In Oregon, Clinton Makes False Claim About Her Iraq Record Vs. Obama's
April 06, 2008 9:49 AM
In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure
by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama,
D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined
the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of
force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed
that using that measure she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.
But Clinton's claim was false.
Clinton on Saturday told Oregonians, "when Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have
voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts. We both
voted against early deadlines. I actually starting criticizing the war in Iraq before he did."
It's an odd way to measure opposition to the war -- comparing who gave the first
criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama's opposition to the
war throughout 2003 and 2004.
But even if one were to employ this "Start Counting in January 2005" measurement,
Clinton did not criticize the war in Iraq first.
Scrambling to support their boss's claim, Clinton campaign officials pointed to a paper
statement Clinton issued on Jan. 26, 2005, explaining her vote to confirm Condoleezza
Rice as Secretary of State.
"The Administration and Defense Department's Iraq policy has been, by any reasonable
measure, riddled with errors, misstatements and misjudgments," the January 2005 Clinton
statement said. "From the beginning of the Iraqi war, we were inadequately prepared for
the aftermath of the invasion with too few troops and an inadequate plan to stabilize Iraq."
But Obama offered criticisms of the war in Iraq eight days before that, directly to Rice, in
his very first meeting as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 18.
Obama pushed Rice on her answers to previous questioners regarding the effectiveness of
Iraqi troops, and he criticized the administration for conveying a never-ending
commitment to a US troop presence in Iraq.
"I am concerned about this notion that was pursued by Senator Biden and others that
we've made significant progress in training troops," Obama told Rice "Because it seems to
me that in your response to Senator Alexander that we will not be able to get our troops
out absent the Iraqi forces being able to secure their own country, or at least this
administration would not be willing to define success in the absence of such security. I
never got quite a clear answer to Senator Biden's question as to how many troops -- Iraqi
troops -- don't just have a uniform and aren't just drawing a paycheck, but are effective
enough and committed enough that we would willingly have our own troops fighting side-
by- side with them. The number of 120,000 you gave, I suspect, does not meet those
fairly stringent criteria that Senator Biden was alluding to. I just want to make sure, on the
record, that you give me some sense of where we're at now."
Obama concluded his brief q&a by saying "if our measure is bring our troops home and
success is measured by whether Iraqis can secure their own circumstances, and if our best
troops in the world are having trouble controlling the situation with 150,000 or so, it
sounds like we've got a long way to go. And I think part of what the American people are
going to need is some certainty, not an absolute timetable, but a little more certainty than
is being provided, because right now, it appears to be an entirely open-ended
commitment."
**
The misrepresentation of the record is symbolic of the re-writing of history Clinton has
attempted on her record regarding the war in Iraq.
Because the larger context is more important. And Clinton's written criticism of the war in
a press statement in January 2005 received little attention compared to the press
surrounding her trip to Iraq the next month, in February 2005.
Upon returning she argued that setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops would
aid the enemy.
"I don't think it's useful to set a deadline because I think it sends a signal to the terrorists
and the insurgents that they just have to wait us out," she said.
Describing her trip to Iraq, she said, "It's regrettable that the security needs have
increased so much. On the other hand, I think you can look at the country as a whole and
see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well."
She also interpreted a series of suicide bomb attacks as an indication that the insurgency
was failing.
"The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure," she said. "Not one
polling place was shut down or overrun. The fact that you have these suicide bombers
now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their
failure."
In an interview with NBC's Meet the Press on Feb. 20, 2005, Clinton said that withdrawing
some troops or setting a date for withdrawal would be a "mistake."
"I don't believe we should tie our hands or the hands of the new Iraqi government,"
Clinton said. "We don't want to send a signal to the insurgents, to the terrorists that we
are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain."
"We have just finished meeting with the current prime minister, the deputy prime minister
and the finance minister, and in our meetings, we posed the question to each of them as
to whether they believed that we should set a firm deadline for the withdrawal of American
troops," Clinton said. "To a person, and they are of different political parties in this
election, but each of them said that would be a big mistake, that we needed to make clear
that there is a transition now going on to the Iraqi government. When it is formed, which
we hope will be shortly, it will assume responsibility for much of the security, with the
assistance and cooperation of the coalition forces, primarily U.S. forces."
Clinton said that "what the American people need to know is, number one, we are very
proud of our young men and women who are here," and second, "there can be no doubt
that it is not in America's interests for the Iraqi government, the experiment in freedom
and democracy, to fail. So I hope that Americans understand that and that we will have as
united a front as is possible in our country at this time to keep our troops safe, make sure
they have everything they need and try to support this new Iraqi government."
She soon told New York Daily News editors and reporters that it was important for
Democrats to combat the idea that they're soft on national security issues like Iraq.
"If you can't persuade a majority of people that you're going to be strong and tough where
we need to protect America and our [national] interests, you can't cross the [electoral]
threshold," she said.
**
That same month, while Clinton was talking up the need for Democrats to project
strength, and claiming a withdrawal deadline be sending a signal to the terrorists, Obama
was meeting with his constituents, sounding quite skeptical about the war and reiterating
his opposition to the decision to go to war to begin with.
The Bloomington, Ill., Pantagraph reported that during a town hall meeting, asked about
the Iraq war, "Obama said poor planning by the Bush administration has left Iraq woefully
incapable of handling its own security. He expressed hope that more intensive training will
be provided for Iraqi forces, saying such measures could allow most American troops to
return home next year. While Obama said the recent Iraqi election is an encouraging sign
for democracy, he questioned Bush's rationale for the Iraq invasion. 'I didn't see the
weapons of mass destruction at the time, I didn't think there was an imminent threat from
Saddam Hussein.'"
Clinton made this latest questionable claim the same day that she came under fire for
repeatedly telling a story that turned out not to be true about a poor pregnant woman
losing her baby and her own life after being denied hospital treatment because she
couldn't afford a $100 fee. The New York Times discovered that the woman in question
was never denied treatment, and that she did have insurance. "We implore the Clinton
campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story," said a representative of the
hospital.
The Clinton campaign said that the senator had been told the story by a sheriff's deputy,
and had not been able to fully check its accuracy. "We did try but were not able to fully vet
it," Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee said. "If the hospital claims it did not
happen that way, we respect that."
This latest incident also comes less than two weeks after Clinton had to back off a
description of a plane landing during a 1996 trip to Bosnia that she had claimed was
under sniper fire. Video evidence surfaced proving that claim false and Clinton admitted
that she "misspoke."
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Dems2008-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Dems2008-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Dems2008-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder