Clinton Blurs the Battle Lines on Surge Politics

http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/08/craig_crawfords_trail_mix_clin_7.html

Clinton Blurs the Battle Lines on Surge Politics
By Craig Crawford | 8:30 AM; Aug. 21, 2007


If Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York was signaling yesterday how other Democratic leaders might politically parse the Iraq troop surge, there could be a major twist in rhetoric coming.

Speaking to a veterans group, Clinton undercut claims, including her own, that President George W. Bush’s troop buildup would not work. “It’s working,” she said, but “we're just years too late.” Seven months ago Clinton had predicted that the surge “cannot be successful.”

Other Democrats, such as Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, are also softening their stance. This new Democratic strategy is about getting the surge off the table by stipulating its success while still arguing that it is too little and too late to make a difference.

Still, Clinton’s approach runs the risk of giving Bush the rhetorical high ground for the September debate. Agreeing that the president’s new tactics are working will make it a lot tougher to challenge his control of Iraq policy.

She was talking about Anbar. Bush's "surge" is in Baghdad.

I'm sorry, but she is about as smart polically as her advisors...which isn't very smart at all.

"I know how to fight right-wingers....I'm your girl".

Yeah, right...voting for the war to legitimize it, talking about nuking other countries, the surge is working, and threatening Iran. Boy that is going to energize the Democrats to vote for her in this upcoming election.

When the hell can we get rid of the Borg that is Clinton and all of their feckless, many-times-losing advisors who do not even resemble Democrats?

by nodding her head in assertion.

its too late. it was always too late.

you cannot force someone to love you by killing their relatives.

"if we put additional 30,000 of our outstanding troops into Baghdad that that's going to quell some of the violence in the short term. I don't think that there's any doubt that as long as U.S. troops are present that they are going to be doing outstanding work. It doesn't change the underlying assessment that there's not a military solution to the situation in Iraq."

Hey, Obama, that's what we did. So you're saying the surge worked.

You can put troops in a neighborhood and quell violence there. Take them out and the violence will return. That's whack-a-mole. Hillary should have said it, she said the surge is working. Difference. Although I'm not terribly hopeful Obama will continue to stick with his distinction, although he might surprise me.

No, obviously not. It's whack-a-mole. It's a temporary band-aid. Like the NG on every corner quells violence in any city in the country. It isn't something that's "working" to end crime. Crime just moves.

Did putting in the extra troops achieve results as Obama admitted? Yes, I agree with Obama.

Surge = whack-a-mole = "quell some of the violence in the short term" (Obama's words) = it worked for the short term.

:shrug:

Is your difference with me based on who I am or just no wanting to admit Obama and Hillary essentially said the same thing?

Consequently - nothing is working. That's Hillary's failure, to use "surge" and "working" at all. Because she chooses to use right wing words - AGAIN - the entire party is in a mess, people will have to figure out how to go around her to end the war because nobody wants to entirely destroy a potential GE candidate.

She really needs to GO AWAY.

:shrug:

blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blah...

"Surge = whack-a-mole = "quell some of the violence in the short term" (Obama's words) = it worked for the short term."

whack-a-mole was not the goal of the surge - the surge is not working in any way, shape or form.

The surge is working? Or not?

:shrug:

His main point is that military means can not be expected to solve a political problem. By saying "it's working," Hillary implies something different. In the end, they say basically the same thing about the surge, he just said it better, added the proper frame, and, unlike Clinton, didn't hand a political opportunity to the opposition and have to explain what he really meant afterwards.

She screwed up. It happens.

No where in that quote does Obama say the surge IS working. Your desperation is pathetic.

And nowhere does Hillary state, as Obama did with about 50 words too many, that the surge quelled some of the violence.

thinking? Or is she?

That approval rating for Congress of 18% should've given them a fucking clue.

it's not like we have a viable third party to run to.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.