Opening for Hillary? Obama has spoken some sense on the surge . . .
Whereas Obama's claim to foreign policy fame among Dems has been his opposition from day one to the Iraq war, it appears he may have now put himself to the right of Hillary Clinton on the issue of sustaining the surge.
Readers will recall that when Tim Russert asked Clinton on Meet the Press of January 13th whether she would be open to sustaining the surge through the end of the year if General Petraeus requested it, Hillary tersely answered "No, and here's why, Tim."
But confronted with a similar hypothetical on this morning's Early Show, Obama evinced more flexibility.
View video here.
HARRY SMITH: Over the last 48 hours or so, we were reminded of how serious the situation is in Iraq.
BARACK OBAMA: Absolutely.
SMITH: Commanders there saying maybe we ought to freeze this troop drawdown, because we're not sure how this is going to work. Suicide bombers come, killed dozens and dozens of people.
OBAMA: Heartbreak.
SMITH: If you were to be elected president, and your commanders on the ground there, and your Secretary of Defense said "hold back. You can't be pulling these people out. We're going to be creating a civil war and a bloodbath." What would you do?
OBAMA: My job as Commander-in-Chief is to keep the American people safe. But I firmly believe that we have to send a signal to the Iraqis that it is time to withdraw. We will not have a permanent base there, we will not have a permanent occupation there.
SMITH: Even if it meant the beginning of civil --
OBAMA: No, no, no, no. Within those constraints, I think there is going to be some flexibility, and obviously I would consult with commanders. We have to be mindful of the situation on the ground and what the commanders say.
Will we see Hillary attempting to exploit this outbreak of common sense from Obama?
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
talking about obama surge he got the moveon.org endorsement
February 4, 2008 - 09:16 ET by lunaticcringeradiohttp://www.thenation...
seems strange that the very organization that the clintons basically built has turned on her.
maybe if she had gotten more of the popular vote in the organization.
so which is easier to beat, hillary with her determined and planned out socialist/communist plans to enslave hard working americans, or an inexperienced, lip service offering, no plan at all guy taking the democratic lead?
lunaticcringeradio
The naive one. Lord
February 4, 2008 - 09:20 ET by dscottThe naive one.
Lord Sidious/Darth Vader 2008 - Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Oh Bull - the only "Commanders" to Obama are members of the
February 4, 2008 - 09:21 ET by Dee BunkScreen Actors Guild
The Democrats know
February 4, 2008 - 09:37 ET by KC MulvilleThe majority of the country may not like the war, but the Democrats know that same majority will not accept an irresponsible or blind withdrawal. That policy may please the Kos-crowd, but they know that the Kos-crowd is not the majority of the country.
It's a Catch-22 for Hillary. If Hillary attacks Obama on this to gain the support of the Kos-crowd, she's guaranteed to lose a lot of independents and moderates. But that itself only goes to prove Obama's argument that Hillary can't win independents, so she's not electable.
Not to mention that the
February 4, 2008 - 12:31 ET by lotrNot to mention that the "Kos-crowd" really wants GWB, not a Democratic successor, to succumb to pressure for an immediate pull-out. That way, defeat and humiliation is firmly placed on him and the Republicans, thereby creating the political climate for an anti-conservative backlash. They hate him (Bush) all the more because he had the obstinate audacity to not capitulate.
obviously I would consult
February 4, 2008 - 13:58 ET by motherbeltobviously I would consult with commanders. We have to be mindful of the situation on the ground and what the commanders say.
You mean like you listened respectfully to what Gen. Petraeus had to say and then decided to ignore it?
Note: Obama says at the beginning that 7 minutes isn't enough time, then makes a 6 minute speech before getting to the question. You can advance the video to about 5:55....
Did not President Bush also
February 4, 2008 - 15:18 ET by Dan The Man 2Did not President Bush also consult with his commanders and was derided for what they were saying?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
That's right, Dan. When
February 4, 2008 - 19:42 ET by motherbeltThat's right, Dan. When things weren't going well, they were yelling at Bush to "listen to the Generals!!!" Then when Gen. Petraeus had some things to say that they didn't want to hear, they said he was a political pawn.
..
February 4, 2008 - 10:38 ET by dervish"Will we see Hillary attempting to exploit this outbreak of common sense from Obama?"
That's a rhetorical question, right? I assume the only reason we haven't heard her return fire is that she's campaigning in CA and it's still early out there...
It matters not what Broom Hilda nor B. Hussein Obama say.
February 4, 2008 - 21:10 ET by R D HelmNiether of them are going to walk into the Oval Office and affect a surrender in Iraq, as such an idiotic move would forever tag the dems with the label of "surrender monkeys."
Not even B. Hussein Oblivious is that stupid.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe