Clinton calls Iraq ‘failed policy’
-
- September
- 11
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told Army Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker today that they and the troops had “incredibly difficult’’ jobs because they have been directed to carry out what many lawmakers view as “a failed policy.’’
The leading Democratic candidate for next year’s presidential nomination was blunt in her criticism.
“I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief,’’ Clinton said as the testimony by Petraeus and Crocker before multiple House and Senate committees neared the end of its second day. “In any of the metrics that have been referenced in your many hours of testimony, any fair reading of the advantages and disadvantages accruing post-surge, in my view end up on the downside.’’
Clinton noted she started her day at Ground Zero in lower Manhattan at a ceremony in the rain that included the reading of the nearly three thousand victims.
“We get very little comfort from the fact that the mastermind of that mass murder is at large, neither captured nor killed,’’ she said. “And that the Taliban and al-Qaida, are resurging in Afghanistan. And their network is certainly – if not tightly organized – a loose confederacy that has grave consequences for us.’’
Clinton added that the progress reported in Iraq’s Anbar Province involves coalition work with the sheiks that began before the military surge. In addition, overall civilian deaths and U.S. troops killed in action have risen in 2007, and there’s not much evidence the Iraqi leadership is ready to put aside its sectarian and personal differences, she said.
“I give you tremendous credit for presenting a positive view of a rather grim reality,’’ Clinton.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, September 11th, 2007 at 7:02 pm by Brian Tumulty.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Share and Enjoy: 
| 
| 
Email This
I think we shoukd let the turks hanndle iraq. if the kurds would make a treaty with turkey then they could keep sunis,shias, and iran at bay. with turkey in tthe picture iran would not dare meddle with iraq,
Hillary Clinton did vote for the Iraq war originally, so her criticism now comes off as election expediency.
“I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief,” Clinton said as the testimony by Petraeus and Crocker before multiple House and Senate committees neared the end of its second day.
“Still, I’d like your vote,” she concluded, “and to be your boss.”
Great for Hillary to stand up to this administration’s failed policy in Iraq. She’s for sure the candidate who will end this war in a responsible and safe way.
Thank you to the above three morons and the countless others that will follow. America will definitely be better off if Hillary Clinton doesn’t do her job as Senator so that Fox Noise has talking points.
Dodd, Biden, or Clinton – any or all for president. American needs experience.
Hillary will b e decisive,resolute and strong leader wtih experience who get us out the Iraq mess. Hillary, go girl go.
Hillary is being disingenuous, as always. Grandstanding
to cater to the far Left, criticizing a war she voted for. She basically called the General a liar. Quite an insult. Petraeus has more credibility in one finger than Hillary and Bill have in their entire bodies.
Can’t wait for the Norman Hsu case to develop.
I don’t know if Hilary will become President but for sure she has made herself the “Waffle Queen”! Of course she does actually wear the pants in the family (or at least can keep them on) so “Waffle King” might be more appropriate…
It turns out that Clinton’s camp was warned about Hsu back in June but continued to defend him. Uh, oh. The scandal deepens.
Hillary also voted to confirm Petraeus to lead the troops
in Iraq, but now she turns on him to kiss up to the
likes of Moveon.org. Typical Clinton.
And the NY Times may be in trouble soon over that horrible ad about Petraeus. There are reports the paper gave Moveon.org a $102,000 discount on that full-page smear. If those reports are true, it’s another black eye for the Times. It also would mean they basically endorsed the ad.
let’s forget about hillary for a moment..she is the
clear frontrunner and is now 20 points ahead of
obama…what is more disturbing is that fred thompson
according to the 9/12 cnn poll is now dead even
at 27 with rudy for the nomination..the problem
is when he is paired against the three democrats
he gets slaughtered…only rudy comes within
the margin of error against hillary obama
and edwards…..the social conservatives
are going to elect hillary clinton if they
don;t recognize that there is only one chance
to stop her
It might end up a Thompson-Rudy ticket, or vice versa.
Either ticket could beat the Democrats, and I wouldn’t
eliminate Romney yet, either. McCain is making a
comeback, but I think it’s too little too late. He
did himself in aligning with Ted Kennedy and the
gang on the Immigration fiasco.
If there’s a war with Iran, and it looks like
the storm clouds are gathering, I wouldn’t worry
about any Democrat.
ethan..sorry to tell you this but under no circumstances
will I support fred thompson for president…I would
have no problem with mc cain romney or rudy..but
Thompson is a former senator with no core beliefs
and no experience running anything….unfortunately
the only reason he is gaining traction is his
social positions…I believe that will fade quickly
when he is forced to discuss the important issues
facing the nation…should the republican party
nominate fred thompson…you can count on a hillary
clinton presidency….
Consultant,
I do think Rudy is in some trouble. He might soon
be singing Paul Simon’s “Slip Sliding Away.”
But I agree Thompson should not get it. I think
a Rudy-Thompson or Romney-Thompson ticket could win.
Even a McCain-Thompson ticket might win.
But as I indicated above, if there is big trouble
brewing with Iran, and it looks like there might be,
then I don’t think there is a single Democrat who
can win the presidency.