Dodd Hits Obama And Hillary, Demands Clarity On Iraq

Comments (21)

dcshungu wrote on September 10, 2007 8:43 PM:

This one should have been easy for Obama to address had he been consistent and, as US Senator, repeatedly voted against any measure that perpetuated a war that he had opposed as a State Senator. But the 'new' kind of politician in him just was not 'new' enough. He had his eyes on the presidency and his finger in the wind, ready to compromise the very 'principles' that so many find attractive about him.

In the end, he is really a politician, just like the rest of them, which makes him even less qualified to be POTUS since this leaves experience as the only thing that would distinguish him from the others, but he ain't got none...

horizonr wrote on September 10, 2007 9:02 PM:

Not clear why he's naming Obama but not Hillary....

Is this a serious comment?

Robert Cogan wrote on September 10, 2007 9:38 PM:

Petraeus notwithstanding, measures to reduce casualties in Iraq have been in public discussion for months (Biden, Iraq Study Group.) “Soft partition” (SP) would mean that U.S. troops, while withdrawing from Iraq's cities, would escort only willing Iraqis to resettle to zones of others of the same sect. What is now happening is hard partition by ethnic cleansing. Under SP Iraqis unwilling to move would assume the risk of fighting or making peace. Assumption of risk is a principle of freedom of choice. Forcible occupation is a principle of imperialism. Baghdad can be partitioned along the Tigris. The Green Zone goes to Sunni's moving from east to west Baghdad. Make a gift of Bush's embassy to the Iraqis. It's not worth one more American or Iraqi life. The Kurds have their own government. The Sunnis are out of Maliki's government. So we should offer Maliki's government the choice to stay in Baghdad alone or move to a self-defensible base in Shia territory.
U.S. forces could be redeployed to non city areas guarding Iraq's oil. Two powerful reasons for this are 1) that oil companies will never invest the $50 billion to upgrade Iraq's oil industry so Iraq can be rebuilt without long term U.S. guardianship and 2) without this, conflict among Sunnis, Shia and Kurds or even regional war is likely to break out. The risk of this redeployment is lowered, if the U.S. also funds a large U.N. force to guard Iraq's borders between our forces and Iran. That's essential maintain Iraq as “one” country and allow refugees to return. A unit of the U.S. military, perhaps SIGIR, could equitably distribute oil revenues to all Iraqis.
Bush is drifting toward blaming and attacking Iran. Or maybe Israel will do so, trapping us in Iraq, fighting Iranian retaliatory infiltration indefinitely. The stench of political cowardice coming off of non-administration Republicans and Democrats, for weasel-wording “withdrawal,” and not legislating such measures is growing unbearable.

reino wrote on September 10, 2007 10:52 PM:

Has Dodd promised to veto any open-ended funding for the War? If he hasn't, then he shouldn't be calling out other Senators.

keith wrote on September 10, 2007 11:07 PM:

I think Obama's statement is fine; especially given the fact that (i) the Pentagon does not have an actual withdrawal plan in place and (ii) everyone agrees that it is going to take some time to do an effective and responsible withdrawal. I think this is (like most of the supposed "gotcha" issues) much ado about nothing.

pacc wrote on September 10, 2007 11:54 PM:

Very gratifying to hear someone of Senator Dodd's experience and stature calling O-Bomb-A out on his hypocrisy.

As dcshungu accurately wrote to start the comments off, O-Bomb-A is just another finger-to-the wind politician and he lacks experience for the job he is seeking.

lorelynn wrote on September 11, 2007 12:45 AM:

Perhaps Dodd was satisfied with Clinton's statement from a few days ago.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=282107&&

September 7, 2007

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

"As General Petraeus prepares to testify before Congress next week, it is clear that the increase in U.S. troops in Iraq has simply not led to political reconciliation in Iraq. Rather than continuing the escalation, we must begin the immediate redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq, in order to end this war as soon as possible. I continue to support legislative efforts requiring the Administration to begin to withdraw our troops and to complete the redeployment of combat troops in 2008, and I encourage the Congressional leadership to ensure that we will have an opportunity to vote for such legislation.

The President continues to reject the findings of the National Intelligence Estimate, the Government Accountability Office report and the Jones Commission report, refuses to work with Congress to develop a strategy that will enable our troops to start coming home, and stubbornly denies the reality on the ground and the will of the American people.

We will continue to press him to follow the will of the people. I will continue to do everything in my power to convince the President to change course and to work with my colleagues in the Senate to bring an end to this war as soon as possible."

Zhonni wrote on September 11, 2007 12:57 AM:

I think Dodd is running to be Hillary's Vice President.

Querent wrote on September 11, 2007 1:08 AM:

Thanks for that quote, lorelynn. I have not been a Hillary supporter, but if she means what she says, I will wholeheartedly support her after she wins the nomination.

Amare wrote on September 11, 2007 1:39 AM:

I agree with Zhonni. Dodd is obviously running for VP at this point, and he's betting on Hillary winning the nom.

lorelynn wrote on September 11, 2007 2:28 AM:

Dodd knows he isn't going to be vice-president. He brings nothing to the ticket should Hillary be the nominee. Hillary is going to pick someone that has primarily executive or military experience, and they will, hopefully bring a state with them as well. Dodd is a northeast liberal from a state she'll win anyway, and he duplicates her senatorial resume.

It appears to me that he is taking a swing at Obama on Edwards' behalf. Obama's campaign appears to be over with, and he's simply blocking Edwards from moving up and sucking up all the extra money. If Dodd helps clear him out of the way, Edwards has a much better shot at taking on Clinton - something Obama has proved he cannot do credibly.

elrapierwit wrote on September 11, 2007 3:30 AM:

It is blatantly apparent that both Dodd and Biden are running for cabinet positions and betting on Hillary winning. They have been doing her dirty work for awhile. Dodd, Biden and Clinton have no answer for Obama when he says that they all failed to plan an exit strategy to this war. Obama makes Biden and Dodd's FP 'expertise' meaningless with that one sentence. He is so obviously right and both Biden and Dodd resent his ascent to the National level despite alltheir political experience. They back Hillary on everything.

Hillary's statement about complete withdrawal means nothing. Obama is the one who set forth the bill for redrawal of troops to commence in March 2008 NOT Hillary.

Biden and Dodd both have also already acknowledged that they are not going to win the nomination. If they wanted to help the Democratic party they would both cease their candidacy so that the voters have a real chance to listen and hear from those who actually are serious about being the Democratic nominee. Instead the muddy the water for HRClinton.

Obama, not Edwards is Hillary's most formidable opponent and Biden and Dodd know it and so does Hillary.

Edwards is also aiming to get a cabinet position which is why he along with the other candidates also attacked Barack in the last debate.

The only Democrat that the others are attacking is Barack, as he is the only one capable of beating Hillary and they all know it.c

elrapierwit wrote on September 11, 2007 4:42 AM:

lorelynn
regarding HRClinton's statement..BHO is making one on Wednesday:

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama plans to make a major policy speech on Iraq when he comes to Clinton, Iowa, Wednesday, a Democratic official who’s familiar with the campaign’s plans said Sunday.

The speech is planned for after Gen. David Patraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker give their much-anticipated progress report to Congress about the surge in Iraq.

Obama, a Democratic senator from Illinois, is planning a two-day trip to Clinton, Davenport, Maquoketa, Anamosa and Dubuque on Wednesday and Thursday.

The address on Iraq, the official said, will include new policy proposals on troop withdrawals, diplomacy in Iraq and the region and ideas about what to do about the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. He’ll also talk about his ideas for U.S. leadership in the region after the war, the official said.

In January, Obama announced a plan to begin a troop withdrawal that was to have begun by last May. The goal was to have combat brigades out of the country by March 31, 2008.

Obama will be accompanied on this trip by Zbigniew Brezezinski, the national security adviser for Jimmy Carter. Brezezinski announced his support for Obama last month.

supercilious wrote on September 11, 2007 5:01 AM:

My thoughts are that Obama should ignore Dodd and his attacks, the same way that Hillary ignores Edwards.

To give Dodd attention is to put him on a peer level in terms of contention for the nomination. Dodd is behind Richardson in the polls so why should Obama acknowledge him?

Obama needs to keep his eye on the ball and the ball is that Hillary is the front runner, he does not need to expend political energy responding to Dodd as that simply dissipates his standing in the polls relative to Dodd.

Dodd needs Obama's attention...not vice-versa..Dodd is a whitehaired hare, no?

If Hillary had any leadership she would have taken this war issue on from the jump. Afterall, she claims to be the candidate with the experience.Experience is about more than accumulated years on the political scene, it demands that you step up to the plate and get out front in a national role on matters of great national interest.

Hillary has failed to articulate a clear position on Iraq, she continues to be ambiguous about foreign policy and how she would handle hunting down terrorists.

But perhaps that is why Dodd is asking Obama, since Obama is the only one giving straight answers and advocating a sensible foreign policy support by emminient foreign policy experts. Even Steve Clemons who is a Hillary advisor and supporter exhorts Hillary to change course when it comes to how middle of the road and status quo she is on foreign policy. He all but says she is wrong.

Obama is not the issue if Dodd was serious about being a candidate he would be calling Hillary out about her triangulating on Foreign Policy.

But then Dodd isn't serious, he is just carrying Hillary's water in all likelihood.

stlounick wrote on September 11, 2007 8:11 AM:

It's absolutely amazing how many forget who aided and abated this damned mess to begin with. Hey, Dodd, I'm talkin' to you! Same with Hillary and Biden. And let's not leave our Richardson who supported the war from afar. And even Edwards who now has fallen on his sword in apologizing for not only his supporting vote but his co-sponsorship of the resolution.

Now our war-supporters have changed into the angels of peace? Puh-leeze.

Eileen wrote on September 11, 2007 8:30 AM:

I agree wholeheartedly with stlounick. Now these "angels of peace", in their eagerness to win the Democratic nomination, care not one whit for the humanitarian crisis that will be caused by their calls for immediate withdrawal. That is simply not an option now, thanks to their aiding and abetting of our president in his unjust war.

The two most hypocritical of them all, imo, are Edwards and Richardson. Edwards, because he was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The head of that committee voted No on the war resolution, because of the information to which the intelligence committee was privy.

Richardson, the so-called diplomacy expert, spoke out during the run-up to this war, saying the time for diplomacy is over, and its time for military action.

Now they want to please their anti-war roots, but pledging to pull out. Two wrongs don't make a right; they make a grevious error for mankind.

Snow Camp wrote on September 11, 2007 9:05 AM:

Scrolling down the page, one can see yhat Reid, Pelosi, Emmanuel, etc. are saying the right things.

The big question is what will they do. The ball will be in their court very soon. Congress is constitutionally obligated to decide what wars to fight, and when to fight them. It is appropriations time. They could also rewrite the AUMF, or even declare war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban remnants. Bush would then be obligated to prosecute that war better as C-in-C.

In the end, I expect the Beltway Dems to cave, to agree to some half-assed, face saving compromise that means nothing in practical terms. More War! wins again (btw- Is anyone even asking how much more money we'll be borrowing from the Red Dragon to pay for it all?).

I sure hope I'm wrong, though.

If I'm not, then we need to force rebellions in the Dem Caucuses in Congress. If Harry Reid can not/will not lead, how about replacing him with Dodd? Dodd has little or no chance to be President, but he would be a good Majority Leader, a position he sought in the past.

Let's start recruiting good candidates for Congressional primaries. Fuck the DNC, DCCC and DSCC (Howard Dean, what are your plans for this crucial test?). Not one dime from me.

Meanwhile, Clinton and Obama are failing this critical test of leadership by being so careful and nuanced and basically invisible. Richardson is a cartoon buffoon as a campaigner and Edwards is seemingly stuck in the mud, despite being the most credible progressive in the race. I fear all the girly-man stuff is fatal to his chances.

Al Gore, history is calling you. Urgently.

NCSteve wrote on September 11, 2007 10:08 AM:

So, pacc, are you even a real person? Just asking because I've begun to suspect you're just some piece of software programmed to scan TPMEC for any post containing the word "Obama" and automatically generate a vacuous two-line insult out of a limited set of buzzwords.

Anonymous wrote on September 11, 2007 10:18 AM:

dcshengu,

Um, if Obama was a just another finger in the wind politician wouldn't he have come out in favor of the war back in 2002 when the polls showed about 76% in favor? Or, alternately, said nothing at all rather than taking a stand? Oh well, I guess if the only experience that counts is experience sleeping in or near the same bedroom as a President, no one but Hillary (and Laura and Nancy and whatsername, dubya's mommy) are qualified.

Captain Nemo wrote on September 11, 2007 10:48 AM:

This is part of Dodd's statement.

"Rhetoric and highly nuanced statements are not going to end this war -- strong leadership and clarity will..."

Senator Dodd: Your very statement is itself rhetoric, unless you now back up these words with action. Specifically, you need to:

1. Offer a bill that brings this fiasco to a close.

2. Filibuster any funding bill that does not meet your conditions.

RuthieM wrote on September 11, 2007 12:23 PM:

I think Obama should totally ignore Dodd. Obama time and again has made his stand clear on Iraq. Dodd is simply grandstanding, tryingly at Obama's expense. Why did't he include Hillary in this? Unbelievable, she votes for this mess, swishswashes time after time on Iraq, and he singles out Obama for clarity.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)