Candidates Seek Spotlight At Iraq Hearings

McCain, Clinton, Obama Question General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker

(CBS/AP)  Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain took their disagreements over the Iraq war into a Senate committee Tuesday, where they traded barbs and questioned the top U.S. commander about a conflict sure to weigh heavily in a tight White House race.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, found himself in the middle of presidential politics Tuesday - literally - as he was questioned by White House candidates politically and physically on either side during a congressional hearing.

The presidential hopefuls made a rare return to Capitol Hill for the high-profile session in which Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker delivered their assessment of the war, now entering its sixth year.

But defying the predictions of some Washington pundits, the candidates left the political theater at the hearing room door, reports CBS News correspondent Chip Reid.

McCain, whose speeches on Iraq usually eviscerate his opponents, today toned it down.

Clinton, who amiably chatted with General Petraeus, criticized his strategy but was unusually subdued, Reid reports, and surprising some observers, she did not use the opportunity to attack McCain or Obama. The Illinois senator also left politics aside, calmly stating his differences with Petraeus.

McCain, a Republican, elicited answers that he hopes will bolster his call to stay the course. Clinton, a Democrat, argued U.S. troops should come home.

They may have toned down their heated campaign rhetoric to fit the decorum of a congressional hearing - avoiding criticizing one another by name - but the divisions were clear. McCain said promises to withdraw forces "would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership."

"I fundamentally disagree," Clinton said later, when it was her turn to speak. "Rather, I think it could be fair to say that it might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again."

McCain and Clinton sit on the Armed Services Committee, which heard from Petraeus and Crocker in the morning. Democratic Sen. Barack Obama serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which had an afternoon round of testimony with Petraeus and Crocker.

Obama argued that a timetable for troop withdrawal is necessary and said that the U.S. must begin talks with Iran.

He also said that because we have finite resources, a “messy, sloppy status quo” may be the only achievable goal in Iraq.

CBSNews.com senior political editor Vaughn Ververs said that the timing of these hearings means different things for each candidate. "For McCain, it's an opportunity to get into the campaign discussion again and try to show he is not just a cheerleader for the war," said Ververs. "For Clinton, this is a chance to hammer home her criticism of the conduct of the war and for Obama, it’s a time to reinforce his credentials as an early opponent of the war on a large, national stage."

McCain asked questions designed to support his argument that the United States should maintain its troop presence in Iraq and that withdrawal would prove disastrous.

He asked Petraeus about the Iraqi government's military operation to quell violence in Basra, recent attacks on the U.S.-occupied Green Zone, the threat al Qaeda poses in Iraq and Iranian involvement. He also asked Crocker about the likelihood of a long-term security arrangement in Iraq.

At the same time, McCain was able to put both officials on record that a certain level of troops is likely to remain in Iraq for years to come. McCain has said U.S. troops could be in Iraq for 100 years, citing the half-century or longer U.S. presence in South Korea and other parts of the world where forces are based to deter conflict, not fight one.

McCain was the only presidential candidate to get a chance for an opening statement in addition to his questioning as he's the top Republican on the committee. He used that nine-minute statement to put a positive spin on developments in Iraq over the past year, saying security has improved dramatically and political reconciliation has moved forward.

He argued that "much more needs to be done" on security, political and economic fronts, but that "we are no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success."

"I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there. Our goal - my goal - is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops," McCain said. "And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I also believe that to promise a withdrawal of our forces, regardless of the consequences, would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership."

Clearly at odds with McCain, Clinton argued that there has been a lack of political progress in Iraq to justify the increase in troops last year.

She said the fight diverts military resources from other needs around the world. She also cited studies on the increased mental strain on troops serving repeat deployments, with more than a quarter showing signs of anxiety, depression and acute stress.

She placed the blame not just on President Bush, but also supporters of his policy - in other words, McCain.

"The administration and supporters of the administration's policy often talk about the cost of leaving Iraq, yet ignore the greater costs of continuing the same failed policy," she said, reading from prepared remarks that aides said she wrote.

"I think it's time to begin an orderly process of withdrawing our troops, start rebuilding our military and focusing on the challenges posed by Afghanistan, the global terrorist groups and other problems that confront America," she said.

She pressed Petraeus on what conditions would have to exist for him to recommend to the president that the current strategy is not working. He responded that the factors include the status of the enemy, Iraqi forces, local governance and the economic and political situations, but "it's not a mathematical exercise."

Clinton also objected to Crocker's statement that the Iraqi parliament will get a chance to review a U.S.-Iraqi agreement that would give legal authority for American troops to remain in Iraq, but Congress will not. "It seems odd," she said, adding that she has legislation that would require congressional review.

Clinton said Iraq presents a "very difficult dilemma" for decision-makers. "If this were easy or if there were a very clear way forward, we could all perhaps agree on the facts about how to build toward a resolution that is in the best interests of the United States, that would stabilize Iraq and would meet our other challenges around the world."

On CBS News' The Early Show this morning, Clinton said there has been a "failure of leadership" from the Bush Administration and called for a change in Iraq

"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 - how they're going to allocate oil, end the political disputes and the sectarian violence," Clinton said. "That hasn’t happened and even General Petreaus a few weeks ago admitted that the political progress has not been what he would have wanted or that we expected."

Late in the day, Obama pressed Petraeus and Crocker on their standard for success in Iraq. The Illinois senator and Democratic front-runner said he worries that the goals — completely eliminating al Qaeda and Iranian influences — may be impossible to achieve and troops could be there for 20 or 30 years in a fruitless effort.

"If, on the other hand, our criteria is a messy, sloppy status quo but there's not huge outbreaks of violence, there's still corruption, but the country is struggling along, but it's not a threat to its neighbors and it's not an al Qaeda base, that seems to me an achievable goal within a measurable timeframe," he said.

Obama said Mr. Bush's troop increase reduce the violence, but the "breathing room" it created has not been used effectively as rivals jockey for political power in Basra. Obama argued that the best way to resolve the political situation is by withdrawing troops in a measured way that increases pressure on both sides.

He also said any future steps should include U.S. diplomatic engagement with Iran. "I do not believe we're going to be able to stabilize the position without them," he said.

"I continue to believe that the original decision to go into Iraq was a massive strategic blunder (and) that the two problems (of withdrawing troops) that you've pointed out — al Qaeda in Iraq and increased Iranian influence in the region — are a direct result of that original decision," Obama told Petraeus and Crocker.

Obama opposed the war while rivals Clinton and McCain voted in 2002 to authorize the use of military force in Iraq.

Obama received some senatorial courtesy from Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., even though he's a Clinton backer. Nelson should have gone before Obama in the questioning, but three hours into the hearing he let Obama go ahead so he could avoid a scheduling problem. Obama had two campaign fundraisers to attend.

[jonesforch]

ANYONE who votes in McCain must also have believed Bush back in 2003 when he said our troops would soon be coming home. Of course they still haven''''t come home & with McCain this war will only escalate. In his own words, he wants to ''''BOMB, BOMB, BOMB.. BOMB, BOMB IRAN''''! With shrinking troop numbers available by regular enlistment, a draft will be the next step.
OurOnlyHope at 07:00 PM : Apr 09, 2008

Can you please post where you got that quote? Thanks

[dmgenet]

McCain said promises to withdraw forces "would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership."

Since the invasion was an immoral and political failure one would assume that any action after the Bush Blunder would also be. To try to build a castle on quick sand is any better because it is moral or a political triumph. The castle will still sink into the abyss taking thousands of Americans with it.

I have a lot of admiration for Mr. McCain but he is wrong for trying to fight Vietnam over again.

[ouronlyhope]

ALSO - this new ''Executive Agreement'' that Bush wants to commit our country to, with NO choice given to our own lawmakers & representatives, will be paid for COMPLETELY BY US!

It CANNOT be compared to similar agreements in Korea, Germany and such...because those agreements included that those governments foot MOST if not ALL of the financial burden.

Iraq has over 40 BILLION $ at it''s disposal while we are OVER 400 BILLION in debt.

In 2003 we were told we had ''Accomplished the Mission'' and ''Major Combat Operations are Over''.
In 2004 that we were going to ''hand-over'' the reigns of power back to Iraqi leaders & that they would pay for their own reconstruction. (Cost of War in 2004 was only at 150 Billion.)

Now 400 BILLION $ later we are finishing a ''Surge'', which accomplished almost nothing (violence is back up over the last two months).

ANYONE who votes in McCain must also have believed Bush back in 2003 when he said our troops would soon be coming home. Of course they still haven''t come home & with McCain this war will only escalate. In his own words, he wants to ''BOMB, BOMB, BOMB.. BOMB, BOMB IRAN''! With shrinking troop numbers available by regular enlistment, a draft will be the next step.

Of course, if we elect McCain, he will NEED to enact the draft to redirect our attention away from our worsening economic woes....

I could go on...and on...and on...just like this war.

[ouronlyhope]

Please end the 5+ years of war which, Per Gen. P, has gotten really close to suppressing all the terrorist activities the war caused in the first place

END THE IRAQ (aka Vietnam 2) WAR! That was another time we put our troops in harms way for a ''possible'' future war (which NEVER materialized).

Yes, McCain wants to keep OUR TROOPS there but won''t sign off on the new GI Bill, because he doesn''t want to make getting out of the military "too good" a choice.

END THE INSANITY! BRING OUR KIDS HOME!

[blackspirit3]

Mccain who are we fighting? whats their name? where do they reside? why not just keep Bush in, America don''t need another dumb president talkin about he forgot where iraq was and bomb isreal by mistake. Oh thats right the zionits jew liberal Lieberman in Mccain Mentor, he will make sure MCcain shoots himself in the foot first. two dummies.

[obama8years]

GO READ THE TRUTH AND THEN IF YOU WANT TO VOTE FOR OBAMA THEN AT LEAST YOUR INFORMED
------------ ----------- ------------ ------------ --

OBAMA NUMBEROUS LIES - 70+ HE LIES MORE THAN HILLARY

audacityofhypocrisy.com
----
----------------------------------------
-------
WHO IS OBAMA REALLY?

stop-obama.org
-------------
-- ------------- ------------- ----------
THE OBAMA FINANCIAL SCANDALS HOSPITAL

obamatruth.org

---------- ------------- -------- -----------------
AND OBAMAS LINKS TO HAMAS

canadafreepress.com/index.php /article/2462

---------- ---------------- ------------- ------------

[eroosevelt08]

When Senator Clinton voted in the Senate to authorize the use of force in Iraq, she relied on the information presented by Colin Powell and the Bush administration. Remember the visual aids shown at the UN conference? I believed it. If I had been Senator Clinton, I would have voted the same way in an effort to protect this country and so would many, many other Americans. When Senator Obama blasts Hillary for that vote, he also blasts every American who felt the same way. We have since uncovered the truth, and have changed our minds about the War. So has Senator Clinton. Changing her mind after learning new facts is what a President needs to do. I find Senator Obama''s harping on the original vote offensive

[watcher269-2009]

Part 1:

One day John McCain was sitting in a bar
when someone sat down beside him and
ordered a beer.

The barman served the beer when
all of a sudden the small man jumped
out of his jacket pocket and nocked
over the beer.

John Apologized to the man and
ordered him another beer.

When the barman served up the
beer, the little man jumped out
of McCain''s pocket and nocked the
beer over again.

John Apologized to the man and
ordered him another beer. And the
same thing happened again.

So the man next to John asked him,
"I''m sorry, but, can I ask you about
the little man in your pocket"?

John said sure - I would like to convey
the story. When I traveled to Iraq at the
beginning of the "War on Freedom"
started with the Iraqis, I travelled to
Iraq on a "Fact Finding Mission" and
while there we visited the market place
where some of my companions found
GREAT deals on some Persian Rugs.
Well, I ventured off for something more
treasured and I found the Brass Lamp.

[watcher269-2009]

Part 2:

So, I bought the lamp along with some
other items and brought them back to my
Arizona Ranch - you know because
we republicans don''t own property or
farms - we own Ranches!

Just before I after I decided to run for
the Presidency I found the lamp - it was
a long holiday weekend and my
female lobbyest was at home with her
family so I was bored to tears when I
happened upon the lamp again. So, I
decided to clean it up. So I grabbed an
old t-shirt that the female lobbyest that
I didn''t have Sexx with to clean the lamp -

WHEN - POW - All of a sudden
a genie popped out of the lamp and
said - "I am the Genie of the Bottle and
I will grant you three wishes" . Well
John was dumbfounded - more then
usual - and had to sit back to gather
his thoughts - and came up with his
first wish.

For my first wish John said: " I
would like to be nominated for
The Republican National Candidate
for President of the United States"
Ring, Ring - the phone call came
stating that John had just took
the delegate lead for the Republican
candidate over Mitt Romney.

[watcher269-2009]

Part 3:


Well, McCain said, " I just about
fell out of my expensive leather
lounge chair onto the floor". So
I thought about it and thought about
it and came up with my second wish"

For my second wish, John said, "I would
like three Female lobbyist for my whims
and Pleasures". The Genie quizzically looked
at me and stated "John, you are a Republican,
are you sure you want Female lobbyist?". I
stated that "I did indeed want Female Lobbyist
and that even thought I''ve been a
Republican in the Senate there were time
that I enjoyed Democratic tendancies and
tastes, like women once in a while".

So the Genie granted John''s second wish and
"POOF" - three gorgeous female lobbyist appeared
out of thin air and sat on John''s lap and started
caressing and fondling John. And John started to
sexxually react to the women but the women
noticed that John''s Privates were of a
Republican size and not a True Democrats
length - I think you get the meaning - and
started to giggle at Johnny''s little Republican
constituency and this upset John very much.

So for my final wish - John exclaimed to the
other man I told the Genie that "I wanted
a 12 inch Prickk and - POOF - there stood
Lindsay Graham". "Well, John stated. -
he''s been doing this everytime I go somewhere."

"Lindsay Grahm - the little prickk! He''s everywhere
I go these days - making a Prickk of himself!"

"So, my Friend", John said. Now you
know the story of my 12 inch Prickk!

[whitepicks2]

Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain''s intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain''s hair and said, "You''re getting a little thin up there." McCain''s face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don''t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cu*t." McCain''s excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.

-from ''The Real McCain'' by Schecter

[obama8years]

GO READ THE TRUTH AND THEN IF YOU WANT TO VOTE FOR OBAMA THEN AT LEAST YOUR INFORMED.........There is a reason why ultra socialist liberals are clinging on to Obama as if he is the Messiah. Read the truth and you will see why.
------------ ----------- ------------ ------------ --

OBAMA NUMBEROUS LIES - 70+ HE LIES MORE THAN HILLARY

audacityofhypocrisy.com
----

--------------------------------------
--
-------
WHO IS OBAMA REALLY?

stop-obama.org
-------------

-- ------------- ------------- ----------
THE OBAMA FINANCIAL SCANDALS HOSPITAL

obamatruth.org

---------- ------------- -------- -----------------
AND OBAMAS LINKS TO HAMAS

canadafreepress.com/index.php /article/2462

---------- ---------------- ------------- ------------

[whitepicks2]

John McCain and his campaign continue to put politics ahead of a responsible way forward in Iraq. Instead of outlining his plan for the future, explaining whether his vision of a decades long troop presence in Iraq includes permanent bases there, or saying how he plans to pay for a war that now costs $12 billion a month while making Bush''s tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, McCain continues to advocate a stay the course strategy.

McCain has consistently gotten the basic facts on the ground wrong throughout this campaign....

- McCain said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show ''As you know, there are al-Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they''re moving back into Iraq.''...Wrong!

- ''We continue to be concerned about Iranian [operatives] taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back,'' he said in comments after meeting with Jordan''s King Abdullah II

- McCain Referred To Al Qaeda As A "Sect Of Shi''ites" MCCAIN: Do you still view al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat? PETRAEUS: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was say 15 months ago. MCCAIN: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shi''ites overall?.....Al-Qaeda is a Sunni militant org. Wrong again!

Is the problem (1) He can''t keep it straight in his head? (2) He doesn''t care for details? (3) He is lying to make his case for a preemptive strike on Iran? (4) All of the above?

[obama8years]

OBAMA NUMBEROUS LIES - 70+ HE LIES MORE THAN HILLARY


audacityofhypocrisy.com

[obama8years]

OBAMA TIME - OBAMA LINKS TO HAMAS

canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2462

stop-obama.org who he really is

obamatruth.org michelle hospital scandal

[blkpresident]

edfranco,

America doesn''t want an apron and cake mixing bowl foreign policy, so face it no matter how harsh the reality, lil'' missy is out. It''s really that simple.

[leftyintexas]

.....We can''''t afford to rely on people who live in fantasy worlds of denial and empty rhetoric.

Posted by mudrose at 09:09 AM : Apr 09, 2008

You have a way of putting your foot in your mouth, don''t you? Want to explain why YOU are a DOOFUS SUPPORTER then? Ha!Ha!Ha!

[whitepicks2]

John McCain and his campaign continue to put politics ahead of a responsible way forward in Iraq. Instead of outlining his plan for the future, explaining whether his vision of a decades long troop presence in Iraq includes permanent bases there, or saying how he plans to pay for a war that now costs $12 billion a month while making Bush''s tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, McCain continues to advocate a stay the course strategy.

McCain has consistently gotten the basic facts on the ground wrong throughout this campaign....

- McCain said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show ''As you know, there are al-Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they''re moving back into Iraq.''...Wrong!

- ''We continue to be concerned about Iranian [operatives] taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back,'' he said in comments after meeting with Jordan''s King Abdullah II

- McCain Referred To Al Qaeda As A "Sect Of Shi''ites" MCCAIN: Do you still view al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat? PETRAEUS: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was say 15 months ago. MCCAIN: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shi''ites overall?.....Al-Qaeda is a Sunni militant org. Wrong again!

[blackspirit3]

We all know folks have friends and family members who say things we disagree with or feel shamed of, we don''t throw them out of our lives, we got a uncle rukus in my family and im sure a lot of white folks have a uncle Archie Bunker in their family, so using rev wright words to beat Obama over the head with another is a diversionary tactic, Obama and his campaign knew going in the feelings of a minority of Americans, they knew some white women would never vote for a black man if they could vote for a white women - the white women are not racist or hate black men, they just want to see someone who represents them in office, which is natural. Most black who have been voting all their lives have voted white, so why would we not get excited about a Candidate thats part black becoming a president, and not be called race baiters. I have never seen a 100% President, a President in which 100% of all Americans loves, if he a left, the right automatic responce is to hate, if he a right the left automatic responce is to hate, someone will not like you in Politics. pure and simple.

[homespunlady]

Think your repeat button got stuck Blackspirit.

MY answer to the BIGOTS that are using Rev. Wright as argument bait is to point out that REV. Wright plays to his congregation saying what many think but are AFRAID to say out loud.
It''s HIS congregation and the LAST time I looked this nation STILL ALLOWED FREE SPEECH.
Then I point out that Rev. Wright also IS NOT RUNNING for POLITICAL OFFICE - he WAS PREACHING.

Talking about namby-pamby issues just DOESN"T draw in the crowds or hold their attention the way controversial subjects do - just ask ANY Southern Baptist preacher - they enjoy controversial condemnation more than ANY religious group I know.

Besides this article is on PETREUS and the CANDIDATES over IRAQ not religious INTOLERANCE in the US.