Union Leader editorial falsely claimed Clinton said "troop surge in Iraq is working"
SUMMARY: A New Hampshire Union Leader editorial falsely claimed that "Sen. Hillary Clinton said Gen. David Petraeus' troop surge in Iraq is working." In fact, Clinton said that changed tactics -- "particularly in Al Anbar province" -- are "working," not the "surge." The editorial added that Clinton "previously (in March and again in May) noted the surge's successes"; while Clinton has previously acknowledged progress in Al Anbar, that progress reportedly began months before the "surge" did.
An August 24 New Hampshire Union Leader editorial falsely claimed, "On Monday [August 20], Sen. Hillary Clinton [D-NY] said Gen. David Petraeus' troop surge in Iraq is working. On Wednesday [August 22] she said 'it has failed.' Wow, success to failure in two days, and without a single decisive battle! That must be some kind of record." The editorial went on to state: "Her campaign quickly spun her Monday comments as commenting only on the progress in Al-Anbar [Province]. But that's not what she said. She said the surge was 'working' in 'some areas,' including Al-Anbar, not only Al-Anbar." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, Clinton said in her August 20 speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) that changed tactics in Iraq are "working" -- not President Bush's troop "surge" policy.
As the Union Leader editorial noted, 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." According to an August 21 New York Times article, "Aides 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, the progress in Al Anbar "began last September" -- months before Bush announced his plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq.
Additionally, the Union Leader claimed that Clinton "previously (in March and again in May) noted the surge's successes," adding: "What can be said is that Sen. Clinton yet again gives the impression that she will say whatever is politically expedient to say and then deny it with a straight face if it comes back to bite her later." Media Matters could find no reports of Clinton "not[ing] the surge's successes" in March or May. However, Clinton's statement to the VFW that the changed "tactics in Iraq ... particularly in Al Anbar Province" show "it's working," is not new, as Media Matters previously noted. The New York Daily News reported on August 23 that she made similar comments about Al Anbar province 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, who don't like Al Qaeda any more than we do because Al Qaeda is also going after them."
From the August 24 Union Leader editorial, headlined "Clinton's surge-ery: Now it's working, now it's not":
ON MONDAY, Sen. Hillary Clinton said Gen. David Petraeus' troop surge in Iraq is working. On Wednesday she said "it has failed." Wow, success to failure in two days, and without a single decisive battle! That must be some kind of record.
"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq and in some areas, particularly in Al-Anbar province, it's working," Clinton told the VFW on Monday. "We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again."
She previously (in March and again in May) noted the surge's successes.
The reaction from the left was predictable. She got pounded. So on Wednesday she told the New York Daily News, "The surge was designed to give the Iraqi government time to take steps to ensure a political solution. It has failed."
Her campaign quickly spun her Monday comments as commenting only on the progress in Al-Anbar. But that's not what she said. She said the surge was "working" in "some areas," including Al-Anbar, not only Al-Anbar.
Come on, senator. The American people are not that stupid. The surge clearly is producing some positive results, so it cannot be said to have failed. What can be said is that Sen. Clinton yet again gives the impression that she will say whatever is politically expedient to say and then deny it with a straight face if it comes back to bite her later.
The media seems to have this idea that Senator Clinton things the surge is working. I wish Senator Clinton would have a news conference or make a speech with the words " I do not believe the surge is working" That would end this discussion.
JLyons,
Slickness 101 is taught at the Clinton Institute for Election Victory - by her triangulating and being deliberately vague and ambiguous on this she can't really make any of those whose support she wants mad at her......for they don't know whether to be or not.
She's good........
The media seems to have this idea that Senator Clinton things the surge is working
Ya think?
What is this, the 50th thread we've had on this topic.
Boy when the media likes a story, they won't let go.
While I can understand how "tactic" could have been mistaken for "surge", it's been explained, so the press ought to let it go & move on.
Hopefully Hillary will also learn to be more specific next time, leaving no room for doubt about what she means.
The media seems to have this idea that Senator Clinton things the surge is working. I wish Senator Clinton would have a news conference or make a speech with the words " I do not believe the surge is working" That would end this discussion.
You mean like this?
"The surge was designed to give the Iraqi government time to take steps to ensure a political solution," she said. "It has failed."
This was said by Hillary on Wednesday.
Somehow it didn't end the discussion.
Having factual evidence doesn't stop those people who are determined to repeat a lie.
Sue Ellie
As long as talk like this is not clarified , this will continue. The Senator should have been more exact from the start. John Edwards seized on this .
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/21/326913.aspx
Nomo, nothing is going to end this stuff...I mean look at gthe Michelle Obama comment thingy. Clinton has clarified, her spokespeople have clarified, and frankly her original speech in its entirety wasn't really lacking in clarity to begin with in my opinion. If people are still making snide comments about her slickness and that she needs to clarify they are really being disengenous and just using it as an opportunity to bash and deflect what the real issue is--the fact that political resolution is not happening. Just my 2 cents.
Her comments have been clarified people just chose not to listen. Same with Michelle Obama's comments...the full transcript and Obama coming out publically and saying it had nothing to do with Hillary and the press was barking up the wrong tree hasn't stop the media from reporting on Michelle Obama's "dig at Hillary". I heard it again today. So Clinton could have it tattooed on her far-head and it wouldn't stop this idiocy.
Lord, Can someone just alert Keith Olbermann to give his worst person awards to all these media outlets, the dozens and dozens that can't get this straight apparently, so maybe this will mercifully end.
Keith has been on vacation all week, that is the reason why we have had no threads about him.
No call to do that after 16:43:37 GMT today. That was the exact time that we surpassed critical mass through rote, and now "Hillary says surge is working" has become fact.
Sorry, lefties. Need to get out their early and do a better job of repeating your message.
Neon, if everybody had just ignored it the first time, it would have gone away. You have the Tommy guarantee on that.
I mean, it's just human nature. When it's pointed out that you're wrong, what else to do but keep om being wrong, only louder and more frequently?
I don't understand a recent statement made by Clinton. She said her vote in 2003 on the Iraq wasn't a vote to go to war. It was to give Bush permission to go to war. Is that correct? I really just don't understand.
I think her take on it, and others have stated the same position, is that they were giving authorization under certain conditions, or in the case of other means being exhausted.
Sort of like if you filled out that organ donor card on your drivers license, and somebody showed up the next day trying to remove your kidney.