Schieffer falsely claimed Clinton is "saying ... maybe the surge is working"
SUMMARY: On Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer claimed that Sen. Hillary Clinton is "saying it looks like ... maybe the surge is working in the sense that there is less violence there." But as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Clinton actually said: "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."
On the August 26 edition of CBS' Face the Nation, during an interview with Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, host Bob Schieffer falsely claimed that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) is "saying it looks like ... maybe the surge is working in the sense that there is less violence there." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly 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.
According to an August 21 New York Times article, Clinton actually said: "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, the progress in Al Anbar "began last September" -- months before Bush announced his plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq.
Moreover, 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 has also noted. The New York Daily News reported on August 23 that she made similar comments about the 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 26 edition of CBS' Face the Nation:
SCHIEFFER: Well, when the Senate and House come back into session, at the end of the summer here, the first thing they're going to have to deal with is what to do about Iraq -- funding the war.
EDWARDS: Yes.
SCHIEFFER: You're seeing even some Democrats, like Senator Clinton -- to go back to Senator Clinton -- saying it looks like that maybe the surge is working in the sense that there is less violence there. What do you think the Senate should do here, Senator? I know you have said that you'd like to immediately draw down about 40,000 troops there and then work from there and eventually get all of them out. Do you think that's in any way a possibility or is the president going to be able to ride this out?
EDWARDS: Well, I think there's actually a mandate from America, regardless of what I think. I think America said very clearly in the November 2006 elections that they wanted a very different course in Iraq and I think the Congress has a responsibility under that mandate, and I think they should stand their ground. I think they should not submit a single funding bill to the president for the war that doesn't have a timetable for withdrawal. And I think they should use whatever legislative tool is available to them, including filibuster.
"the surge is working" is the new version of "mission accomplished". oh, good, we can get ready to leave? uh, no. what has happened is that violence has dropped in baghdad, but increased in other areas. there is no indication that iraqi troops are ready to take over for us. it was no surprise that if you put enough u.s. troops in an area, the violence levels will drop. but if you propose leaving based on that, the right says we can't do that. william kristol was on the today show last week talking about the critics of the surge being wrong. this from a guy who has been wrong on the whole invasion from the beginning.
Grr...a perfect example of the right wing tactics. They shiftily use part of a quotation to pretend Clinton supports the surge and that it's successful; it gets repeated over & over by the various righty pundits, until the MSM picks it up as "conventional wisdom."
Glad that Edwards had something intelligent to say about the botched occupation despite the misinformation from Schieffer.
I think there is a difference between acknowledging that it is working and supporting it. Nowhere have I read or seen anyone suggesting that Mrs. Clinton supports the surge.
cont.
Hillary And Obama Voted Against The Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Clinton And Obama Voted Nay)
The Iraq Supplemental Contained $1.789 Billion For Veterans' Needs, Including:
I watched this morning and did not like tis statement Bob said. I also did not like the inclination that he was trying to paint Elizabeth as some smear queen. Maybe I had the wrong interpertation of this but it was a problem fo rme.
The GOAL of the surge was NOT the abatement of violence anywhere, but to give the Iraqi government "breathing space" to accomplish THEIR goals ... according to Bush 18 of them specifically.
NONE has been done, and none CAN be done ... because the Iraqi governmental legislature is NOT MEETING.
So, what tactics have we changed besides the "surge"? (too little, too late, but there seems to be a difference in some areas.). What is HRC actually trying to say if she is not saying the "surge" has had some effect?
Remember when Kerry said this:
This tactic has changed.
The "tactic" that Hillary is talking about is the change in the way the US Military is interacting with the locals in Anbar province. That tactic, to enlist the locals, and arm some of them, has worked. Working with Sunni tribal leaders started last year, and has been helping to decrease violence for many months.
I think that people keep repeating the HRC line about how the surge is working because of only one reason - She did say that the surge is working.
too bad for HRC.
Clinton said: "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." Clinton said in her August 20 speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) that “changed tactics in Iraq are working --" not Bushwacko’s troop "surge" policy.
Nah, the media is just a little dense sometimes.
People keep repeating this because they know that in the past they've been successful at misleading the American public by repeating a lie many times until some proportion of the public began to think that the lie was true.
The "tactic" that Hillary is talking about is the change in the way the US Military is interacting with the locals in Anbar province. That tactic, to enlist the locals, and arm some of them, has worked. Working with Sunni tribal leaders started last year, and has been helping to decrease violence for many months. It has nothing to do with the Surge.
On top of that, even the Surge hasn't been successful. The Surge was only the increase in troops. A successful Surge would have that increase in troops enable the political solutions that need to happen evolve. Those solutions haven't happened, and so the Surge has not been successful.
If this change in tactics has been going on since last year, then why is HRC talking about it now in the way that she is. HRC said, "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq". We've begun to change tactics? If it's been going on since last year, then why did she say that we've just begun to change tactics? This is only more evidence for the fact that HRC was talking about THE SURGE, and not some nebulous bag of tactics that have never been specifically discussed by anyone. Just admit she meant the surge is working and move on with your life.
You are wrong about this "nebulous" bag of tactics not being discussed by anyone. Apart from the AP article above, both Michael Ware (an experienced reproter in Iraq) and Fareed Zakiaria (considered an expert in the Middle Easte), discussed how peace in Al Anbar occurred because the US cut a deal with the Sunis, arming them. Both think that this tactic will backfire because when the US leaves and there is no reconcilliation, the Sunnis will use these arms against the Shias.
In addition, both the neo conservative *Weekly Standard* and Mideast expert Juan Cole, have pointed out the same thing.
No she didnt learn to read. Too bad for you
I think someone said it on Countdown last night: the Iraq campaign has turned into a giant game of Wac-A-Mole.
The big mistake made by those in the left is to imply that military success justify our prescence in Iraq. I for one think the surge is working, and I do not care. Look at the death count today. Only a few Iraqis died. You do not see 30 and 40 bodies found every day. But so what?? Would we be cheering the Chinese if they inavded us and kicked our asses?
That contradicts the principle that no nation has the right to inavde another one without cause and without fully integrating the United Nations.
Wow. That's a HUGE difference.
Sorry - and you guys are normally great - fastidious in your search for accuracy - but in this case - taken in full context - that is the context of her remarks in the June N.H. debate, her comments praising Bush's record on "making us safer" - it is more than fair to construe her comments as generally praising the "new tactics" - which Bush uses interchangeably with the "surge."
The point of the question is whether HRC will be a change from Bush - and parsing the differences can't change the fundamental similarity twixt the two in overall world view.
Surge not working
I've posted several articles and web pieces showing the surge is not working. The AP article is the newest piece to show the violence is not down:
Data show no surge in safety in Iraq so far in 2007
BAGHDAD | The U.S. troop buildup has brought violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, but the death toll from sectarian attacks nationwide is running nearly double the year-ago pace.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/world/v-print/story/247449.html