<p>So Conyat’s post 349 discussing what the “it” was that HC was referring to is inaccurate? How so? Are the “changed tactics” in Al Anbar in fact part of “the surge?” This is an honest question - I have no inside information here. If Conyat is wrong, I’d like to know.</p>
<p>I liked Gravel’s take on it:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, the “surge” was far more than just more troops doing the same old thing. It was a complete change in tactics involving an aggressive offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq as well as the militias. So, when Clinton referred to the change in tactics beginning to work, it could be read as synonymous with “the surge beginning to work”.</p>
<p>It could be. But I would conclude that that reading is probably mistaken, based on a couple of minutes of googling. Here’s a comment she made last May in Iowa:
<a href=“http://www.observer.com/2007/hillary-sees-progress-anbar[/url]”>http://www.observer.com/2007/hillary-sees-progress-anbar</a></p>
<p>While I can understand while some might assume that HC’s reference to “tactics” was meant as a reference to the “surge”, given her earlier comments which are slightly more specific, it’s pretty clear that they weren’t.</p>
<p>The point is, that from what has been recently quoted from Clinton, it is hard to know what “nuance” she was implying with the “it’s working” quote.</p>
<p>However, the issue at hand in the hallowed corridors of CC-land is whether it is inappropriate or disingenuous in interpreting her statement as being that the “surge is working”. I say it is not - the change in tactics and the surge have been so intertwined in common conversation that to hear someone say that the change in tactics is working is not that much different than saying the surge is working … in particular when she implies a time frame by saying “we’ve begun to change tactics…” </p>
<p>Besides, who cares whether it is “the surge” that is working or “the change in tactics” that is working. The bottom line is that Clinton now joins the ranks of those who think that things have begun to turn around in Iraq.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I guess you can count me among those who think that it is indeeed very bad manners to attack a fellow poster in such a personal way – questioning a poster’s honesty and integrity. It’s one thing to argue a philosophy or point of view – well mannered people don’t accuse others of deliberate falsehoods when it’s clear a mistake has been made. </p>
<p>End of story for me.</p>
<p>FF, I think that’s a pretty long stretch. I think most people view Iraq as “one step forward, two steps back.” Recognizing specific tactics which have helped, rather than hurt our cause is a pretty valuable exercise. But that’s a long way from concluding that “things have begun to turn around in Iraq.” “Less bad” isn’t the same thing as “the road to victory.” If you really distill “things have begun to turn around in Iraq” from “We are making some progress it turns out, in what is called Al Anbar province” I think you’re actually adding a lot of your own belief into the words spoken by HC.</p>
<p>I think this is another example of the current school of “gotcha” commentary, with the result that anyone making a reasoned, nuanced observation regarding a national issue is at risk of being sound bit by the unethical or simply agenda-driven. It didn’t start here - Dan Quayle was the first big time victim of this type of sloppy analysis that I recall clearly - but it’s been taken to a new level in recent years.</p>
<p>"I think this is another example of the current school of “gotcha” commentary, with the result that anyone making a reasoned, nuanced observation regarding a national issue is at risk of being sound bit by the unethical or simply agenda-driven. "</p>
<p>Yes, heaven help a Dem who gets caught making an optimistic statement about the war. Such optimism is always fruit for “gotcha” politics.</p>
<p>Surge or no, Hillary has committed herself to a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq defending what she calls “U.S. vital strategic interests”. So her problem is to figure out how to diffuse the anger of those who believe the pullout just have started with Murtha’s suggestion in October 2005. </p>
<p>One way is to say well, it ain’t all that bad, really. </p>
<p>I haven’t heard a single politician - left, right, or center - or military leader, or state department official - say that things have begun to turn around on the political level, that the benchmarks are closer to being met, or even that things are better than they were 20 months ago when Maliki took office. </p>
<p>But you never know: Hillary might become the first.</p>
<p>What’s changed in Al Anbar is pretty much the opposite of the surge.</p>
<p>Al Anbar: no troop escalation; local folk (sheiks) being empowered to secure the province themselves.</p>
<p>The “surge”: troop escalation; local folk being relieved of responsibility as our troops step up to try to secure the area.</p>
<p>Nowhere near the same. As Clinton and her advisors point out, she wasn’t talking about the surge at all. It would be ridiculous to mention Al Anbar province as an example of the surge.</p>
<p>On a side note, whether the sheiks will continue to provide security after we stop paying them for it is anyone’s guess.</p>
<p>Tell the Iraqi people in Baghdad that the “surge” in Al-Anbar has worked, while Arab tribal chieftains hijack medical convoys with supplies meant for hospitalized Iraqi children, and then sell them on the black market to arm themselves for future war against the Shiites, even while the Americans arm Al-Qaeda with aid through Saudi Arabia. </p>
<p>But Hillary doesn’t give a darn about Iraqis. She didn’t when her husband killed a million of 'em, half of them children. She didn’t when hubby and George Tenet concocted the Big Lie of 1998. She didn’t when she voted for the hostile, aggressive occupation without even reading the NIE. She didn’t when two million Iraqis went into exile, and she hasn’t made a peep about assuaging their suffering.</p>
<p>She has a history, folks. It’s called “experience”. Vote for her if you choose. Just be sure you know what you’re buying.</p>
<p>I would recommend that voters invest the time to go beyond the media soundbytes and read or listen to the candidates’ speeches for themselves. In the case of the Clinton speech, you will note that she again calls for immediately beginning the redeployment of troops out of Iraq because our military presence is not, will not, and cannot bring a political settlement.</p>
<p>The Anbar reference is in a section of the speech on future military preparedness, specifically that we can no longer afford to take five years to finally discover a tactic that achieves some results. Our national security needs to be configured and trained to deal with 21st century issues. This is pretty standard candidate boilerplate.</p>
<p>Here is a link to full video of four candidates speeches at the VFW: Clinton, McCain, Obama, and Grandpa Fred:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.campaignnetwork.org/VideoArchive.aspx?section=section1[/url]”>http://www.campaignnetwork.org/VideoArchive.aspx?section=section1</a></p>
<p>Here is a link to a printed transcript of Clinton’s VFW speech. The Anbar tactics reference is towards the end:</p>
<p><a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;
<p>For sokkermom:</p>
<p>Here is a link to the full speech Clinton gave on Iraq last month in Iowa. It contains more detail that you will get from the cable news networks. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=2366[/url]”>http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=2366</a></p>
<hr>
<p>On Anbar province, my own personal hunch is that we have struck a deal to arm the Sunnis for a civil war against the Shi’a in exchange for taking care of the Al Qaeda elements. At this point, our only remaining interest in Iraq is not allowing Al Qaeda to set up training bases unfettered. But, that’s just my read of the situation.</p>
<p>BTW, the Democrats strategy is clearly to say, yes the military has “won” in Anbar, but the goal of the “surge” (politcial progress) still hasn’t happened despite our wonderful military victory by Gen. Petraeus…so we are going to declare victory and come home. It pulls the rug out from under the “give the surge 6 more months to start working” argument.</p>
<p>Mike Doonesbury is having a lot of fun with the meme about the terrorists following our GI’s home. Ray’s wife is not amused.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20070820[/url]”>http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20070820</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is false. Actually, a major part of her outline for a US pullout from a Iraq is a multi-billion dollar aid package to set up refugee services, education, and housing in the countries surrounding Iraq.</p>
<p>Ah yes… the troop surge.</p>
<p>The reason why my best friend’s boy has been in Iraq since May.
He’s getting back in October and will be deployed again Jan '09 if I understood her right.
The reason why she was hysterical the other day because she saw a news article for 14 soldiers killed in the area he’s at…
The reason why he can only email her once every couple of weeks, her only sign that he’s still alive.
Why before last week it had been a month and a half before she had heard his voice on the phone.</p>
<p>And for what?</p>
<p>I don’t know… it’s a conscious choice to join the military but I always wonder if he had truly known what he was getting into if he would have done it.
I realize this is completely off the track of where you guys were going with this and feel free to continue around it if you so wish =)
I tend to let my emotions get ahead of my brain and go off a little bit.
That I’ll be in her place in less than a year doesn’t help, I suppose.
What I get for falling for a boy owned by the Army.</p>
<p>“That is false. Actually, a major part of her outline for a US pullout from a Iraq is a multi-billion dollar aid package to set up refugee services, education, and housing in the countries surrounding Iraq.”</p>
<p>Yes, and she has been in office since 2000? Not a single proposal? Not a single attachment to a foreign aid bill? Not a single attachment to a military appropriation? She has history – and experience.</p>
<p>Yes, I’m sure she has plenty of plans to accompany the permanent occupation once she is elected. I’ve read what she has said about the long-term “U.S. vital strategic interests”, and the fact that her handlers cook up a virtually incomprehensible position on her website doesn’t change what she herself has said (although flip-flopper is always possible…)</p>
<p>But she has a track record. “Experience”. Check it out.</p>
<p>becmojo, your post isn’t “off the track” at all. I think some people feel that because we have a voluntary army it’s okay to send them into a meatgrinder with no realistic hope of any benefit for our nation. Like many people, I respect our soldiers and their (and their families’) sacrifices, patriotism and courage. We need soldiers, and we need them and their loved ones to sacrifice their own lives for our nation’s well-being. But we should never take that for granted, or forget the price that is paid.</p>
<p>An old, well known and disreputable political tactic:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Attack the opposition with the most outrageous and damaging charge available.</p></li>
<li><p>When the opposition responds, claim you are being unfairly attacked.</p></li>
<li><p>Try to make the issue that you are being unfairly attacked by the opposition, and that you are the victim. </p></li>
<li><p>As you claim the opposition is attacking you unfairly, make an outrageous and damaging charge and say this charge is the reason the opposition is attacking you.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>With the above in mind now please go back and read posts; 348, 349,354,355. As you are reading the past posts ask yourself these questions.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Who misstated what Sen. Clinton said, and followed the misstatement with a misleading quote putting the falsified Clinton statement the maximum negative light? </p></li>
<li><p>Who when ask to please explain this duplicity claimed they were being attacked.</p></li>
<li><p>Who is making an issue of being attacked, claiming to be freaked out trying to make the case that they are being victimized? </p></li>
<li><p>Who is claiming the other has an unhealthy obsession, and implying it is this unhealthy obsession and not their original misstated is the reason they were ask to please explain themselves.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I have not listed examples of this tactic being used in the past, or the people who have used it. I have chosen not to give these examples because I feel to do so would be akin to, another disreputable political tactic, guilty by association. However if there are doubters out there who want to see or hear of examples of this tactic being used I will very reluctantly oblige.</p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>I forgot! You’re a Kucinich fan, so the yardstick of Congressional record is sponsoring bills and amendments that die in committee!</p>
<p>Yes, tommybill, but sokkermom’s comments pertained to Hillary Clinton, not to you personally!!! </p>
<p>It may seem reasonable to expect Edward to apologize to Mrs. Clinton for misrepresenting her comments. You, however, chose to go after a fellow poster by accusing her of deliberated deception. You are the one who is using a disreputable tactic, imo.</p>
<p>I’m not the “manners-police” so I’ll bow out now. But you might want to consider how sokkermom felt when you accused her of deliberate deception.</p>