Clinton, McCain And Petraeus

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:35:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

The NYTimes reports:

Senator John McCain of Arizona, poised to become the Republican Party presidential nominee, argued against what he described as “reckless and irresponsible” calls for rapid withdrawal from Iraq, and said a premature departure of American troops would be “a failure of moral and political leadership.” . . . [H]e said that with the addition of five extra combat brigades last year, “this improved security environment has led to a new opportunity.” Today, Mr. McCain said, “it is possible to talk with real hope and optimism about the future of Iraq and the outcome of our efforts there.”

More . . .

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who is competing for her party’s presidential nomination, brought applause from some in the audience when she declared, “I think it’s time to begin an orderly process of withdrawing our troops.” Mrs. Clinton said the large, continued American deployments have meant lost opportunities in Afghanistan, as well as in the broader fight against terrorist networks elsewhere — and has also come at a great “cost to our men and women in uniform.”

And General Petraeus said:

General Petraeus said that security progress has been “significant but uneven.” Under questioning, he declined to estimate American troop levels beyond the withdrawal by July of five additional combat brigades sent to Iraq last year. And he acknowledged that the government’s recent offensive in Basra was not sufficiently well-planned.

The security situation remained in flux, General Petraeus said, in part because of the “destructive role Iran has played,” and he said that “special groups” of Shiite radicals supported from Tehran posed the greatest immediate threat to security. Ambassador Crocker added, “Iran has a choice to make.”

The general told senators that he was recommending a 45-day pause — which he defined as a period of “consolidation and evaluation” — before reviewing once again whether there should be further troop reductions. “This process will be continuous, with recommendations for further reductions made as conditions permit,” General Petraeus said. “This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable. However, it does provide the flexibility those of us on the ground need to preserve the still-fragile security gains our troopers have fought so hard and sacrificed so much to achieve.”

< The "Gore-ing" Of Hillary Clinton | 9/11 Commission Unaware Of Mukasey Reported Call >

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.

Clinton, McCain And Petraeus | 126 comments (126 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Obama (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by cmugirl on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:42:38 PM EST

is not on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

He will be speaking during the hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee, but since he's so far down in seniority, it probably won't be until this evening.

he already questioned Petraeus (none / 0) (#111)
by TheRefugee on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:38:57 PM EST

and he hammered the Gen on "what is the end point?"

MSNBC just called it "Probably the next CIC, Barack Obama, just finished questioning Petraeus"

Nice, not even a question on the nomination, now MSNBC is giving him the GE out of hand as well.


: I'm so glad I'm watching local (none / 0) (#118)
by nycstray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:43:28 PM EST

news!! That would have caused a major head explosion.
wow.

It's my opinion that McCain (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:43:32 PM EST

if elected will simply declare victory and leave at probably a similar rate as Clinton would. He may have added a year to the final withdrawal with lower troop numbers if he could, but he isn't staying in Iraq either because he can't. He's just all talk. He is attempting to declare the surge victorious and he will declare everything from here on out a victory too, and the bloodbathing that will follow our immediate leaving of areas of Iraq he will call birthing pains. Every Republican knows you can't save the world, you can only hope they'll pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Respectfully disagree. (none / 0) (#10)
by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:54:56 PM EST

IMHO, McCain meant what he said about "more wars, my friends."

He scares me to death.


: I don't think we shouldn't be scared to death (none / 0) (#129)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:12:22 AM EST

of him. It isn't as if war is off the table ever for him apparently. He has to go to war with the army he has though and not he army he wishes he had and at this point that can be a little limiting.

This is a good opportunity for Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:45:30 PM EST

I sincerely hope she does well and is recognized for doing well. She deserves it. Policy smarts is what sets her above the field.

She did well (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:02:34 PM EST

as she could in 5 minutes. Hit the main points, then asked two good questions, which I will paraphrase: to Crocker: will the US Congress get to vote on the long term forces agreement with Iraq that is being negotiated, since it appears that the Iraqi congress might get to vote? He didn't know, but it seemed the intention was NO. and to Petraueus: what are the metrics by which we are measuring success - which he dodged.


Hillary has been talking about this (5.00 / 5) (#24)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:03:29 PM EST

for months, and no one brings it up.


One thing that bothers me about ... (none / 0) (#43)
by magster on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:18:19 PM EST

... Clinton's push to have Congress pass a law that says this security agreement with Iraq needs Congressional approval is that it already is the law of the land.

Her initiative impliedly validates what Bush has been doing by declaring a new law is needed to restore what everyone before Bush already deemed to exist. (Am I making sense?)


Not new law (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:20:45 PM EST

She was not proposing a new law, she was making the point that Bush has to bring it to the US Congress and the Iraqi congress is not authorized to obligate future US presidents.


What was she challenging Obama to cosponsor? (none / 0) (#51)
by magster on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:25:21 PM EST

Resolution to urge (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:26:44 PM EST

not a law, a resolution to remind the president what the law is and to go on the record.


Clinton quote (none / 0) (#57)
by magster on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:39:04 PM EST

"And as you may know, I currently have legislation requiring the Congress to have an opportunity to consider such an agreement before it is signed."

Legislation says to me that it's more than a resolution.

Notwithstanding your's and my confusion on this, isn't it stunning that Clinton et al has to even consider some form of legislation to enforce or reratify or whatever an unambiguous provision of the constitution regarding Congressional approval of treaties? Worst President Ever.


Whatever it is... (none / 0) (#65)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:59:25 PM EST

she has been talking about this and trying to make sure it does not get snuck under the radar. I think that Bush is saying that Congress does not have to act on it, she is saying they do, not a new law but they need to vote on it. Her urging was for a resolution to make sure that it is brought to Congress. That was my understanding.


: Read down thread... (none / 0) (#66)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:01:34 PM EST

She is clear as a bell, where I was not. That is why I admire her. She is on the ball.

Yes, but the Bush administratoin (none / 0) (#93)
by litigatormom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:29:46 PM EST

constantly ignores existing law. I think that what she is proposing is a resolution that says that anything Bush agrees to that is not submitted to Congress is not binding. I could be wrong about that, though.


I expected nothing less. (none / 0) (#28)
by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:05:35 PM EST

Thank you for letting me know. I do appreciate it.


NO QUARTERS has video (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Prabhata on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:49:16 PM EST

Of HRC questioning the general.

According to Huffpo... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Marco21 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:49:37 PM EST

Obama is holding his first committee meeting today.

Goody goody.

Smart (5.00 / 3) (#31)
by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:06:41 PM EST

Slide one in under the radar on 'Petraeus Day' so he can say he had a hearing. Too bad HuffPo blew his cover. Now it just looks obvious.


But it's only the Europe subcommittee (none / 0) (#19)
by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:00:44 PM EST

Not like those europeans are helping us in places around the world fighting terrorists, like Afghanistan... oh wait.


: Old or new Europe? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:01:16 PM EST

Here's the lonk from Huffpo. (none / 0) (#34)
by Marco21 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:09:28 PM EST

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/obama-steps-int.html

They must be so proud he's getting around to doing his job.


It's not his committee. (none / 0) (#102)
by cmugirl on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:32:55 PM EST

It's the Foreign Relations Committee, so since he is so low in seniority, he won't get to speak for a while.


follow the link (none / 0) (#121)
by TheRefugee on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:50:13 PM EST

Obama chairs a subcommittee on Foreign Relations concerning Europe and Afghanistan...the one that Hillary has often wondered aloud at concerning his lack of holding a single hearing on Afghanistan since he was given this chair.


I know - (none / 0) (#122)
by cmugirl on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:55:22 PM EST

But it's not his Subcommittee holding the hearings. It's Joe Biden's committee.


: wow (none / 0) (#123)
by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:59:18 PM EST

That's a strenuous hearing - a handful of nominations. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that the nom for ambassador of finland is not very contreversial.
This still leaves his record of no oversight hearings unbroken.

ummm.... (none / 0) (#126)
by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:01:31 PM EST

NATO supplies a huge number of troops in Afghanistan. A hearing on NATO (which is based, I believe, in Europe) would necessarily focus on the Afghanistan mission.


They Are Pumping (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:53:09 PM EST

Up the Iran element. Ironically it was the US that provoked the recent fighting in Basra and it was who helped negotiate the end of fighting there. But why bother with facts when you have an axis of evil to terrify voters with.

The one and only variable that can clinch a victory for McCain, is Bush starting a war with Iran. I would not put it past him.

Edit (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:54:12 PM EST

It was Iran that helped negotiate the end of fighting Basra.


: Will MSNBC cut to that? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:58:35 PM EST

Seriously, is he holding a subcommittee meeting at the same time as his committee or did he already hold it this morning? I could go to HuffPo and find out, but I don't give them my traffic anymore.
I guess it makes sense to hold a meeting since he has to be in DC anyway, right? Being too busy running for prez was the reason he gave for not having done so before, wasn't it? I have to ask because I don't trust my own memory anymore when it comes to Obama.

What's unbelievable is (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:56:22 PM EST

that McCain AGAIN conflated Shi'ites and Al Qaeda when he was questioning Petraeus.

What's up with that? He MUST know that Al Qaeda is Sunni.


I suspect he'll pass it off as a joke. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by RickTaylor on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:05:15 PM EST

And the media will let him.


: How right you are. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:07:05 PM EST

And how depressing. Sigh.

I don't believe it's a mistake on his (5.00 / 3) (#36)
by MarkL on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:11:45 PM EST

part. Give McCain some credit. If people believe that Iran and Al Qaeda are connected, then it will be easier to get support for a war.
It worked for Bush wirh Iraq, didn't it?


: I agree with your cynicism (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by magster on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:20:36 PM EST

He's laying the groundwork for an Iranian attack by wrongfully linking them with al Qaeda. It's happening too frequently to pass this off as ignorance.

I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by themomcat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:11:47 PM EST

what else he can't keep straight or remember, after all he is 72. Granted, there are plenty of 72 year olds that are sharp as tacks but McCain seems to have problems with facts and he has a temper. He has yet to release his medical records. It would be interesting to know more about his families medical history.


Again? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by MKS on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:13:16 PM EST

The fundamental strategic issue with Iran is its natural alliance between the majority Shi'a in Iraq.

Shi'a Iran is a natural enemy of Sunni al Qaeda, and Iran's Quds forces have been deployed against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The real war in Iraq is a proxy war between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shi'a Iran.....We are basically taking the Saudi position....No surprise there....


Better To Keep It Confusing (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:23:02 PM EST

That way it is easier for them to make stuff up. Maliki, proves himself a ridiculous sock puppet in a recent interview about the Basra fighting. He claims that al-qaida is no longer in Iraq thanks to the Surge.

I believe al-Qaeda tried all its power in Iraq and was defeated, and its defeat in Iraq requires us to pursue it in the other countries to finish this dangerous organization in the world.

: Link (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:24:27 PM EST

To Maliki Interview

I caught Pat Buchanan (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by magisterludi on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:11:11 PM EST

saying Bushco was itching to engage Iran militarily before they leave office. Apparently it's under discussion.

Madness.


: No doubt in my mind (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:24:25 PM EST

Whenever Cheney visits the middle east you know he is drumming up support for something, and he is not a good will ambassador.

: What's A Small War (5.00 / 2) (#52)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:26:07 PM EST

If it guarantees Republican control for the next four years. Stuffing the courts is more important than a little blood spilled.

Petraeus made a few remarks to that effect. (none / 0) (#9)
by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:54:30 PM EST

"reckless and irresponsible"... (5.00 / 0) (#12)
by kdog on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:56:21 PM EST

Funny, that's what I would call the McCain/Clinton/Obama plan for continued occupation...reckless and irresponsible.

Petraus (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:00:49 PM EST

Man if you listen to the report we are just doing fine and dandy. All the self congratulating. What other job in the world, other than corporate CEO, do you get complimented when your program does not work?

: McCain said (none / 0) (#99)
by litigatormom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:32:03 PM EST

that we are no longer staring into the abyss of defeat in Iraq.
Liebertoad went even further, saying that the Iraqis have made more political progress than the United States has, because Democrats refuse to see all the progress that's been made. And if that made your head spin, he also asked Petraeus leading questions about how Iran is a big problem in Iraq.

C-span (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by waldenpond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:03:24 PM EST

I am annoyed C-span is not covering this. If they can cover campaign rallies in their entirety, you would think the frigging WAR would get coverage. Couldn't they at least cut to the hearings instead of playing elevator music while at break. I have to keep flipping channel.

cspan (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:13:02 PM EST

i believe they must cover the senate and the house while those two are in session - part of their contract or charter or whatever created CSPAN.


C-Span 3 (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by themomcat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:13:08 PM EST

is now carrying the hearings.


That's Strange (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by The Maven on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:18:27 PM EST

According to the C-SPAN schedule, they had the Armed Services Committee hearing on for four and a half hours earlier today. C-SPAN 3 seems to have the Foreign Relations Committee hearing on now.


: I have basic cable (none / 0) (#127)
by waldenpond on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:04:42 AM EST

and I get C-span and C-span 2.

cspan radio on line as well (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:21:22 PM EST

my best friend at work!


Can you get CSPAN radio? It's on there. (none / 0) (#33)
by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:07:05 PM EST

I stopped watching c-span (none / 0) (#128)
by teachermom on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:14:51 AM EST

a while ago, I think when they weren't covering Hill during primary nt -- and now whenever I flip there they are airing shows from years ago, or a right wing tank "symposium" . I got nuthin' to back this up -- just a subjective note.


HRC on Bush's plans to go around Congress again (5.00 / 4) (#25)
by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:04:23 PM EST

and keep troops in Iraq 4-Evah.

From WaPo.

With respect to our long-term challenges, Ambassador Crocker, the administration has announced that it will negotiate an agreement with the government of Iraq by the end of July that would provide the legal authorities for U.S. troops to continue to conduct operations in Iraq.
Let me ask you: Do you anticipate that the Iraqi government would submit such an agreement to the Iraqi parliament for ratification?
U.S. AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ RYAN CROCKER: The Iraqi government has indicated it will bring the agreement to the Council of Representatives. At this point, it is not clear, at least to me, whether that will be for a formal vote or whether they will repeat the process they used in November with the declaration of principles, in which it was simply read to the members of the parliament.
CLINTON: Does the administration plan to submit this agreement to our Congress?
CROCKER: At this point, Senator, we do not anticipate that the agreements will have within them any elements that would require the advise-and-consent procedure. We intend to negotiate this as an executive agreement.
CLINTON: Well, Ambassador Crocker, it seems odd, I think, to Americans who are being asked to commit for an indefinite period of time the lives of our young men and women in uniform, the civilian employees, whom you rightly referenced and thanked, as well as billions of dollars of additional taxpayer dollars, if the Iraqi parliament may have a chance to consider this agreement, that the United States Congress would not.
And as you may know, I currently have legislation requiring the Congress to have an opportunity to consider such an agreement before it is signed. And I would urge you to submit such an agreement to the Congress for full consideration.

: Boo-Yah! (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by flashman on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:54:31 PM EST

Just keep stickin' it to the boyz, Ms. C! We're behind you!

is he talking about the same iraq (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by cpinva on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:38:04 PM EST

Today, Mr. McCain said, "it is possible to talk with real hope and optimism about the future of Iraq and the outcome of our efforts there."

that i'm familiar with? you know, the one next to iran, used to have some guy named saddam in charge? that iraq? or is it the evil twin, "skippy" iraq?

the man is not only 72, hes suffered some pretty horrific physical and mental abuse in his life, at the hands of the north vietnamese. it wouldn't at all surprise me to learn that the long-term affects of that abuse are causing adverse consequences for him, physically and mentally.

Clinton can be (5.00 / 2) (#68)
by DaytonDem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:04:26 PM EST

very impressive when people actually listen to her instead of listening thru their CDS filter. She even got Matt to step back from the cliff a little today.

Hey now! After long months of primary campaigning, things snap back into a new perspective as Hillary Clinton takes her turn at the questioning. She looks very tired but also substantially better-prepared than most of her Democratic colleagues, and she has very good questions (thus far Jack Reed and her are in a different league from the other Democrats) plus at the end of the day she and I are on the same side, and these Republicans are the other side. Always good to return to earth. I'll look forward to this primary being over and all the liberals pulling in the same direction.

Mighty big of Matt!! (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:06:27 PM EST

: Wow, he is almost (5.00 / 2) (#74)
by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:16:15 PM EST

saying I may be supporting her for some other reason than being an over 50 white woman!!!

Barbara Boxer gave them heck... (5.00 / 2) (#72)
by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:11:24 PM EST

..she went off about how the Iranian president gets kissed by Iraqis and our president has to sneak in at the dead of night. It was pretty funny.

: Good for Barbara! (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:16:27 PM EST

Love her. She's the one who is the real straight talker, not McCain.

: It was good (none / 0) (#76)
by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:17:48 PM EST

Biden asked him if Cheney got kissed. OK, now try to get that image out of your mind!

He's trying to be tough.... (5.00 / 3) (#82)
by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:22:28 PM EST

...I think I now officially dislike him.

: You said it (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:24:03 PM EST

Hillary did not campaign (5.00 / 2) (#94)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:30:30 PM EST

She was doing her job, he is campaigning.

Absoutely correct.... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:31:26 PM EST

..and he will get praised for it, mark my words.


: Uh..uh...uh (none / 0) (#101)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:32:43 PM EST

are we chattering? I am sorry..but can't help it (5.00 / 2) (#104)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:33:20 PM EST

My gawd...tweaty busts in (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:34:19 PM EST

I thought I was on Cspan

: Ha! That would be a shock to the system!!! (5.00 / 1) (#115)
by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:40:59 PM EST

Here comes Tweety's praise.... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:35:23 PM EST

Obama was honing in on the essential question that the American people want answered. According to Norah, Obama was really trying to nail the general down. See, he gets all the credit...as if everybody else wasn't essentially asking the same question all day.

: Robinson fawns (5.00 / 1) (#108)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:36:35 PM EST

: I don;t think that matters (none / 0) (#110)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:38:13 PM EST

My own impression was Obama was not very impressive in this hearing, but who cares? It has little to do with what a President will face.

I'm just flummoxed. This will be my last post re.. (5.00 / 2) (#109)
by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:38:07 PM EST

Tweety is now telling us what Obama really meant and making it sound really significant. Tweety is now imagining the debates between McCain and Obama MSNBC says he had command about the issue. So now, according to MSM, the whole purspose of this committee meeting was for Obama to show his chops.

You need to calm down (none / 0) (#112)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:39:10 PM EST

Tweety is meaningless.

Honestly. If he thought that, he thought that. He is entitled to his opinion.


Sorry, I am trying. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:39:47 PM EST

: Wow who is this boy? (none / 0) (#116)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:42:28 PM EST

He gives it to Clinton "the most Senatorial". Now Norah is excited.

Gawd. Biden says (5.00 / 1) (#119)
by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:45:34 PM EST

he gave Obama extra time because he was in the middle of a question. Not true at all. He was done with a question, then got more time to make a statement, then ask more questions.

Really, that is fine, but let everybody do it, and don't lie about the reason.

A little factoid I picked up on CNN (5.00 / 3) (#120)
by countme on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:45:51 PM EST

I thought this tid bit of information needed to be posted. on Wolf Blitzer - The Situation Room, he posted a Statistic on the number of votes missed since the beginning of 2007.

John McCain - 311 votes
Barack Obama - 204 votes
Hillary Clinton - 148 votes

Again it goes to show you that Obama in his short time as a Senator is unable to vote on key issues. Hillary still manages to get back to work and vote even while running a 24/7 presidential campaign.

She's the BEST

: as we've seen (none / 0) (#125)
by TheRefugee on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:01:24 PM EST

a large chunk of Dems don't give a flying .... about Best, they care about "electable" and that is a bull crap stance...if everybody got behind the Best then the Best candidate WOULD be electable and not the candidate with the best chance at winning votes via charm and speaking ability.

McCain is tying his entire campaign (none / 0) (#1)
by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:38:32 PM EST

to the popularity of the war in Iraq.

Seems like a big mistake to me, so I hope he keeps doing it!

Has Obama not spoken yet?

Obama is on a different committee (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:55:16 PM EST

Foreign Relations, not Armed Services. Foreign Relations is on now, and Sen. Biden is currently speaking, so I think we have a long way to go until we get to Sen. Obama.


Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:57:29 PM EST

I see you are familiar with Biden's tendency to bloviate. ;-)

I know that Obama is not on that committee - I was just wondering when he'd be up.


Obama will be up much later (none / 0) (#17)
by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:59:10 PM EST

this afternoon. They are just stating the questioning, each Senator gets 7 minutes, and Obama is up near last, if not actually last.


Obama (none / 0) (#18)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:59:27 PM EST

will be on around 5:00 EST.


Just in time for evening newscasts, probably (none / 0) (#58)
by Suma on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:39:25 PM EST

: Maybe on cable (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by nycstray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:48:20 PM EST

But I suspect my local broadcast stations won't have a whole lot of time dedicated to it, so I think it will be McCain and Clinton that gets the 'visual' cycle, with Obama mentioned in the reporting. He might get more play on the 6:30 national news cycle. And may get more in the west because of the time differences, but that won't help in PA ;)

Oops, sorry (none / 0) (#27)
by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:05:29 PM EST

didn't mean to imply you didn't know. :-)


: No worries :-) (none / 0) (#30)
by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:06:13 PM EST

Listening to Biden (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:58:08 PM EST

Can we all agree we are glad he is not going to be our nominee? He's smart, and his heart is in the right place, but the guy is nearly incoherent.


Yes, I am glad. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:05:46 PM EST

He still would be a valuable person to consult in FP for either candidate, though.


Oh yes, absolutely. (none / 0) (#41)
by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:16:17 PM EST

I'd be great with him as Sec of State


I know he is not always (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:18:03 PM EST

incoherent. I exaggerate for effect. That looked funny - like I want an incoherent sec of state.


: He is long-winded (none / 0) (#53)
by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:26:17 PM EST

but usually coherent. ;-)

Really? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:39:39 PM EST

...I can't really see him as a good diplomat.


: I'm not sure about the Sec'y of State thing (none / 0) (#78)
by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:17:50 PM EST

for that reason.
But he is very knowledgeable about the Middle East.

Only if you had days and days to (none / 0) (#83)
by hairspray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:24:02 PM EST

listen to him pontificate. Once he went on endlessly about how unaceptable Condi Rice was (SOS nomination) only to turn around at the end of the senate hearing and vote to confirm her. DUH!


He got Crocker to admit AQI less a threat than (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by magster on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:41:44 PM EST

Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

That will be a nice Obama (or Clinton) campaign commercial. I hope that soundbite gets replayed on the news.


I don't know if anyone has posted on this, (5.00 / 2) (#61)
by frankly0 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:47:34 PM EST

but Obama has made this pretty incredible claim about his own foreign policy expertise:

"I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I'm not as expert on," he replied. "I think a lot of people assume that might be some kind of military thing to make me look more commander-in-chief-like. Ironically, this is an area -- foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."

I mean, the guy with just about zero foreign policy experience and exposure is presuming to say that he knows MORE than either McCain or Hillary? Does the guy have no shame or modesty?

I find the delusional arrogance of this claim simply breathtaking. I don't know which is worse: the grotesque distortion of his own level of "knowledge" of foreign policy, or his boastfulness in declaring it.

Will no one hold him to account for this kind of grandiose self-aggrandizement?


I wonder if it's his good judgment (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by nycstray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:50:26 PM EST

that makes him say this crap? Or is arrogance overriding judgment, lol!~


You missed the best part (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:02:39 PM EST

Where he explains where his foreign policy experience comes from - basically having lived overseas as a kid and having some relatives from other countries (which, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't he been to Kenya exactly once?)


with his "impoverished" relatives (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:04:39 PM EST

how insulting. I am sure they are well educated and are doing well by Kenyan standards.


: Yeah (none / 0) (#71)
by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:10:28 PM EST

Pretty ethnocentric of him. :)

My gut tells me that he about equal to (5.00 / 2) (#87)
by MarkL on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:26:21 PM EST

George W. Bush in terms of readiness to conduct foreign policy and make military decisions.


tying (none / 0) (#56)
by manys on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:38:43 PM EST

It's all he has, the war. He has to be a hawk, otherwise he will be immolated with the albatross of Cheney and Bush. If he rejects the war he has no chance, so supporting it will give him slightly better odds. It's a pure numbers game, and he cannot survive the laugh test if he repudiates the war. He has to be 110% into it for anybody to give him money.


Obama is on now (none / 0) (#79)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:20:16 PM EST

Obama up early (none / 0) (#80)
by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:21:17 PM EST

Nelson gave him his spot because Obama has a "scheduling conflict".

: OMG! (5.00 / 2) (#88)
by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:27:07 PM EST

Unbelievable.
Well, let's see what he has to say.

I want side by side videos (none / 0) (#85)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:24:40 PM EST

Technically (none / 0) (#86)
by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:26:20 PM EST

Bill is only one spot above Obama on the Democratic side. So it's not a huge favor - probably only moved him up by 15 minutes.

They just gave him extra time... (none / 0) (#92)
by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:29:02 PM EST

..to make some "points" everything gets handed to him but now he is lecturing Petraeus and telling everyone what he thinks.


: Yup (none / 0) (#95)
by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:30:34 PM EST

Had to get his 'wrong from the start and I opposed it' in there.

Oh god now he wants to piggyback on to Boxer's (none / 0) (#89)
by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:27:21 PM EST

...question. Guess he ran out of original material.

: Well... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:28:56 PM EST

Warner already asked his "did this make us safer" question, so it's not like Obama could go THERE again.

Gawd...Barbara and Y'all (none / 0) (#90)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:28:30 PM EST

Kissing is common in the middle east...it's nothing special. How little we know about other cultures.

Petraus face right now...priceless!! (none / 0) (#96)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:31:21 PM EST

He is totally hogging this. (none / 0) (#98)
by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:31:49 PM EST

: Ha (5.00 / 1) (#103)
by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:33:05 PM EST

Biden helps him with his question, plus gives him like 5 extra minutes. Unbelievable.

Can you elaborate, please? (none / 0) (#105)
by MarkL on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:33:21 PM EST

Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#113)
by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:39:46 PM EST

Quick summary from memory

Obama asked quesitons about Al Queda being able to reconstitute if we leave, and got Petraues to admit that the best we can ever do is reduce AQ to the point where they are not a threat to us or Iraq - can't eradicate every trace. By this time he had only a couple of minutes left and asked Crocker a question that folowed up on Boxer's about Iraqis likeing Iranians better than us. Then his time was up and hse asked for a little more and preceeded to make his statemnet we have heard a lot about how it was a msitake from the start, he opposed it, and these guys were just trying to clean up the mess that is not their fault. THEN asked yet another couple of questions of how we know when we are 'done', which Petraeus dogded and Biden yelled - you didn't answer the question!! All told I bet he got 5 extra minutes, plus help form the chair.


Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#117)
by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:43:18 PM EST

Asked the question already about how we know when we are done. From the transcript:

What conditions would have to exist for you to recommend to the president that the current strategy is not working? And it seems apparent that you have a conditions-based analysis, as you set forth in your testimony, but the conditions are unclear, they certainly lack specificity, and the decision points, with respect to these conditions, are also vague.
So how are we to judge, General Petraeus, what the conditions are or should be and the actions that you and the administration would recommend pursuing based on them?

: that's right (5.00 / 1) (#124)
by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:00:14 PM EST

Petraueus dodged her too. Levin didn't jump in and give her more time though.

He may not get the cycle he needs (none / 0) (#100)
by nycstray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:32:33 PM EST

I'm watching local ABC. They did a minute or 2 in the 5PM cycle Levin/McCain. We'll see if they change it for 5:30 and 6. Last shot, which is where it will get the most attention is national at 6:30.

Not sure how different local broadcasts are in PA, but here they cram it into 30minute rotations with not a lot of variation.