Sen. Clinton Confronts Petraeus and Crocker on Iraq

bigtree

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-08-08 04:26 PM
Original message

Sen. Clinton Confronts Petraeus and Crocker on Iraq

Sen. Hillary Clinton, responding to CBS News’ Harry Smith’s notation that attacks within Baghdad have doubled within the last two months and that a dozen U.S. servicemen have died in the last several days, said: “Well, Harry, think you just made a summary argument against the position that it's working.

“You know, a year ago we were told that the purpose of it was to give the Iraqi government the time to make the decisions that only they can make for themselves on how they're going to allocate oil and the, you know, political disputes and the sectarian violence and all of the other decisions that are on their plate,’’ Clinton said on CBS’s The Early Show. “That hasn't happened, and even Gen. Petraeus a few weeks ago admitted that the political progress has not been what he would have wanted...

“I just don't understand... how they can make that case,’’ Clinton said. “I am very unhappy with, you know, what has transpired this past year because I really believe that we're just marking time until it is absolutely time to change.

“And that won't happen, apparently, under President Bush until next year,’’ Clinton said on The Early Show. “And when I'm president we will, we'll begin to withdraw our troops.’’

And what happens if Iraq, with a U.S. drawdown, falls into “what a lot people believe is an inevitable civil war,’’ Smith asked.

“Well, there's a low-grade civil war going on right now,’’ Clinton said. “It’s Shiite on Shiite, it's Sunni and Shiite. And I think that of course there are very difficult days ahead and the consequences are going to be challenging. But one thing we know for sure is continuing the Bush policy, the Bush-McCain policy now is not a recipe for success.’’

-

With a few exceptions, decorum ruled the public gallery as General David H. Petraeus and Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador to Iraq, presented their assessments of the war to members of the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning. (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/on-the-scene-at-petraeus-hearing/)

A velvet rope and a dozen Capitol Hill police officers outlined the rectangular space where war supporters and opponents were allowed to sit. Signs – and, oh, were there signs – couldn’t be held above eye level. And the strictly enforced silence forced those displeased with General Petraeus’s words to express themselves through sporadic whispers of “blah, blah, blah.”

Of course, only those who wanted to stay and listen followed the rules. At one point, a man shouted “Bring them home! Bring them home!” – and was promptly escorted out of the committee room and arrested.

The two presidential candidates on the Armed Services committee focused on their work, not the audience. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democratic contender who advocates a withdrawal of troops from Iraq, sported eyeglasses and pored over paperwork while General Petraeus spoke. If the clock hadn’t read noon, it could have been a still from her “3 a.m.” ad brought to life.

It is a posture that Barack Obama must be painfully familiar with by now after 20 debates with Hillary Clinton: The Stare. Today, it was John McCain's turn to feel those wide blue eyes boring into him as he spoke up manfully for a deeply unpopular war in Iraq. The senator from Arizona did not last the morning.

Clinton, seated at the lower end of the crescent-shaped table, propped her chin up on her hand, the better to hold that unwavering gaze.

Clinton, wearing a dark suit with vaguely military looking piping on the collar, wore dark rimmed reading glasses. It was the same pair she sported in her campaign television advertisements about her suitability to take the 3am calls at the White House.

McCain used his opening remarks in support of keeping troops in Iraq . . .

Clinton did not blink. "I think it would be fair to say that it might well be irresponsible to continue a policy that has not produced results that have been promised time and time again," she said.

"The administration and supporters of the administration's policy often talk about the costs of leaving Iraq yet ignore the greater cost of continuing the same failed policy," she said.

Then she demanded to know why the Iraqi government was given the opportunity to approve a draft security agreement with the US while Congress was not.

Had McCain still been in the room, it would have amounted to a full-scale onslaught on his Iraq policy. But as the ranking Republican on the committee, he was allowed to speak well before Clinton. By the time her turn came, McCain was long gone.

"For the past five years, we have continually heard from the administration that things are getting better, that we are about to turn the corner," the New York senator told General David Petraeus and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker. (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i8m5uox5ipeT0g_3TZ5XYkOXGpVg)

"Each time, Iraqi leaders fail to deliver," she said, saying it was time to start an "orderly" US withdrawal from Iraq.

"It might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again."

Clinton, who appeared more disdainful, yet less confrontational than she had been in a previous hearing involving Petraeus in September, instead dwelt on the huge costs to US troops and their family of staying in Iraq.

She said the situation in Iraq was "tenuous" and did not merit the upbeat descriptions of the US administration.

"What conditions would have to exist for you to recommend to the President that the current strategy is not working?" she asked.

"How are we to judge General Petraeus what the conditions are, or should be and the actions that you and the administration would recommend pursing, based on them?"

Hillary Clinton called continuing the Bush Administration’s policies in Iraq “irresponsible” and said the Bush strategy in Iraq has “not produced the results that we have been promised time and time again, at such tremendous cost to our national security and to the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States military.”

“The purpose of the surge, as described by Bush administration, was to create the space for the Iraqis to engage in reconciliation and to make significant political progress,” Clinton said.

“However, since Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker last testified in September, even Gen. Petraeus, as recently as three and a half weeks ago, has acknowledged that the Iraqi government has not made sufficient political progress.”

Clinton pressed the four-star general, asking Petraeus what it would take for him to recommend to the president to start bringing the troops home.

“What conditions would have to exist for you to recommend to the president that the current strategy is not working? And it seems apparent that you have a conditions based analysis, as you set forth in your testimony, but the conditions are unclear, they certainly lack specificity, and the decision points with respect to these conditions are also vague."

For months, Clinton has been an outspoken critic of President Bush’s negotiations with the Iraqi government over a long-term security pact, primarily because President Bush is not required to submit the pact for Congress’ approval, despite the fact that Iraqi officials intend to submit the pact to their own parliament. Clinton asked Crocker why the President does not plan to include the Congress in the negotiations.

“We do not anticipate that the agreements will have any elements within them that would require the advise and consent procedure. The intent to negotiate is as an executive procedure,” Crocker said.

"Well Ambassador Crocker,” Clinton responded, “it seems odd to Americans who are being asked to commit for an indefinite period of time the lives of our young men and women in uniform, the civilian employees – whom you rightly referenced and thanked - as well as billions of dollars of additional tax payer dollars if the Iraqi parliament may have a chance to consider this agreement and the United States Congress would not...I would urge you to submit such an agreement to the Congress for full consideration.”

Here's Clinton's exchange with Crocker and Petraeus: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/clinton_scores_a_gotcha.html