Obama and Clinton Discuss Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 11:42:57 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The AP reports that Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sparred on Iraq today. AP reports that Obama said:

It will be enormously difficult to invest in jobs and opportunity until we stop spending $275 million a day on this war in Iraq . . . I believed then and still do that being a leader means that you'd better do what's right and leave the politics aside, because there are no do-overs on an issue as important as war.

Fine to toot your horn but will it obfuscate the more important message? I think what Clinton said is the important message now:

Our message to the president is clear . . . It is time to begin ending this war — not next year, not next month — but today.

More.

Barack Obama is running for President and of course must draw distinctions with his opponents. It is "divisive" of him to do so of course, in the the parlance of the DC Gasbags, but I understand his impulse. But personally, if he does not lead on this part:

We are about to receive yet another report telling us that Iraq's political leaders have not met a single goal they set for themselves to demonstrate any kind of progress towards stability. Not one goal," Obama said. "Well, they have had their chances and George Bush has had his — we cannot keep our troops in the middle of a civil war that Iraq's leaders refuse to end. It's time to bring them home."

Then all the the credit in the world for being right on the war in 2002 will not erase a current failure of leadership.

For me, Obama's emphasis on who supported the war would be easy to understand IF he chooses to lead on ENDING it now. If he does that, he can regain the political high ground on Iraq, which he ceded to Edwards among the Big Three.

< Milberg Weis Partner Pleads Guilty in Kickback Scheme | Skippy Turns Five and Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama and Clinton Discuss Iraq | 35 comments (35 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by HeadScratcher on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 12:23:14 PM EST

So, let her begin ending the war today. Where is her meeting with House leaders drafting a bill to defund? Where is her and Bill's considerable clout and influence to get this done. Today. Today. Today.

Obfuscate? I want it done today, but I'm not going to do anything about it?

Hillary, get off your ass and get it done. Today!

You overestimate her (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by roy on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:23:22 PM EST

She may want to "begin ending the war", but does she want to finish ending it? Or does she want to continue it after milking the anti-war voters?

From an interview back in March:

I think it really does matter whether you have a failed province or a region that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda. It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel's interests.
So I think we have a remaining military as well as political mission, trying to contain the extremists.
...
But what we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of, between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region -- the ones that are going to remain for our antiterrorism mission; for our northern support mission; for our ability to respond to the Iranians; and to continue to provide support, if called for, for the Iraqis.

As I read it, she's advocating a withdrawal of "combat troops", leaving behind a smaller number of non-combat troops, who would still have to fight in combat. Smaller numbers, different mission, still a war.


Perhaps she's moved beyond (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:37:08 PM EST

those March statements. She did vote for Reid/Feingold after that.


: Perhaps (none / 0) (#8)
by roy on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:41:31 PM EST

Or maybe her March statements don't mean what they seem to mean on their faces. She talks like a politician, after all.

If You Are (1.00 / 1) (#23)
by talex on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 04:52:52 PM EST

going to draft a bill to defund the you need a veto proof majority in order for it to be signed by Bush. You are putting the cart before the horse.

<<<<>>>>

As for the Big Three Clinton has the clearest and most realistic message on Iraq. Obama says 2-3 times as many words and says nothing. Edwards' message is hit and miss - he has a terrible organization around him.

Hate to say it but Clinton just keeps hitting home run after home run on every topic.


Shall we let BTD clear up this (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by oculus on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:23:06 PM EST

fundamentally flawed misstatement?


There is nothing to clear up (1.00 / 1) (#27)
by talex on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:35:13 PM EST

The poster said:

Where is her meeting with House leaders drafting a bill to defund?

Any bill requires Bush's signature. He will not sign a bill to defund at this time.

Defunding bills in the past have always required the signature of the President. If he refused to sign them then like any other bill a veto proof majority in both chambers is required to override him.

It's that simple.


: Here's a radical new idea, talex. (none / 0) (#28)
by Edger on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:04:35 PM EST

Let's not send him a bill to sign.
Frustrate the hell out of him. And the BD's too.
:-)

Action Not Rhetoric Required (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by MO Blue on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:35:46 PM EST

Hillary's stated plan is to reduced the occupation force in Iraq and not end the occupation. Obama was right in 2002 and has not shown much leadership in getting us out since that time. IMO his "Just 16 votes to end the war." is just as dishonest as Hillary's "If Bush won't end the war, when I'm president, I will." Talk is cheap. Let's see some real leadership where it counts. And leadership is not hiding your position on a vote and being the last to cast your vote on meaningful legislation to end the occupation.

What counts as leading? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Geekesque on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:56:33 PM EST

Seriously.

In terms of moving the caucus along, Obama been praised by Russ Feingold, who clearly has low regard for what Edwards has been doing.

Part of the problem is that all bloggers can see is what they say to the press. We don't know what they say to each other behind closed doors, where the real leadership occurs.

Sure, one candidate might be giving speeches that sound better to you, or to me. But giving nice-sounding speeches is not leadership.

Well, as BTD says in his BHTV interview (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:58:13 PM EST

Politics is about pandering. Pandering, btw, can create a useful tone.


I most certainly don't think that leadership (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Geekesque on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:12:55 PM EST

and pandering are the same thing. In fact, I think one sign of leadership is being able to tell people what they don't want to hear.


: Good leader, bad politician. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:13:53 PM EST

: Heh (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 11:09:48 PM EST

I think you don't like to be told what you don't want to hear about Obama.
How about crediting my leadership there Geek?

We're going to have a handful ... (5.00 / 4) (#17)
by Meteor Blades on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:54:55 PM EST

...of amendments in the next couple of weeks in which both these candidates can prove the worth of their words.

Not that any of these votes will relate to the defunding that both BTD and I (despite our other disagreements) think is the only real way to get out of Iraq. But some of these amendments are valuable in their own way.

The proof, however, will not be how Senators Clinton and Obama VOTE on these amendments. They VOTED the right way on Feingold-Reid. The proof will be on how hard they work to persuade their recalcitrant colleagues to vote the right way. That persuasion can be, as Geekesque says, behind closed doors, or it can come from well-crafted speeches on the floor of the Senate. What will be highly disturbing about either or both of them is if they play the let's-wait-to-see-how-this-vote-is-going-before-casting-our-own-votes game.

Well (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 03:06:14 PM EST

Nothing makes it clearer that not funding is the only way than McConnell's just announced decision to filibuster the Webb Amendment.


God, I hadn't heard about that (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 03:18:29 PM EST

I just can't believe that anyone would attempt to fillibuster the Webb amendment. It is the worst insanity and brings tears to my eyes that any Republican can firmly believe that the combat they are putting their troops through is even remotely okay. Three years from today when the soldiers serving in this insanity are mentally and emtionally destroying themselves and falling apart I will not forget and will not allow this nation to forget! I will not forget McConnell or any of his works!!!


Three years from today (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Edger on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 10:16:37 PM EST

when the soldiers serving in this insanity are mentally and emtionally destroying themselves and falling apart

Unfortunately you don't have to wait three years...

"An upsetting but mesmerizing series of interviews with veterans of the Iraq war." "'The Ground Truth' is an emotionally potent work."
- David Denby, THE NEW YORKER
"Anyone who claims to support the troops owes it to them to see the film and hear their stories."
- Sean Axmaker, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

I know Edger (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 11:05:07 PM EST

I think it'll be three years though before Americans ask themselves why so many went postal and the rest are sleeping on park benches.


But, but (none / 0) (#34)
by Edger on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 11:09:51 PM EST

Don't the republicans, and Bush, support the troops?


No But (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by squeaky on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 11:17:30 PM EST

Soon the jails, mental hospitals and particularly the park benches will.


: Sadly, yes. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Edger on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 11:32:13 PM EST

The Webb Amendment. (1.00 / 1) (#24)
by talex on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:18:28 PM EST

is only important if we were to stay in Iraq. Then it would not only help the soldiers but by default it would alter the number of troops in Iraq. It's kind of a back door approach to redeployment but a half measure at best.

I'm not sure it will get the votes needed to pass because I think most people are looking for a bolder solution.

That said it is only an amendment and would be a good first step.

As for a filibuster when you take, Lugar, Voinovich, Domenici and today Alexander and then the Salazar group, plus any new defectors this week or next - if they all supported cloture then we would be real close if not at the 60 votes needed.

Forget defunding Armando it is not even on the table right now. Right now we have a possible 60 votes and that is what needs to be concentrated on. If we get to 60 then the floodgates will open and we will be at the 67 needed depending on the bills to be voted on. Once we are there, and we will get there, then we have the House.

If the Senate reaches 67 then the House will burst open too because they are all up for reelection and they don't want to be and can't afford to be the only ones keeping the troops in Iraq.

The end is near.


What bolder solution? I keep hearing ... (5.00 / 3) (#29)
by Meteor Blades on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 09:00:40 PM EST

...this chatter, but nobody who thinks we're going to get those 60 votes or 67 votes wants to say what exactly that bolder solution will be. Iraq Study Group Lite, with tens of thousands of troops left in Iraq indefinitely?

The Republican "defectors" have been talking a lot, and getting lots of press, but I'll believe they've defected when they actually agree to vote on something that at least has the possibility of getting us out of Iraq. So far, there is no evidence of that.

Not to mention, which I have to repeatedly do on each of your comments in this regard, that 60 votes and 67 votes means getting ALL the Democrats on board. They may yet step up. But they haven't done so yet.


: Matt Stoller (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Edger on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 10:29:44 PM EST

posted this a few minutes ago at Open Left.
Republican Moderates Literally Running Away from Iraq
...video above of Illinois Congressman Mark Kirk (IL-10) literally running away from questions about the war in Iraq. Kirk likes to portray himself as a moderate Republican, and he even went to the White House earlier this year to talk about Iraq with George Bush. In fact, The Hill reported that Karl Rove came down on Kirk hard for leaking this 'confrontation' to the press, and Kirk has quieted down.
...
It's pretty fascinating to see the Republican fake moderates get destroyed, but it's pretty clear why they won't work against the war. Newsweek reporter Sam Stein wrote about the reason in an important and somewhat overlooked article. Republicans who break ranks on Iraq get a primary challenge from the right. It's not just Chuck Hagel in Nebraska.
At least three other Republican members of Congress--Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina and Rep. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, all of whom have been critical of the Bush administration's handling of the war--find themselves facing conservative primary opponents.
If only the Blue Dogs and New Dems would wizen up, we could actually stop the war.
*emphasis added

The first to says the $12 billion/mo spent on Iraq (none / 0) (#2)
by Ellie on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:22:34 PM EST

Could be used here for health coverage will draw ahead of the pack and stay there.

Two birds, one stone and no one had to be shot in the face. All this fearsome GOP rhetoric about letting the troops die without a hearty Halliburton breakfast will seem as ridiculous as it is.

How (none / 0) (#4)
by Wile ECoyote on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:32:45 PM EST

about the first that says the 12 billion/mo spent in Iraq could be given back to the taxpayer. Would they get the votes?


Now there's a radical thought. (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:35:39 PM EST

Everybody gets a refund (none / 0) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:47:42 PM EST

excluding war supporters......you guys already spent yours!


Hah! GWB voice: It's your money (snuffle snuffle) (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by Ellie on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 03:23:18 PM EST

Just take a page out of the Pug media book and tweak phrasing that's already in lazy media's heads and that the public has gamely TRIED to tune out.

Cut off George Bush's credit card. Close his account with Halliburton. Tell Dick Cheney to get his hands out of your wallet.

It's your money!


I envisioned the hypothetical (none / 0) (#16)
by oculus on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:53:33 PM EST

refund following a cut off of funding.


: Absolutely ;) (none / 0) (#18)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 03:02:05 PM EST

But I'm for withdrawal so they haven't spent my combat funds yet.

ME TOO (none / 0) (#14)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:47:02 PM EST

Frankly, to me Obama is so careful in his statements that I can't even figure out what he's talking about much of the time, although when I do figure it out I am usually disappointed

Obama ceded no ground to Edwards (none / 0) (#26)
by tommyg on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:26:44 PM EST

When Edwards co-sponsored and cheerled the Iraq War authorization, he ceded all ground to Obama and all others who opposed the war. His obvious pandering to the left with useless speeches and press releases so he can have a chance of wining the nomination does not make up for that.

Obama may not be doing the visible pandering, but he has been working hard behind closed doors, doing much more than Edwards has done to help build momentum for a withdrawal from Iraq.

There's really no comparison. Edwards' ridiculous attack on Obama and Clinton for not voting soon enough on the funding bill showed his desperation. Only those drinking his Kool Aid took that seriously. It's no wonder his campaign is in almost as much trouble as McCain's.

What about the Joint Chiefs? (none / 0) (#37)
by Canaan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 12:25:37 AM EST

Could Obama stand up to the generals, even if he were President, or would he be PINO (President in Name Only)? HRC was the 'enforcer' in Bill's administration - considering the job she did on heavyweights like Newt Gingrich and Ken Starr, I'm quite sure she'll be running the Pentagon. I'm sure Obama wants to end the war, but I don't think he could enforce his will on the Joint Chiefs. If Clinton wants the troops out, they're coming out.

"Either your brains or your signature is going to be on that bill." -- HRC