conservative agenda.
Here's what Hillary said on Wednesday.
"The surge was designed to give the Iraqi government time to take steps to ensure a political solution," she said. "It has failed."
She had clearly stated her position. Anyone's who confused now is refusing to acknowledge reality.Hey, AA, here's one for you. Could it be that the GOP Parrots are trying to paint Hillary as naive, since the NIE just released makes it clear that any piecemeal "success" of the surge is meaningless in the overall picture, since there is no Iraqi government capable of capitalizing on it? Pretty good, huh?
Sounds like Clinton's position follows the NIE. Like the NIE she points to some success and like the NIE she says it is too late...won't lead to political resolution.
I think you're right. However, the Parrots are sowing the simple message, "Hillary says surge is working". Now, if the surge doesn't bring the desired results, as looks likely, they can come back later and say that Hillary was wrong, just as they'll blame their failure in Iraq on the Democrats.
At least, I think that's how Karl Rove would handle it. It's all about the Big Lie with these guys.
If you look at the NIE it shows a mixed bag.
Gains in security and no gains politically.
Everyone has noticed that the anti-war Dem candidates are now shifting their positions. They've gone from saying the military cannot win to saying the politics is unwinnable.
Yes, there are problems, serious ones still to be worked out in Iraq, but it ain't over till it's over.
See my link below. How have there been any gains in security when violence is up in all areas?
AA, you are not accurtely telling the position the dem candidates had taken. The democrats have said all along political resolution through military tactics would not succeed. Noone ever said our military would fail at their mission. Seems you are now trying to change your reality with which you view things because the truth is so obvious and can not hide from it any longer.
Not at all. The Dems have been out in front advocating defeat even though they "support the troops", saying the military side cannot be won so we needed to bring the troops home.
I'm not saying they never said the politics were unwindable but now that there is progress in the area of security, they are modifying their story so they can still bang the defeatist drum. .
The dems aren't advocating defeat any more than I am advocating gravity when I say that objecs fall to earth. They are stating reality, unlike the Repubs.
"Not at all. The Dems have been out in front advocating defeat even though they "support the troops", saying the military side cannot be won so we needed to bring the troops home."
Call it whatever you want. American troops should have never been sent to Iraq and they shouldn't be there now.
I will refrain from commenting on your silly talking point rhetoric about dems wanting defeat--parrot that all you want. But as far as them saying we could not win the military side you are not telling the truth. They have come out time and again saying the military did their part and got their part of the job done. They have always maintained that it was political resolution that was the issue--that is why they said the surge would not succeed. It is actually those on the right that focus only on the military and failed to plan for the peace. It is those on the right that refuse to acknowledge the miltary has completed their mission and political resolution is not their job to do.
Now where did you get those talking points? ;-)
Okay. You've made your obligatory sophomoric post as a reply rather than offer anything constructive. Go get your treat.
You've proven to me again that are a stalker. Because as usual, you've added nothing to the debate these past few days except repeatedly failed attempts at putdowns towards me.
Why don't you come out from hiding behind others statements. If you want to discuss, I'll be happy to discuss. If you simply want to toss out invective, you are simply acting trollish.
[I am just quoting what AA posted himself to another poster. Note how apt it is.]
Lighten up Francis.
Accusing me of relying on talking points and then going into a rant using talking points seemed to me to be a bit disingenuous. But it's a free country.
Have a great weekend!
Wow! I almost missed the absolute humor of this!
Everyone have a look:
>>Accusing me of relying on talking points and then going into a rant using talking points seemed to me to be a bit disingenuous.
I was quoting your *own* post, what *you* wrote. You didn't even recognize it!
That is funny.
You certainly have a double standard, by the way. In another thread you accuse us of have Bush Derangement syndrome, and then wondering why we can't have rational discourse and stating that we always resort to name calling. In the same post.
You love to throw out inflamatory rhetoric, but when someone does the same to you, you complain at length about them being a stalker and not arguing fairly. That's why I posted your own response.
Which you didn't even recognize!
funnymanpants, on re-reading this, I think Barney's "talking points" remark was directed at Lostlogic, and not you.
I know . it's difficult to tell where the goofier comments are directed at times.Especially as the "reply to" feature can insert a post way down a thread, I try to put a name in my comments.That way if I have my occasional incoherent one, at least everybody knows who it was intended for. ;0)
Oh and it is a real stretch to say my post is apt. But thanks for the fee pub. ;-)
No problem!
Especially when you don't recognize your own post as your own!
Not exactly they just havent supported you and Bush's lets get as many Americans killed as we possibly can policy. All along they have been saying that the military approach cannot alone bring peace to Iraq. Just because they were not hellbent to get Americans killed wholesale is not the same as being pro defeat.
I've said this many times before: the American military cannot win in Iraq because it's not their fight to win. The Iraqis are the ones who will decide which path their country takes. What the Neocons and their supporters want should not enter the equation.
"In fact, Clinton did not say in her speech that President Bush's troop increase in Iraq "is working," as Media Matters for America has noted. Instead, Clinton linked the improvements in Iraq's Al Anbar Province to new "tactics," not Bush's troop escalation"
The "new tactics" is the surge. That's the only new tactic that Bush has implemented. and it's exactly what Clinton was talking about.
Sorry, but they've also implemented an extensive "cooperation" program with local Sunni leaders. In fact, the co-author of the Army's new Counter Insurgency Field Manual was on the Daily Show last night talking about it. It has more to do with "winning hearts and minds".
To be fair, it's part of Patraeus's plan, so Bush would, by extension, get credit for it.
Take it easy on Rinohunter. He's been told that the Surge is the only change made recently in an entire war. He's also had this explained several times in the past few days.
Trying to simultaneously put two ideas into the ditto-head is pushing moral relativism.It's also like trying to make 4 slices of toast in a 2 slice toaster.
Okay. You've made your obligatory sophomoric post as a reply rather than offer anything constructive. Go get your treat.
You've proven to me again that are a stalker. Because as usual, you've added nothing to the debate these past few days except repeatedly failed attempts at putdowns towards me.
Why don't you come out from hiding behind others statements. If you want to discuss, I'll be happy to discuss. If you simply want to toss out invective, you are simply acting trollish.
Hi Barney! Who are you talking to?
Gomer,
Have a great weekend.
Have we uncovered another example of one person with two screen names?
Another American claims that you're stalking him by posting a reply to Rino?
I wondered the same exact thing. How else are we to interpret this?
Well I've got a theory.
AA obviously saw a chance to copy & paste the post you wrote to him, & use it as a post to Beach...even though Beach was addressing RINO. Maybe AA just liked your post. It was a pretty good put-down. So he wanted to use it.
Beach & AA have this Mayberry connection thing going. They've been at it for awhile now.
Beach calls AA, Barney. AA refers to Beach as Gomer, though Beach insists he's Andy.
Where do I fit in all of this? [besides the intupreter] well I'm Opie.
I'm pretty sure we've got an Aunt Bee, Floyd, Otis & other assorted characters...I just can't remember which poster is which.
Beach started the Andy Griffith thing. It caught on...
Hope that helps :-)
But AA posted first. I did the copy and paste myself. Look at the times. I think that AA didn't recognize his own post.
But down below, when he accuses HBL (Hunntington) of attacking him when HBL was attacking Rino, that occured before I cut and pasted.
Whatever.
Yeah never mind...I'm getting confused.
Well anyway we do have this neat little Mayberry thing going...
;-)
I always saw you as Otis, with your own set of keys to the cell.
Well Lapsed I'm not sure whether you're giving me a little dig here...I auditioned for the part of Otis, but Beach gave the part to someone else. So I took Opie. I like calling Beach, Paw ;-)
"But down below, when he accuses HBL (Hunntington) of attacking him when HBL was attacking Rino..."- funnymanpants
FMP, Not to nit-pick, but I never attacked anybody. I was actually defending Rino (who said in another thread that he is not Barney Fife) by asking other posters to go easy on him.
I would miss the zany Republican posters here if they left, and so I go out of my way to treat them kindly.
And I'm Gabby your sacred cowboy.
Jeter can I be Ain't Bee?
I think we already have an Aunt Bee, but you should ask Beach. He's Andy & in charge of who's who in our little town ;-)
Yeah< I think Barn may have outed himself.He seems to have gotten closer to his "meltdown zone" lately, where he's reduced to accusing responses to his (or his alter ego's) posts as "stalking" or "obsession", and using talking points like "advocating defeat" while describing others original thoughts as talking points.
He'll be back after a little rest, as full of crap and lovable as ever.I'd miss Deputy Fife if he ever lrft.
Please see my exchange above. I posted his own words, and he didn't recognize them, but accuses me of posting a rant--his own!
Some folks don't argue cleanly here. Don't mean they don't have a good point occasionally. One of many things you can learn here is trying to guess when its worth entering into a real discussion, or if your about to be trolled.
Wren Weston in "The Political Brain" offers some good tips on what possibly is going on in the brain here and how it can ignore information that its value system disgrees with.
Xcuse me that's Drew Westen.
Sue,
You've had about 5 screen names, so don't get too carried away.
According to YOU. Then again the baseless assertion is your speciality isnt it?
What's been documented in the recent past is that you are currently using at least two screen names, Rino Hunter and Another American, and probably 3 when you include JohnWiz. SueEld and CaseySpring are the same person, and that was documented by both me and Barbantio, Tommy and Wesley are likely the same poster, and there was likely others too.
On the other hand, you're alleging that I have come back as another poster. I'm not someone who posted here before.
Even if I was, that's not near as bad as having two concurrent names posting at the same time, echoing one another and standing up for one another. That's what others here are doing, and it's the same people who are doing that who are attacking me!
That's what others here are doing, and it's the same people who are doing that who are attacking me!
That was heart wrenching. You poor thing. Makes me wanna cry. Someone please hand me a tissue.
Ouch! Bad example. Since the "new tactics" used in Al-Anbar was actually the coalition forces abandoning the fight there to the Iraqis, the improvement there can only be attributed to "cutting and running".
That's gotta hurt, eh?
The "new tactics" is the surge. By Rino
In fact the "new tactics" in Anbar province are not the surge.
The new tactics are the way that the US military is interacting with the local power-brokers. It has nothing to do with the surge, and predates the surge by about 6 months.
No it isnt. Do you EVER know what you are talking about?
Once again, as MMFA pointed out, the tactics in Al Anbar was getting more cooperation from the Sunnis, as even the neo conervative *Weekly Standard* has pointed out. The violence started decreasing in Al Anbar in September, *before* the surge. Further, even if it were true that the surge decreased violence in Al Anbar--which is not the case--how does that mean it has decreased violence in the whole country? That is not even to address the issue of the lack of a political solution, part of the surge.
See this cart
washington monthly
For a rundown on how violence has increased since the surge began. This is the third analysis I have posted with this conclusion. (Iraq reporter Cockburn, as well as the McClatchy newspapers, came to the same conclusion.)
By the way, I find Krauthammer's statement "When the Democratic presidential front-runner concedes that the surge 'is working' (albeit very late) against the insurgency ... the terms of the Iraq debate become narrow and the policy question simple: What do we do right now -- continue the surge or cut it short and begin withdrawal?" amazingly dishonest. So if Hillary says gravity doesn't work, that makes it a fact?
From the Brookings Report that was referenced by your link.
After a trip of 8 days one of us (O'Hanlon) took to Iraq this July, revisions are needed in some key numbers in theraq Index. This is in part because fresh data have recently become available, and in part because the U.S. militaryand Bush administration have not done a sufficient job getting data into the American public debate. It required a trip to Iraq to get access to some information that really should be widely available on this side of the Atlantic.A more thorough accounting will follow in the coming days, but in short, civilian fatality levels in Iraq now seem toave declined substantially more than previous Pentagon reports or data had indicated. In particular, the monthlycivilian fatality rate from sectarian violence appears about one-third lower than in the pre-surge months. That is still far too high, and remains comparable to violence levels of the 2004-2005 period, but it nonetheless reflects progress.Iraq's economy is struggling along. But it is not doing nearly enough to create more jobs. There are some reports of improving electricity performance, however, and we will continue to research those. There are also more Americanprovincial reconstruction teams helping rebuild Iraq's economy, but it will take longer to see major results from their work.Metrics for assessing the progress of Iraqi security forces remain mediocre. In particular, while the United States does track the numbers of Iraqi units trained and equipped, it does not have a good system for determining theirreliability in the face of sectarian pressures and strains. There are some fledgling efforts to gauge the dependability of individual commanders, but naturally these assessments must stay secret--and broader gauges of units on the whole do not really exist.Similarly, while U.S. commanders assert that they have much more reliable intelligence, that they are finding and destroying more caches of enemy weapons, and that they are now initiating more engagements with theiropponents (rather than being ambushed), we do not yet have good data to track such trends. Again, we will continue to pursue it.On balance, Iraq at the end of July is showing significant signs of battlefield momentum in favor of U.S./coalition military forces, but there is nonetheless little good to report on the political front and only modest progress on theeconomic side of things.You have just cut and pasted without even looking at the statistics
Yes, the statistics are available for the months up to July. The violence is up.
O'Hanlon, a pro-war cheerleader who advocated for the war and who told us that Saddam had WMDs, is now saying the violence is down.
The statistics show he is a liar.
I looked at the statistics and I only cut and pasted to show you and others that the analysis is a lot different than the statistics.
You can take or leave the analysis if you like.
Yes, and if the analysis is different than the statistics, what does that say about the analysis? That it isn't worthy very much, that O'Hanlon's report is bogus, not least because he and is partner went only where the military let them.
The violence is up in Iraq, not down.
In other words the analysis is a matter of I dont care what the FACTS are, I have an ideology and I am sticking to it. Good job.
Don't worry: Gen. Hillary ( The Triangulator) will come to the rescue of all and save the day.
I wasnt worried, I am not suprised to see another incoherent and frankly dumb post by YOU however. Do you EVER do anything else?
"It required a trip to Iraq to get access to some information that really should be widely available on this side of the Atlantic"
I find this statement interesting, since he's apparently talking about statistics. What information was he able to get in person that our military couldn't get and e-mail to him? There may be a logical explanation, but this whole thing sounds like a snowjob to me.
That could be. I'd like to see his explanation too.
Yes, excellent question, to which, right now, there is no answer except "We are trying to fool you again like we did before the war, when we were so, so wrong."
There was a lot of talk about ending the occupation of Iraq and republicans were increasing becoming anxious over the situation there. The House passed a resolution to start withdrawing the troops and Senate was probably going to do the same. The war supporters including Pollack and O'Hanlon saw their dreams unraveling. The best way in their minds to stop this, was to take a guided tour of Iraq and proclaim the surge is working. Proclaiming the surge is working by an email wouldn’t have been sufficient.
The "surge" is just another delaying tactic to keep the delusion alive that some success can be achieved in Iraq. Like a police force going into a high crime area with saturation patrols. Of course crime will go down while the extra police are there, but will "surge" right back when the police leave. The only thing that will change this situation is when the police leave, the citizens of the area take it upon themselves to confront the offenders.' Clinton made this point in talking about improved relations with tribal leaders.
Applied to Iraq, this cannot happen until the U.S. soldiers withdraw.
I do not see how the surge is working and based on Krauthammers false assumption that Clinton said this just illustrates how these people are lying to further the notion that Iraq is a success.
The nit-pick contortions on this thread regarding what Hillary said, implied, didn’t say, and didn’t imply are remarkable. Slice it any way you want, not just Hillary, but many of those Democrat party leaders who, a month ago, were out in front with the message that Iraq was a lost cause are now repositioning themselves.
There are still a few holdouts, but, in case you folks haven’t noticed, most of them have done a one-eighty! The reason for this is simple: they know that taking responsibility for getting the country defeated in this war is a loser at the ballot box. So, the challenge is no longer how to get us defeated in Iraq and make it look like Bush’s fault but how to survive good news from Iraq. The latter challenge means walking a fine line between pissing off the base (most of you on this thread) and pissing off the “centrist” voter.
Good luck to the Demo base on that outcome. I’m betting it’s they who are going to be left out after the Democrat party convention.
There is no such thing as a Democrat party there is only a DemocratIC party and a ReNAMBLAcan party. The Challenge for the ReNAMBLAcan party is how to continue to get as many Americans killed as they possibly can while the war is so unpopular and the huge majority of Americans want the troops to come home. Good luck sticking with your zeal to see Americans killed wholesale
You accuse someone of writing stupid posts, and then write one of the dumbest posts in the history of the internet.
I can't say that I'm surprised: IDIOT.
Oldmarine, I think a starting pitcher has to go 5 complete innings to get credit for the win or loss.
How many years beyond his 8 year term would Bush have had to carry on this war before you'd let him accept responsibility and not try to blame "defeat" on the Dems?
Just kidding, I know there's no number that high.
The only good news that will ever come out of Iraq is when no more Americans die there.
We've already won the war, it's the occupation we're losing. We destroyed what passed for an infrastructure and fired all of the people who ran the utilities and provided security.
We put an entire nation out of work and left them armed to the teeth. We stood by and watched the munitions dumps be looted and those munitions have been killing and will kill Americans until the day we leave.
Very few occupations have gone well for the occupier. Why would this one be any different?
I'm really surprised, that you, having served you're country, would allow someone who evaded fighting a war he supported, to malign the service of more than two and a half million of us who served in Vietnam by saying that we left too soon.
Thanks, King. I always try to keep in mind (the optimistic part of my mind) that our troops consist of more young Worrierkings than young Oldmarines.
I hope I'm right.