Candidates weigh in at Iraq hearings
By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff
WASHINGTON -- In a day-long grilling by senators demanding answers to the resolution of the US occupation in Iraq, the chief American commander there had one absolute certainty even before he testified: one of his questioners is going to be the next president, and the future of the Iraq mission will hinge on the results of the November election.
All three remaining major presidential candidates -- Republican John McCain and Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- had their chance today to question both General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on the progress toward military and political stability in Iraq.
Leaving the campaign trail for the Senate committee hearings gave all three contenders the rare opportunity to be both senator and prospective commander-in-chief, as each used the issue to trumpet their talking points on resolving the conflict in Iraq.
The hearings also hinted at the fall campaign. Democrats, aware that many voters have turned their attention from the war to the faltering economy, hammered the top US officials in Iraq on why the United States is still spending tens of billions of dollars for rebuilding and safeguarding Iraq, instead of forcing Iraq to use its extensive oil revenues.
Republicans peppered Petraeus and Crocker with questions about bringing an end to the unpopular war, but praised them for military advances in Iraq and underscored the US national security interests in achieving a stable Iraq.
McCain offered the rosiest view of the success of the troop build-up last year and delivered quick questions that elicited responses that fit his campaign pronouncements on the looming danger of Iran and the continuing threat from al-Qaeda in Iraq. The answers also affirmed McCain's assessment -- derided roundly by his Democratic opponents -- that the US military is likely to have a presence in Iraq for some time.
The United States, he said, is "no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success."
But success, McCain warned, demands staying in Iraq until the country is stable. "This means rejecting, as we did in 2007, the calls for a reckless and irresponsible withdrawal of our forces at the moment when they are succeeding,'' said the Arizona senator, whose extended opening remarks as senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee drew hisses and bellowed objections from demonstrators in the hearing room.
Clinton and Obama, meanwhile, used their time to reiterate their pledges to begin withdrawing combat troops from Iraq once in the White House and completing the withdrawal during 2010 -- and both delivered their remarks in ways that addressed criticisms of each on the Iraq issue.
Clinton, whom antiwar Democrats complain has not fully accounted for her 2002 vote authorizing the war, began her questions with a lengthy speech against Bush administration policy. Obama, whom Clinton has dismissed as long on rhetoric and short on specifics, opened with a series of detailed questions about internal Shi'ite conflict in Basra, and the extent to which Iranian influence in Iraq should be tolerated.
Clinton took a quick shot at McCain, saying the human and monetary costs of staying in Iraq were being ignored by those, like McCain, who warned of the costs of leaving. "I think it could be fair to say it might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again,'' Clinton said, seemingly oblivious to the cluster of photographers and cameramen capturing her words for posterity.
After the hearing, Clinton said she heard no indications that the Bush administration was looking for a way to extricate itself from Iraq. "It certainly sounded like an open-ended commitment to me,'' she told reporters.
Obama was non-confrontational as he questioned Petraeus and Crocker at the afternoon Foreign Relations Committee hearing. But he made clear he believed that the war was a "massive strategic blunder,'' and that the United States should begin a troop withdrawal. Obama asked the witnesses whether the standards for "success'' in Iraq -- political stability, no presence of al-Qaeda, and no dangerous influence from Iran -- are perhaps too high.
Those benchmarks, he said, create "the possibility our staying for 20 to 30 years.''
Do John McCain or conservative republicans respect the moral foundation of this country? The U.S. Constitution was actually designed, among other things, to protect the people of America from misguided government.
U.S. Constitution: Amendment I - Freedom of Religion
Right now, for the first time ever, your tax dollars are funding religious groups you may not agree with. To add insult to injury, conservative judges have ruled that taxpayers do not have a right to challenge this expenditure.
Amendment IV - Search and seizure
Under the guise of court action against abortion, Conservative republicans had John Ashcroft subpoena all the medical records of literally thousands of women just like you and members of your family. Conservative republicans are invading your privacy every day. Unfortunately for all of us, they don't appear to care about our U.S. constitution, or by extension, the people of our great country.
Amendment X - Powers of the States and People
John McCain and conservative republicans have tried consistently to overturn States Laws. They used your tax dollars to destroy the will of the people of Oregon, and the famous "Death with Dignity" law; they lost, but undoubtedly will try again. Conservative republicans and John McCain do not respect States Rights.
Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual punishment
Would you rather die, or support a government which supported and sanctioned torture? The founding fathers would rather have died, and in fact they were proud to fight and die for our government: A government which specifically outlaws cruel and unusual punishment for very important reasons.
I am one of millions of people that view this straying from our moral foundations as very bad news for our country. I urge you to keep this in mind in the coming election.
Could this article, along with just about every other article the media has produced during this campaign, be any more pro-Obama, anti-Clinton?
First:
"Clinton... began her questions with a lengthy speech"
Then:
"Obama... opened with a series of detailed questions about..."
First:
"Clinton took a quick shot at McCain"
Then:
"Obama was non-confrontational as he questioned Petraeus and Crocker"
Then, my personal favorite,
'"I think it could be fair to say it might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again,'' Clinton said, seemingly oblivious to the cluster of photographers and cameramen capturing her words for posterity.'
When, exactly, are we going to find a journalist that can just give straight, objective information without their own personal twist? Shame on you, Susan Milligan. Hate on Hilary all you want, but as a journalist you should have the professional integrity to give your readers the information without your twist.
General Petraeus while an honorable and capable military commander is just that a military man. The general does not see what this ill advised war has done at home. No one cannot say that the price of oil has not been effected by the war. Which has driven the economy into recession. President Bush is a stubborn Texan who refuses to admit an eggregious error was made.
Wether John McCain is a big enough man to admit the mistake and do what is needed to get us out of this quagmire is debatable. The old McCain would be independent enough to take that step but he has sold his soul to the right.
Hillary Clinton never having admitted her error in her origanal vote will in the end do the right thing and get us out of Iraq. Although I fear her timetable will be longer than expected.
So, the only real end the war vote is Barrack Obama since he is not beholden to big oil or the military. He also has no past votes to hold him back. The faster we get out the better we will be. Maybe the billions of dollars that is being spent on this fiasco can be allocated to improving our economy and helping this nation move forward. I feel Barrack is the only answer to this national mistake
Bill
Frank,
Your rhetoric is outstanding. With respect to our government funding religious groups, those funds go towards charitable organizations that provide services to poor and needy families. This actually saves the government (and taxpayers) money. Let me explain as you clearly have absolutely no clue what you are taking about. Religions and charitable organizations have infrastructure, volunteers, and programs in place to help the needy around the country. By allowing them federal grants to execute those programs, we avoid all the other necessary start-up costs, infrastructure requirements, and personnel needed to provide these families the help they need.
In terms of cruel and unusual punishment (or torture, whatever you want to call it), the founding fathers lived during a time when the enemies of the United States sought our land and natural resources. Our enemies in the 21st century have no country to call home, no government allegiance. They seek nothing but the death of any and all Americans because we do not believe in their radical, fundamentalist views. They will not be diplomatic. They will not seek a treaty. They will not stop until we are all dead. If torturing known terrorist leaders will stop another 9/11, USS Cole (when we should have gone after the Taliban in the first place), or Madrid train bombing, then so be it.
Get with it. We don't live in the 1700s. The Constitution is a bit out dated. It's interesting that you refrain from saying Gun Control laws have destroyed the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Calling you a liberal would be a compliment. You're a dangerous, left wing radical that wants the United States to become the France of the 21st century. Get a grip.
What I see in this presidential race is 2 candidates (Obama & Clinton) who have contributed to a combined $297 million dollars in earmarks (Clinton $200, Obama $97) and a third candidate, McCain, who contributed to a total of ZERO. I see a Candidate(Obama) who has already commited to $875 billion-plus in new spending in just one term, and another candidate(clinton) who has commited to spending $888 billion in one term. Talk about bad news for the country. I see another candidate (Obama) who has commited to raising the capital gains tax from 15% to a whopping 28% and who has admitted that it will not adversly effect the economy, talk about budget busting from the left. I see a candidate in Obama who sponsored legislation calling for complete troop withdrawal by the end of March 2008, but then recently refused to commit to complete troop withdrawal byt he end of his first term — that’s 2013 — were heelected President. B. Hussein Obama claims to be a transcendant candidate who will reach across party lines to work with conservitives on key issues and will take a "moderate view" yet has voted with his party on 96% of votes in congress, not exactly someone who will do whats best for the american people. Obama claims to be a candidate who has superior leadership and judgement yet on tough issues
To Tom:
Sorry, my friend, but it's you who are clueless.
More right wing propaganda from a misinformed wingnut. "With respect to our government funding religious groups, those funds go towards charitable organizations that provide services to poor and needy families."
Wrong. David Kuo, formerly Bush’s head of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, revealed that the office was mainly used “to mount ostensibly ‘nonpartisan’ events that were, in reality, designed with the intent of mobilizing religious voters in 20 targeted races.” This happened because Bush removed any safeguards that would prevent religious groups from proselytizing on taxpayers' dime.
Promoting the never-ending state of war as a reason to restrict our civil liberties is a hallmark of fascism. "Our enemies" you cite don't hate us for the reasons you propose. Osama Bin Laden said it clearly: they hate us for our policies. They hate us for keeping bases in their holy lands.
You're also wrong on torture. It prevents nothing. Courts are forced to throw out coerced confessions. Our torture policies, as part of the never-ending war on terror have actually provided Al Qaida and fringe groups with a recruitment boon. As the NIE, CIA, FBI and even Ambassador Crocker say, we're no more safe today for all our torture than we were on Sept. 10.
As for the "outdated" Constitution: if you're serious, then you have to say the same of the Bible, which misses the point, IMHO.
Conservatives: Wrong about everything, as Tom amply demonstrates. Why do conservatives hate our Constitution? Why do they hate the soldiers? Why do they hate America?
Kenny - the earmark report was put out by one of your wingnut welfare groups, Citizens Against Government Waste. This is the outfit that wrote took $5K from The International Health, Racquet and Sportsclub Association, and then in the past four Pig Books, listed YMCAs as wasteful earmarks. John Stauber, executive director of the Center for Media & Democracy, which tracks public relations campaigns, said CAGW is a front group that allows corporate interests such as the tobacco companies to stay in the shadows.
So when these wingnut welfare queens put together their list, they don't discriminate between worthy earmarks and pork, except when someone pays them to.
My question is, what has McCain done for Arizona, besides make phone calls and write letters on behalf of his blonde media lobbyist, Vicki Iseman?
Only a conservative can look at $12 billion a month going into the sinkhole that is Iraq and complain about $17.2 billion annually in domestic spending on infrastructure, and then look at 4,026 Americans dead, more than 1 million Iraqis, upwards of 2 million refugees, and no progress being made, a recession at home, and think: "Yes, this is the correct strategy."
Well done!
James - you are completely insane. You're going to honestly attempt to say that U.S soldiers have killed 1 million Iraqi civilians??? You're an idiot. And again, a recession is two, back-to-back quarters of negative GDP growth. We haven't even had one yet.
Furthermore, just because conservatives and liberals disagree on policy does not mean that either side does any of the following that you suggest: "Why do conservatives hate our Constitution? Why do they hate the soldiers? Why do they hate America?" I'm also willing to bet you live in Cambridge which automatically disqualifies you from saying anything even remotely rational.
Tom - Wrong again, as usual for a conservative. You guys are immune to reason, I understand. And you certainly can dish it out, but cannot take it. After 30 years of conservative rule, look where we are. You and the 25%ers who cling to your party line have smeared us Liberals for three decades with every manner of canard. Yet it's clear that conservative policies have increased human misery and suffering, from Iraq to Iowa. Though my taunts are semi-tongue in cheek, conservatives really have to answer for policies that extended tours of duty from 12 to 15 months; that cut Veterans' benefits; that used the "steath draft" technique of stop-loss to increase tours of duty from 1-2 to up to 5 deployments. All the while accusing anyone who dared oppose Dear Leader of being unpatriotic and hating the troops.
Now I also understand that a. you conservatives have a tough time using the Intertubes and teh Google. and b. If it doesn't fit the Limbaugh-Hannity orthodoxy, then it must be crushed.
1. A study by the Johns Hopkins University epidemiologists who had conducted such surveys before in Iraq, Congo, and elsewhere, of 1,850 households resulted in a shocking number: 600,000 dead by violence in the first 40 months of the war. The survey was extensively peer reviewed and published in the British medical journal, the Lancet, in October 2006. - We've had 2 more years of illegal occupation since then.
2. Recession - Blue chip economists see recession this year
Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:37am EDT
By Joanne Morrison
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy has already slipped into recession or will do so this year, according to a forecast of economists in the Blue Chip Economic Indicators Survey released on Thursday.
But the recession is not expected to be particularly deep or protracted, eased by a string of interest rate cuts from the Federal Reserve and an economic stimulus package signed into law that will put tax rebates in the hands of consumers later this year, the closely watched survey showed.
"More than half our panelists now say the economy has already entered or will slip into a recession this year," the newsletter wrote. Almost half predict an outright decline in jobs in 2008.
Finally, you'll notice I've refrained from name-calling, except to call you a conservative. Your name-calling is categorical - it defines the conservative movement, and is pretty much all you have left.
Conservatives: Wrong About Everything.
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
Send your comments to masspolitics@globe.com
browse this blog
by categoryINside Boston.com