Wash. Times' Curl falsely claimed that Obama and Clinton "declared surge to be 'working' "

In an August 27 article, Washington Times reporter Joseph Curl falsely asserted that Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "declared the surge to be 'working' and backed away from calls for immediate withdrawal" from Iraq. In fact, neither senator asserted that President Bush's troop increase in Iraq is "working," and both have sponsored legislation that would require a gradual -- not immediate -- withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

This is the second article by Curl in the past week in which he has stated that Clinton declared Bush's troop increase to be "working." In an August 23 Washington Times article, he asserted that Clinton "told the VFW [Veterans of Foreign Wars] conference on Monday that the surge is clearly 'working,' " as Media Matters for America noted. In fact, Clinton said in her August 20 speech to the VFW that changed tactics in Iraq are "working" -- not President Bush's troop "surge" policy. Indeed, an August 21 New York Times article on Clinton's VFW speech quoted her as saying, "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. Indeed, as Media Matters repeatedly noted, Clinton similarly suggested months ago that the U.S. forces are achieving progress in Iraq due to better relations between tribal leaders and American military forces.

Neither has Obama "declared the surge to be 'working,' " as Curl asserted in the August 27 article. Rather, Obama said in his August 21 speech to the VFW that "there is no military solution in Iraq" and "[n]o military surge can succeed without political reconciliation and a surge of diplomacy in Iraq and the region," as Media Matters noted. From the speech:

OBAMA: All of our top military commanders recognize that there is no military solution in Iraq. And no matter how brilliantly and bravely our troops and their commanders perform, they cannot and should not bear the responsibility of resolving grievances at the heart of Iraq's civil war. No military surge can succeed without political reconciliation and a surge of diplomacy in Iraq and the region. Iraq's leaders are not reconciling. They are not achieving political benchmarks. The only thing they seem to have agreed on is to take a vacation. That is why I have pushed for a careful and responsible redeployment of troops engaged in combat operations out of Iraq, joined with direct and sustained diplomacy in the region. And that is why I will continue to push the President to change our policy.

In an August 21 conference call with reporters, Obama similarly stated that whether the troop increase results in short-term security improvements "doesn't change the underlying assessment, which is that there is not a military solution to the political dynamic in Iraq." The New York Observer's blog The Politicker reported Obama's statement in an August 21 post:

"My assessment is that if we put an addition [sic] 30,000 of our outstanding troops in Baghdad it is going to quell some of the violence short term, I don't think there has even been any doubt about that," said Obama, adding "It doesn't change the underlying assessment which is that there is not a military solution to the political dynamic in Iraq."

Moreover, contrary to Curl's suggestion that Clinton and Obama have previously "call[ed] for immediate withdrawal," both senators have advocated a gradual redeployment of troops from Iraq both in the Senate and in public appearances. Indeed, in January, Obama introduced legislation that would require the redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq to begin "not later than May 1, 2007." The bill stated that the redeployment "shall occur in a gradual manner and shall be executed at a pace to achieve the goal of the complete redeployment of all United States combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group." According to Obama's bill, redeployment of U.S. forces is "subject to the exceptions for retention of forces for force protection, counter-terrorism operations, training of Iraqi forces, and other purposes."

In addition, Clinton introduced legislation in February that would also call for a gradual redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq. Her bill would cap the number of troops in Iraq at January 2007 levels and provide for de-authorizing the war unless the president certifies that "a phased redeployment of United States military forces from Iraq has begun ... including the transition of United States forces in Iraq to the limited presence and mission of -- (A) training Iraqi security forces; (B) providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces; (C) protecting United States personnel and infrastructure; and (D) participating in targeted counter-terrorism activities."

Furthermore, on May 16, both Clinton and Obama voted to invoke cloture on a bill proposed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) that would have required the Bush administration to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of the bill's passage and would have prohibited the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq after March 31, 2008, except for those deployed for the following "limited purposes":

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

On July 18, Clinton and Obama also voted in support of an amendment proposed by Democratic Sens. Carl Levin (MI) and Jack Reed (RI) that called for a "reduction" of U.S. forces in Iraq to begin within 120 days and also stipulated that the United States maintain a "limited presence" of troops there to protect U.S. and coalition infrastructure, train Iraqi security forces, and conduct counterterrorism operations.