Hillary at Petraeus Hearing & Obama

I just wrote a diary that for some reason didn't post. So, this is a very abbreviated version of that. Basically, an earlier diary today criticized Obama for not asking more questions with his alloted time at the Petraeus hearings--instead spending most of his time offering general commentary and criticism about the war. I'm writing to highlight the fact that Clinton used her time almost identically (since the majority of Obama's critics in the prior thread were Clinton supporters; I'm not criticizing her, as I think her use of her time was appropriate).

She had 12 minutes, 6-7 of which was used to offer general commentary and criticism--invoking 9/11 and Osama bin Laden--the rest of which was used to ask 2 questions.

Notably, the first question addressed the same general issue as Obama's one question and, as with Obama, the question had already been essentially answered. The second question was hardly provocative or specific enough to produce useful information.

Obama had 10 minutes, the first 6 of which were used to offer general commentary and criticism, while the remainder was used for a question and some pointed criticisms of the witnesses' prior testimony.

Transcript and video of Clinton's time at the hearing is below the fold. Sorry for the lame diary. The one that was lost included some analysis and questions. But, I don't have time to retype it all.

Here's the video: http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statement s/details.cfm?id=282410&&

Here's the transcript:

Senator Clinton Questions General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Iraq at Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing

Senator Clinton: I want to thank both of you, General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, for your long and distinguished service to our nation. Nobody believes that your jobs or the jobs of the thousands of American forces and civilian personnel in Iraq are anything but incredibly difficult.

But today you are testifying about the current status of our policy in Iraq and the prospects of that policy. It is a policy that you have been ordered to implement by the president. And you have been made the de facto spokesmen for what many of us believe to be a failed policy.

Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.

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.

I started my morning today at ground zero, where once again the names of the nearly 3,000 victims of the attack on our country were read solemnly in the rain.

We have seen Osama bin Laden reappear on our television sets, essentially taunting us. We have the most recent reports out of Germany of terrorists plotting against American assets who have been trained in Pakistan. And we get very little comfort from the fact that the mastermind of that mass murder is at large, neither captured nor killed, 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.

With respect to Anbar province, a lot has been made of the coalition's work with the sheiks, but that was going on before the surge.

General, in your testimony during your confirmation hearings you referenced the fact that the sheiks were coming over, that there was already a decision by a lot of the tribal leaders that they would no longer tolerate the extraordinary brutality of the Al Qaida elements in Al Anbar province.

With respect to violence within Iraq, although the charts tell part of the story, I don't think they tell the whole story. If you look at all of the evidence that's been presented, overall civilian deaths have risen. The number of car bombings is higher. May was the deadliest month in 2007 with 1,901 civilian deaths.

American military casualties are greater every month in 2007 than in the same month in 2006, leaving us with a total thus far, through August, of 739 Americans killed.

The Iraqi reconciliation process is now described as relying upon bottoms-up efforts, which are anecdotal, which have very little hard evidence to support what needs to be accomplished.

Senator Warner's very specific questions about what is happening from top down certainly lead to the conclusion that not very much is occurring that can give us comfort that the Iraqi leadership is yet ready to put aside their sectarian, commercial and personal interests for some kind of greater Iraqi political reconciliation.

Iraqi public opinion, according to an ABC, BBC, NHK poll released September 10th shows that since the escalation began, Iraqi opinion has starkly turned against the U.S. occupation, as most Iraqis see deepening dissatisfaction with conditions in Iraq, lower ratings for the national government, growing rejection of the U.S. role there.

For example, 65 percent to 70 percent of Iraqis say the escalation has worsened rather than improved security; 39 percent say that their lives are going well, down from 71 percent in November 2005; and 47 percent now favor immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, a 12 point rise since March.

Overwhelming majorities give negative ratings to electricity, jobs and access to health care.

So I give you tremendous credit for presenting as positive a view of a rather grim reality. And I believe that you, and certainly the very capable people working with both of you, were dealt a very hard hand.

And it's a hand that is unlikely to improve, in my view.

General, I want to ask you what -- about what appeared to be a contradiction in your testimony. Earlier today, you were asked by Senator Biden if, in fact, the circumstances on the ground are exactly what they are today in March of next year, will you recommend the continuation of somewhere between 130,000 and 160,000 American troops being shot at, killed, and maimed every day.

Your answer, "I would be very hard-pressed to recommend that at that point in time."

In response to Senator Collins, who asked, I thought, a very important question about what if in a year from now, there has been very little progress, your answer was, "Well, we would have to consider what to do at that time."

General, don't you think the American people deserve a very specific answer about what is expected from our country in the face of the failure of the Iraqi government to pursue its own required political agenda that they have essentially been unwilling or incapable of doing so?

General Petraeus: Senator, I don't see quite as big a difference in the answer.

But, I mean, I will stand by the answer that I gave earlier, which is that I would be very hard-pressed, at that time, to recommend a continuation.

As you know, this policy is a national policy that results from policies put forward at one end of Pennsylvania Avenue, with the advice and consent and resources provided at the other. And I would, obviously, provide recommendations to that.

And again, I would just say, I would be very hard-pressed at that time. It's an awfully big hypothetical. And it is not something that I would want to try to determine right here, right now, about a point a year from now, without some sense of all the other variables that, I think, understandably, would go into a huge recommendation like that.

Senator Clinton: Ambassador, it's not only the Iraqi government that, in my view, has failed to pursue a coherent strategy. I think our own has as well.

You've been tasked, as I understand it, with carrying the only contact with the Iranians and others in the region. And many of us have long advocated that our government needed to be much more engaged in a robust diplomatic effort.

Do you believe that, if the full force and effect of the American government were brought to bear on the region and, more broadly, on countries that have a stake in the future of Iraq, even beyond the region, that there were some process established that could begin to try to sort out what was or wasn't possible, that that would be an additional benefit to your efforts, going forward in Iraq?

Ambassador Crocker: Senator, engaging the region and the international community more broadly in support of Iraq is important. And that is ongoing and it's accelerating.

This fall, we'll have at least two ministerial-level meetings on Iraq, the one that I mentioned involving the neighbors, plus the P-5 and the G-8 in Istanbul.

And then, in a little less than two weeks in New York, the secretary general of the U.N. and Prime Minister Maliki will jointly chair an international ministerial-level meeting to review progress on the International Compact with Iraq and also to focus on how the new United Nations mandate for Iraq -- the expanded mandate for Iraq can most effectively be implemented.

So I think we're seeing an increase in regional and international diplomacy in support of Iraq. We're also starting to see, I think, some change in attitudes. I talked a little bit earlier about some positive developments among some of Iraq's Arab neighbors. I think we're also seeing a new look at Iraq on the part of, at least, some of the European states.

During a 10-day period, for example, at the end of August, we had the visits of Bernard Kouchner, the foreign minister of France, and then right after that, Carl Bildt, the foreign minister of Sweden -- the first time, really, since 2003, we have seen major European states kind of send their foreign ministers into Iraq to kind of assess where Iraq is and how they can perhaps more effectively engage for the future.

So I think we're seeing that kind of diplomatic initiative now gain some further momentum.

Senator Clinton: Thank you.

Chairman Levin: Thank you, Senator Clinton.

Is this really any different than Obama's use of his time? If I'm missing something, please let me know.

Also, here is the video of Clinton addressing Petraeus during his confirmation hearing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxXLsWmmk mo

Not one question asked, though she spoke generally about the war for 7 minutes. Again, this isn't a criticism of Clinton. It's a defense of Obama.

Tags: Petraeus Clinton Obama (all tags)

Comments

55 Comments

Re: Hillary at Petraeus Hearing & Obama

Obama was yapping about 9/11 and then only asked 1 question; while Clinton was explaining the metrics and then asked 2 questions.

Nothing different, but Obama was actually reading a campaign memorandum during the committee hearing (Washington Post).

Now, that is shameless.

by American1989 2007-09-12 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary at Petraeus Hearing

Both were working from memos, I'm sure. Both yapped about 9/11 as well. I actually don't see anything qualitatively different here.

by DPW 2007-09-12 12:09PM | 0 recs
Complaining about his memo reading

just demostrates how clueless, ignorant and biased the complainer is.  

There are only 24 hours in the day.  Senators need 48 to do all the things they are required to do.

Anyone who complains about this is just a moron.  Plus they have never been in a meeting like these committee hearings.  ENORMOUS, TOTAL WASTE of TIME. HOURS AND HOURS OF the SAME OLD CRAP, stated OVER AND OVER.

by dataguy 2007-09-12 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Complaining about his memo reading

I think it fair to expect that at least for the limited time a special hearing is held that a Senator would take a break from campaigning for higher office and fulfill the responsibilities of the office he has already been elected to. I realize that it might not help him raise any more money but it would sure help our country.

by DoIT 2007-09-12 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Complaining about his memo reading

Obama fulfilled and has fulfilled his duties to the office just fine. For you to suggest otherwise is absolutely ridiculous, and honestly I don't know where such thoughts come from.

This diary establishes conclusively that Obama and Clinton did pretty much the same thing. So either they both did fine, or they both failed the Constitution. It can't be one or the other.

by Korha 2007-09-12 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Complaining about his memo reading

I disagree, Senator Clinton was being a Senator, Obama was running for President.  

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-12 03:55PM | 0 recs
Clearly you know Sen Obama

better than the rest of us.  Did he tell you that he was running for president and that motivated his comments?  Or did you get it from a staffer?

Or did it come from a psychic?  I've always been fond of campaign psychics. They are wise beyond their crone-like appearance.

Of course, it could have come entirely from your butt, but that seems .... overly unlikely.  You surely would not have made such an amazing statement without some support from something, right?

by dataguy 2007-09-12 04:09PM | 0 recs
You clearly know nothing about the senate

senators are very busy.  They must multi-task.

Who cares if he read a memo?  COmplaining about that is just drive-by diary assassination.

by dataguy 2007-09-12 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: You clearly know nothing about the senate

heck, most of the time senators are not even in the room unless it is their turn to talk.

by JoeCoaster 2007-09-12 12:20PM | 0 recs
How could they be?

Oftentimes, they are on 3 committees, all meeting simultaeneously.

Let's face it - most of the criticism against Obama takes normal behavior and uses it to critique Sen Obama.  How can these guys themselves read thousands of pages of bills, attend committee meetings, and do constituant service?  Of course, they cannot - they must take shortcuts, and use their time efficiently.

Anyone who does not understand that is not intelligent or fair.

by dataguy 2007-09-12 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: How could they be?

This was the highest profile hearing Obama has ever attended. Yes, his behavior was normal Senate blow-hard but the bar was higher for this hearing. Even Biden managed to moderate himself.

And besides, I had hoped he wasn't a blow-hard.

by souvarine 2007-09-12 12:37PM | 0 recs
What!?? Are you deranged?

You are a very clueless person.  This was a minor deal.  The fix is and was in.  NOTHING but NOTHING that happened in that room meant DIDDLY-SQUAT.  It was a HUGE KABUKI DANCE.

And if you did not know that, you are a moron.

The entire fix has been in since January.

by dataguy 2007-09-12 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: What!?? Are you deranged?

Most of politics is Kabuki. You may think these Iraq hearings were minor, but that does not change their high profile. If Obama wants to give up on changing the Bush administration's policy and focus on winning the primary then he should stop pretending he cares. He has been missing a bunch of Senate votes as it is, no reason he couldn't skip out on more.

by souvarine 2007-09-12 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: What!?? Are you deranged?

Dataguy, you want to relax a little on the name calling?

by Denny Crane 2007-09-12 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: How could they be?

Explain to me how he was a "blow-hard." Please back up your attacks with evidence and facts.

by Korha 2007-09-12 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: How could they be?

When a Senator takes all of his time to make a speech, and runs out of time to ask his question, then he is a blow-hard. He is more interested in hearing himself talk than in what the witness has to say.

by souvarine 2007-09-12 04:30PM | 0 recs
i doubt his question would have been answered...

even if biden hadn't dismissed it, so it didn't really matter.  personally, i'd take issue with your underlying assumption that it was for the general to speak and the senators to listen.  quite frankly, i saw this as a good opportunity for the general to get an unfiltered view of the "national will" so that he would really understand that the washington timetable is not only different that the baghdad one, but necessarily so.  petraeus is still acting as if he was working in a vacuum, and STUPIDLY so.  there needed to be more lecturing of the general on fundamentally altering our national security policy, if you asked me...

by bored now 2007-09-13 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: How could they be?

From approximately 2 pm to 6 pm yesterday there was no more important event at the Senate. A candidate for President should recognize that and act accordingly.

by DoIT 2007-09-12 12:43PM | 0 recs
Ignorance, cluelessness, lack of knowledge

and you.

4 of a kind.

Hey, did you know that Sen Clinton TOOK A SHIT during the meeting?  SHE TOOK A SHIT, DURING THE MOST IMPORTANT DAY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!!!

!!!!

WOW!! I can't believe she had a BM during that meeting.

by dataguy 2007-09-12 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Ignorance, cluelessness, lack of knowledge

What a crass comment. You know, we aren't supposed to attack each other personally here. You have not only done so with impunity you have called for shuttering my diary. I am not going to get into a personal shouting match with you. It is evident that you are unable to disagree with someone without intentionally attacking them.

by DoIT 2007-09-12 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: How could they be?

"Let's face it - most of the criticism against Obama takes normal behavior and uses it to critique Sen Obama."

Arguing that there's a substantive difference between Senator Obama asking one question and Sentor Clinton asking two, one of which was more of a statement dressed as a question, begs suspicion.  It can no longer be ignored that there's a double-standard being applied to Senator Obama on various fronts on this blog and other so-called netroots sites. The question is why?

by Dee 2007-09-12 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: How could they be?

Those who are on the payroll of Sen Clinton, who are attacking Sen Obama in this false and inappropriate fashion, have problems with Sen Obama.  Their criticisms are unfair and inappropriate.  I too am not sure that Sen Obama is the best person.  However, I do not attack him in this deceptive and inappropriate manner.  Rather, I find a sensible manner to critique him.  

by dataguy 2007-09-12 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: How could they be?

Who is on whose payroll?

by Dickweed 2007-09-12 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: How could they be?

lol

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-12 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: How could they be?

yes LOL is correct.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-09-12 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: How could they be?

So how much is Hillary paying you? I'm sure I'll be able to retire right after this election is over myself. = )

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-12 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: How could they be?

haha one lump sum after she wins jk

by sepulvedaj3 2007-09-13 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary at Petraeus Hearing

What's shameless is claiming that Obama was reading a campaign memo during the hearing, when all the Washington Post said is that he read it while he was sitting there waiting for the hearing to start.

What a silly and trivial complaint this is.

by Steve M 2007-09-12 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary at Petraeus Hearing

That isn't what the Washington post said. If Obama had been there from the start of the hearing he wouldn't have asked his only question as a repeat of another Senator's question. It showed that he cared very little about the significance of his role in Constitutional oversight.

by DoIT 2007-09-12 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary at Petraeus Hearing

I wonder if you've even read the transcript, if you truly believe Obama asked a repeat of someone else's question.

When Tony Snow says, "I've already addressed that," do you take his word for it?

Obama asked whether there is any scenario in which Crocker would suggest a withdrawal if we're in the same place a year from now.  It was a good question, and in fact, Hillary asked a similar question at the Armed Services hearing.

Crocker simply ducked the question by claiming he had answered it before, when he told Sen. Sununu what he saw as the important benchmarks going forward in Iraq.  Obama hadn't asked that question.  It was a dodge, and if you read the transcript, I think you might even agree with me.

by Steve M 2007-09-12 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary at Petraeus Hearing

Exactly. Exactly. Obama did not ask the same question as anyone else. It was somewhat similar to other questions, of course, necessarily, obviously--I would hope the subject of under what conditions a U.S. withdrawal should take place would have been brought up before, because it's the key issue of the entire hearing. But it was not the same question.

Crocker tried to obfuscate and dodge Obama's question, which is probably a good a proof as any that it was actually penetrating and got to the heart of the matter.

by Korha 2007-09-12 02:04PM | 0 recs
Truly, the complaint exhibits

ignorance, bias, and abysmal lack of knowledge about.... almost everything political.

When you wear blinders, you see very little.

by dataguy 2007-09-12 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary at Petraeus Hearing & Obama

Obama yapping is right. He tried to blame Petraeus and Crocker for scheduling the meeting on 9-11. What an idiot.

by chanarang 2007-09-12 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary at Petraeus Hearing & Obama

Did Petraeus and Crocker schedule the meeting on 9/11? Does anyone think they did? No? Then obviously Obama was not insinuating anything about Petraeus and Crocker when he raised the issue? Obviously he was talking about the Bush Administration, who clearly had wanted to establish this connection by making the progress report due on September 15th?

This is self-evident.

by Korha 2007-09-12 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary at Petraeus Hearing &amp

Okay I am wrong the Senate Leadership set the September 15th date.

by Korha 2007-09-12 02:12PM | 0 recs
first question was Collin's

The other diary also made a big deal that Obama was restating a previous question. Hillary's first question was a restatement of one from Sen. Collin

In response to Senator Collins, who asked, I thought, a very important question about what if in a year from now, there has been very little progress, your answer was, "Well, we would have to consider what to do at that time."

General, don't you think the American people deserve a very specific answer about what is expected from our country in the face of the failure of the Iraqi government to pursue its own required political agenda that they have essentially been unwilling or incapable of doing so?

by JoeCoaster 2007-09-12 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: first question was Collin's

Yeah, my original diary (which was lost) had more to say about that. Here, I just make a passing comment to that effect. I want to hear from those claimed that Obama's performance showed his inexperience or that he abandoned his constitutional responsibility as a Senator.

by DPW 2007-09-12 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: first question was Collin's

I wouldn't call that a restatement, I'd call it a followup, and a good one.

The job of the Republicans at these things, as you know, is to lob up softballs.  And the witness offers pure pablum in response and the Republicans nod sagely as though it was a highly informative answer.  Followups like Hillary's are necessary to make sure they don't get away with this song and dance.

by Steve M 2007-09-12 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: first question was Collin's
The important aspect of that exchange is Petreaus's answer, he resolved the contradiction by standing by his answer to Warner and repudiated his answer to Collins. This is important because it removes the cover Collins got to vote against withdrawal.
 
by souvarine 2007-09-12 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: first question was Collin's

Of course what you neglect to mention is that Hillary made the statement about Senators Biden and  Collins' questions to ask Petraeus if there was not an apparent contradiction in his previous statements. Nice try but no soup for you.

by DoIT 2007-09-12 12:49PM | 0 recs
Your diary is a good one

I was the first to complain about the other diary.

Yours is a pleasant and reasonable one.  You do not confuse your opinion (which is unclear to me) with a transcript.  

Thanks for light, not heat, on these issues.

by dataguy 2007-09-12 12:12PM | 0 recs
Depends on the goal

Clinton's goal is to persuade Republican Senators to support withdrawal.

Her detailed preamble gets a number of specific statistics on the record, statistics that address Petreaus and Crocker's testimony and highlight Republican concerns about it, without backing them or the Republicans into a corner. She collegiately returns to the questions of wavering Republicans Warner and Collins and gets Petreaus to remove any cover Collins might have gotten from his earlier answer. She then turns to Ambassador Crocker and gets him to tacitly concede that the administration is still not engaging in enough regional diplomacy, specifically with Iran, giving Republicans reason to press the administration further.

Ten or twelve minutes is not very much time, she skillfully used hers to place a number of markers and to highlight her Republican committee members concerns. She not only asked more questions than Obama, she got them answered in a way that supports the goal of legislating withdrawal.

Obama made a speech that was very appealing to me, a Democrat, and ran out of time to get an answer reiterated. I don't think he was talking to the Republican Senators, I think he was talking to me, a Democratic primary voter.

by souvarine 2007-09-12 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Depends on the goal

You may be right, but I think the distinction is highly conjectural and not all that important. Hillary is a savvy politician, and it would be hard to believe that she wasn't speaking to primary voters. Also, I don't think any republican is going to change their mind on the basis of Clinton's remarks.

I like what both said and have no criticism of either. I frankly don't understand why folks have jumped on Obama for this (besides the obvious motivation--because he is Hillary primary opponent).

by DPW 2007-09-12 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Depends on the goal

I jumped on Obama because he wasted an opportunity to persuade his Republican colleagues to support withdrawal.

Further, he claims that he can work across the isle better than any other Democratic candidate but when he had an opportunity to show that he not only alienated the Republicans on the committee, he pissed off the Democrats and accused them of perpetuating the Iraq/9-11 connection.

I was honestly disappointed, I'm a Hillary supporter but I bought Obama's end-the-war and bipartisan rhetoric.

by souvarine 2007-09-12 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Depends on the goal

And I concur. I had mentioned a few days ago that the person's testimony I was looking forward to the most was Obama's. He let me and our country down big time. Regardless of what any of you think when it comes to this war I will support anyone's honest effort to end it. I don't care if they are a Democrat, republican or a Martian. Who I vote for is something else entirely. But I will help whoever takes the lead to end this war.

by DoIT 2007-09-12 12:55PM | 0 recs
You cannot be serious

Do you actually believe, for even 1 second, that anything that Obama or any Democratic Senator said would convince ANY Republican of ANYTHING?

Do you REALLY BELIEVE THAT?

If you really believe that, you are a fool.

If you don't really believe that, you are a liar.

by dataguy 2007-09-12 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary at Petraeus Hearing & Obama

I'm not disappointed in the way either Clinton or Obama chose to use their time.  I think they both highlighted the same, very important point, which Obama characterized as "at what point do we say enough?"  And I think the most salient point the Democrats can take away from this hearing is that these people are not even willing to admit that if we're in the exact same place a year from now - the exact same place! - it would be time to call it quits.  Which goes to show you that they are never going to admit it's time to call it quits.

I continue to think we do the GOP's work for them when we snipe at our own candidates and, instead of trying to highlight the important points from this hearing and construct an argument in favor of ending the war, focus on how to tear down the candidate we don't support by making it look like their questions were silly.  That said, I think this diary was a necessary counterpoint to the other one.

The thing I keep hearing today is that Obama only asked one question and it was a repeat.  Anyone can read the transcript and determine that the "repeat" claim is just flat-out false.  Crocker simply ducked the question by pretending it was the same thing one of the Republicans had asked earlier.

On a separate note, I'd like to see a Hillary supporter diary her excellent letter to President Bush that I saw at TPM earlier today.  I think she's taking advantage of a very important opportunity for the Democrats.

by Steve M 2007-09-12 12:15PM | 0 recs
The other diary

is "100% RedState Ready".  Rather than offering positive, reasonable, supportive criticism, it offered talking points to Republican opponents.

This circular firing squad crap is not acceptable.  We need to find a way to critique without burning down the house, which the other diarist was unable to do, but was done well by this current diary.

by dataguy 2007-09-12 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary at Petraeus Hearing

Well said, Steve, as usual.

by DPW 2007-09-12 12:24PM | 0 recs
Sen Clinton's letter

is a good one, and well deserves a diary about it.

I agree with you.  Sen Clinton is the front-runner because she is very smart, her staff is first-rate, and she does not sit around waiting for stuff to happen.  She is pre-emptive, and assertive, and is right in George's face.  

Good letter.  Good link.

by dataguy 2007-09-12 12:28PM | 0 recs
Hillary's questions..

..where not very good, grammatically. Trying to understand what her point was is making my head hurt.

General, don't you think the American people deserve a very specific answer about what is expected from our country in the face of the failure of the Iraqi government to pursue its own required political agenda that they have essentially been unwilling or incapable of doing so?

Do you believe that, if the full force and effect of the American government were brought to bear on the region and, more broadly, on countries that have a stake in the future of Iraq, even beyond the region, that there were some process established that could begin to try to sort out what was or wasn't possible, that that would be an additional benefit to your efforts, going forward in Iraq?

by JoeCoaster 2007-09-12 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's questions..

I can't believe you're complaining about Sen. Clinton's grammar.

by Denny Crane 2007-09-12 01:17PM | 0 recs
Oh, I dunno - it's the

same as the complaints about Obama.

The complaints are all idiotic.  I view JoeCoaster's as a little snarky comment on the other complaints, which were also ridiculous.

Joe is just more clever than me with his snarky little comment.

by dataguy 2007-09-12 01:27PM | 0 recs
OMG

HILLARY CLINTON SPENT SOME OF HER QUESTION TIME GRANDSTANDING LIKE SENATORS DO. OMG!!!! SHE HAS FAILED HER RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

Wait, no she hasn't. She did just fine. Just like Obama did fine... though both could have asked more and better questions.

by Korha 2007-09-12 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary at Petraeus Hearing & Obama

I don't think you are trying to criticize Hillary with this but if it does worry me that if Obama won the election (I don't think he can) but if he did, his big supporters might spend so much time trying to correct every little criticism the republican party threw at him, they would end up missing the big picture and losing the election.

by reasonwarrior 2007-09-12 05:06PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads