Obama, Clinton Both Cite Iraq Progress, Say It's Not Enough

In the last two days, Democratic front-runners Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both laid out a surprising position for a pair of Senators who vocally opposed a troop surge in Iraq earlier this year: they've said that, at least in some ways, it's working.

Clinton, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Kansas City yesterday, said "we've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it's working."

Asked about his rival's comments, Obama, in a conference call with reporters today said "I didn't see the actual transcript of Senator Clinton's speech, but my assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our troops into Baghdad, that's going to quell some of the violence in the short term. I don't think there's any doubt that as long as U.S. troops are present that they are going to be doing outstanding work."

At the same time -- and ahead of the much-anticipated September report of General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq on progress there -- both candidates signaled that no matter what Petraeus says, they are not going to support allowing additional time for the surge to work. Clinton said "we're just years too late changing out tactics," while Obama argued "it doesn't change the underlying assessment that there's not a military solution to the situation in Iraq. The underlying political dynamic has not changed."

More at the link - http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/21/obama_clinton_both_cite_iraq_p.html

except I would ask, exactly what is "surprising?" Their opposition to the surge wasn't and isn't based on the idea that there wouldn't be any successes whatsoever. It's been about the cost, and the prospects for it leading to an overall success, which they both say it hasn't.

I see where Hillary did cite progress, but Barack did not cite progress - he stated a fact and qualified it: ("it will quell violence in the short term.")

And the follow up, I'm afraid, leaves HIllary open to second-guessing: "it's too late to change tactics". I'm not sure that is a reason to stop doing something you say is working.

Obama, on the other hand, flatly states that it does not change the "underlying assessment that there is no military solution."

The candidates were poles apart in their remarks, not at all in agreement.

"I want to be clear. Our troops have performed brilliantly in Iraq. They have done everything we have asked of them. They have won every battle they have fought. They have built schools and trained battalions. I know there are honest differences about the next steps that we should take. And the truth is – there are no good options.

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."

What he said is quite clear. Now, if he clarifies, they'll say he's wishy-washy and a flip-flopper. The same thing they did with the Pakistan comment and nuclear comment. The Clintons have media power too.

which I believe there is.

I don't think any credible antiwar person would insist that no military campaign has any possibility of having limited success, ever. And this would not contradict their antiwar position in any way. i.e., it shouldn't be "surprising" to a Washington Post reporter.

Which is not really progress at all.

In fact it's hard to find a real significant difference between what they said, and to say they are poles apart is a total stretch.

But that's what makes life worth living, no?

I watched them do this to Kerry all through 2003 and 2004. The Clintons say something and the media dumps that on the rest of the party, as if it's their duty. Even when the rest of the party is attempting to say something completely different.

Who benefits?

The Clintons.

Don't tell me they don't have media power.

..what she said is WORSE!

I do not glean that position from Obama's comment:


However, what I do notice is that some folks are trying to dress Obama and Clinton the same as if they were fraternal twins.