Blitzer omitted context of Clinton remarks to ask: "Why not give the military a chance to see if they can finish the job?"
SUMMARY: In an interview with Sen. Chuck Schumer, CNN's Wolf Blitzer omitted the context from Sen. Hillary Clinton's remarks that "[w]e've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas -- particularly in Al Anbar province -- it's working," to assert that "even some Democrats are now suggesting that maybe the military part of the troop buildup, the so-called surge, is making some progress." But Clinton was attributing successes in Al Anbar to a change in tactics, not President Bush's so-called "surge" strategy.
On the August 28 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer stated, "[E]ven some Democrats are now suggesting that maybe the military part of the troop buildup, the so-called surge, is making some progress" and aired Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) remarks from the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) convention on August 20, during which Clinton said: "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas -- particularly in Al Anbar province -- it's working." In doing so, however, Blitzer omitted the context of Clinton's remarks, as well as her campaign's subsequent explanation that she was attributing successes in Al Anbar to a change in tactics, not President Bush's so-called "surge" strategy. After airing the video clip, Blitzer asked Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY): "Why not give the military a chance to see if they can finish the job?"
As The New York Times reported on August 21, "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." In fact, Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted that Clinton suggested months ago that U.S. forces were making progress in Iraq due to improved relations between tribal leaders and the U.S. military. The New York Daily News reported on August 23 that Clinton 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." Indeed, on March 16, Clinton told the Daily News' Michael McAuliff: "If we're getting good cooperation in Al Anbar proivince [sic] and we've got Al Qaeda pinned down, we can't walk away from that. And I don't know anybody who has looked at this from a military perspective who says that we would need a lot of troops to keep that up." Clinton was also quoted in a May 7 New York Observer article as 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."
Schumer responded to Blitzer's question by noting that "the second part of what Hillary said is it's not going to make much of a difference if we don't have a strong political government. And I think that's where Democrats overwhelmingly are."
Moreover, while Blitzer used Clinton's statement as a basis for asking Schumer why U.S. troops should not be given "a chance to see if they can finish the job," Clinton herself called for a gradual withdrawal from Iraq during her VFW speech, stating, "Some of us will disagree. I think the best way of honoring their service is by beginning to bring them home and making sure that when they come home that we have everything ready for them."
From the August 28 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
SCHUMER: Well, the question is: How does the war in Iraq further going after and containing Iran? And this is what the president always does. He doesn't focus on the facts on the ground, what's going on in the civil war in Iraq, can we ever get the Shiites and the Sunnis together, how are we going to create a government even if the surge is temporarily successful. And it's diversionary.
Yes, Iran is a serious problem. I'd like to see the president's plan on what to do with Iran. He has not made any case at all that the continuing to fight a civil war in Iraq helps with Iran.
BLITZER: But, you know, even some Democrats are now suggesting that maybe the military part of the troop buildup, the so-called surge, is making some progress. I want you to listen to what your colleague, Hillary Clinton, said the other day.
Listen to this.
CLINTON [video clip]: We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas -- particularly in Al Anbar province -- it's working.
BLITZER: All right, so what about that? Why not give --
SCHUMER: Well, the second --
BLITZER: Why not give the military a chance to see if they can finish the job?
SCHUMER: Well, the second part of what Hillary said is it's not going to make much of a difference if we don't have a strong political government. And I think that's where Democrats overwhelmingly are. When the president started this surge, it wasn't an end in itself; it was a means to strengthening the Maliki government.
If anything, the Maliki government is weaker and in greater disrepute among the Iraqi people and among any observer here in America than it was before the surge started. We can't keep all these troops there forever. And what is going to happen when the troops have to leave because their tours of duty are gone?
If there's no political strength in the government, and that government can hold together, and is going to fall apart whether we stay there three months, three years, or 20 years, and that's what most people think, then what is the point of the surge? The president has never answered that question.
Again, he never focuses on the issue at hand. He's always diversionary, either trying to scare people -- nuclear holocaust in Iran, a real problem, but nothing to do, at least he's not made any connection with the war in Iraq -- or, now, well, the surge is working in Anbar province. How does that create a government that will last in Iraq after we're gone?
BLITZER: We're out of time, Senator, but your quick reaction to Republican Senator Larry Craig of Idaho pleading guilty to disorderly conduct at a public men's room at the Minneapolis airport.
as schumer notes, blitzer did not play "the second part" of what she said. why do guests on these shows have to keep pointing this out?
i'm confused (not the first time, nor will it be the last). HRC says we are changing tactics in Al Anbar and Shumer apparently paraphrases GWB about the "surge" in Al Anbar. So, is there a "surge" in Al Anbar and, if so, wouldn't it part of the changing tactics? And Blitzer's question seems to be a fair question to ask.
As cnn has pointed through an Australian reporter and a mideast expert; as the AP has pointed out; and even as the neo conservative Weekly Standard has pointed out, the tactics in Al Anbar are getting the Sunis to cooperate by arming them to the teeth. Al Anbar started to grown peaceful in September, long before the surge.
So you're admitting that progress was being made even before the surge was initiated?
Your comment about progress makes no sense unless you think this whole thing is a cartoon. Arming both sides to the teeth and adding more troops to stop violence in selected areas will do nothing to bring peace and stability to this country.
The only reasonable explanation for this escalation--used in vietnam, I might add with the same results--was to give the Iraqi government time to organize and take more control. They are not doing that. There really IS no Iraqi goverment at this point. Many of the representatives have fled the country!
Good one Oscar. This reminds me of 04. Bush and the GOP intentionally start a very stupid war and then the Democratic candidate gets slammed for not being able to describe a good enough solution to the mess that Bush led us into. The conclusion of geniuses on the right? Vote for Bush! The press going along with this tactic of holding the GOP's opposition responsible for the stupidity of the GOP is obvious proof of a right-wing bias.
WHY indeed, Wolf. Several reasons.
First, "finish the job" has never been defined. To the extent GOALS have been listed, the jobs HAVE been finished: No WMDs in Iraq, Saddam deposed, a vote and a new government, a constitution ... all FINISHED, done.
Second, "finish the job" is constantly changing (see above).
Third, "give the military a chance" was done in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and now 2007. In each year, the COST has been enormous. The "giving of chances" now is a gambler's obsession, a sickness that will NEVER be satisfied. By this compulsion, no WIN is ever enough, no amount of LOSING prompts the gambler to just quit gambling ... as long as the game goes on, the gambler can say he hasn't really LOST, and that his luck will change eventually.
Fourth, the civilian people RUNNING this war (Bush Administration) have proven themselves to be incompetent and dangerously wrong, time and again. You don't give the drunk bus driver "another chance', you get him out from behind the wheel.
Fifth, September was given as the time to show the world that the Surge WORKED ... in other words, undeniable success on the 18 "benchmarks" Bush listed. There has been NO progress on ANY of those benchmarks.
Sixth, "giving a chance" assumes all other things to remain constant. In this instance, our resources are degrading rapidly. Soldiers are unconscionably asked to serve fourth and fifth rotataions, and they are now pushed beyond physical and moral limits.
Seventh, we WON the war, and we CANNOT "win" the occupation. Our actions beyond the initial reasons for going into Iraq have served to make America LESS safe in the world. The longer we go down Bush's path, the worse our situation becomes.
Dang, Tex, why couldn't you be across from Wolf, a so-called "journalist." This obsession with "winning," with the MSM playing cheerleader (instead of thinking or commenting on your points made above) makes the US look desperate and weakens any hope from maintaining a moral compass in the world. Instead of asking why aren't we winning, they should be asking why is the US still there? But they won't as to not spoil the sable rattling, tough-guy, win-at-any-cost American dream.
SCHUMER: Well, the second part of what Hillary said is it's not going to make much of a difference if we don't have a strong political government. And I think that's where Democrats overwhelmingly are. When the president started this surge, it wasn't an end in itself; it was a means to strengthening the Maliki government.
Yes Senator Schumer, and you should have said "Wolf, why did you not play the entire quote?"
Why not give the military a chance to see if they can finish the job?
I swear, they're going to start talking about "the light at the end of the tunnel" any day now.
Put On A Happy Face!
"A bar was set so high, that it was almost not to be able to be met," said White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino.
What did we do to deserve this administration of underachievers?
Worrier - remember, this is the administration that talked about the "bigotry of low expectations", so i figure they're experts in the area of low expectations and underachieving.
As the great Billy Martin once said One's a born liar; the other's convicted." it sort makes sense for this lying administartion, they are born liars and obiously behind this distortion of Senator Clinton.
Pure and Simple
How much time do they need? One more year...ten more years?
Given enough time, I could fill up the Grand Canyon with a teaspoon...