Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton as an anti-war candidate. But it was a lie that his supporters chose to ignore. Gen. David Petraeus's congressional testimony on Tuesday makes clear that the Obama Administration is for more war, not less. He advocated more fighting in Afghanistan by loosening the rules of engagement, and all but erased the President's faux deadline for exiting by next summer. It's hard to image he would say such things without Obama's tacit approval. Let's face it, for whatever reason, Obama played his base for the fool, winning the Democratic Party nomination in 2008 by perpetuating a fraud.
Craig bogs daily for CQ-Roll Call
Follow Craig Crawford on Twitter: www.twitter.com/craig_crawford
I have always been fascinated by her idealistic differences from Obama's - and with her character as well. Do you think things would be so different were she elected?
I recently read this article on what might lie behind her diplomatic facade. You have to wonder...
http://tiny.cc/HillaryClintonNods
Jones reports that "Despairing humanitarians recall that Hillary Clinton promised as secretary of state to clean house at USAID, which, she said, had become nothing but 'a contracting shop.' Well, here’s a flash from Afghanistan: it’s still a contracting shop, and the contracts are going to the same set of contractors who have been exposed again and again as venal, fraudulent, and criminal."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ann-jones/counterinsurgency-down-fo_b_632275.html
So where’s the much vaunted champion of human rights when there’s opportunity to lead and act? Has Hillary changed, or do actions just speak louder than rhetoric?
Perhaps you don't understand that the Secretary of State serves The President's Agenda.
Gen. McChrystal's original plan for Afghanistan required a reported 50,000 additional troops. According to McChrystal's staff in the Rolling Stone interview, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was MChrystal's primary ally in the administration and strong advocate for his plan of escalation of the war: "Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal's inner circle. "Hillary had Stan's back during the strategic review," says an adviser. "She said, 'If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.'"
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=0
SoS Clinton seems better suited to the previous administration in her preference for use of force over diplomacy, and war ever peace. As a Senator, Clinton voted to give Bush authority for use of force against Iraq and Iran, and called for escalation in Afghanistan
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/2007/01/hillary_escalate_in_afghanista.html
As presidential candidate she rattled nuclear sabers and made a threat of "obliteration."
As SoS she has advocated for escalation
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/ben-goddard/63135-bob-and-hillarys-escalation”
Whatever circumstances require going forward, Americans who support PEACE over WAR, are VERY fortunate Hillary Rodham Clinton is NOT Commander in Chief.
Obama campaigned as a critic of the war in Iraq, and he, unlike Clinton, could truthfully claim that he took a position against invading Iraq from the very beginning. Of course at the time he was not a senator, but nevertheless this is a true statement. What Obama stated, time and time again in his presidential campaign, was that (1) he would begin the withdrawal of troops in Iraq in a timely but deliberate manner, and that (2) he would build up the war effort in Afghanistan. His argument was that the Afghan war had been neglected because of our misadventure in Iraq, and that because of the resurgence of the Taliban and the danger of Pakistan, we needed to refocus our efforts there.
I don't think anyone can claim that Obama hasn't stayed true to his word on the above issues. You can certainly disagree with the argument. But Crawford doesn't seem to know what the argument is.
Yes, Obama lied. When Obama took office we had 32,000 troops in Afghanistan. In the campaign, Obama talked about sending 2 to 3 additional brigades. There are about 5,000 troops in a brigade (counting support staff). Thus Obama was talking about a troop level of 42,000 to 47,000. We now have nearly 100,000 troops. Obama has dramatically expanded the war over anything he said in the campaign.
Congress will have the courage to deny funding for Obama's wars and any other Obama follies.
The statement is simply untrue. Obama promised to end the war in Iraq, and specifically to withdraw all combat brigades in 16 months. The Bush administration was forced by the Iraqi government to establish a time-table for ending the war in the December 2008 Status of Forces Agreement. Under that agreement all U.S. combat forces had to be withdrawn to isolated bases away from all populated places ("cities, villages, and localities") by June 30, 2009. The Obama administration tried to get the Iraqis to back off from this date, but in the end complied and this was the date the U.S. war in Iraq ended. Despite this Obama consulted with his military leadership and on February 27, 2009, announced that all combat brigades would be withdrawn from Iraq by August 31, 2010, eighteen months instead of the promised sixteen. That withdrawal is on schedule. In addition, the Bush SOFA requires that all U.S. troops must be withdrawn from Iraq by December 31, 2011. Neither Obama or Clinton proposed that all U.S. military would be withdrawn.
Obama also promised to escalate the war in Afghanistan, specifically to "send at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan." He also promised cross-border attacks into Pakistan. It is hard to understand how anyone hearing Obama over and over again say he would send more combat troops mistook him for an anti-war candidate.
LEHRER: Do you think more troops -- more U.S. troops should be sent to Afghanistan, how many, and when?
OBAMA: Yes, I think we need more troops. I've been saying that for over a year now.
And I think that we have to do it as quickly as possible, because it's been acknowledged by the commanders on the ground the situation is getting worse, not better.
We had the highest fatalities among U.S. troops this past year than at any time since 2002. And we are seeing a major offensive taking place -- Al Qaida and Taliban crossing the border and attacking our troops in a brazen fashion. They are feeling emboldened.
.
So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan. Now, keep in mind that we have four times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no Al Qaida before we went in, but we have four times more troops there than we do in Afghanistan.
And that is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that Al Qaida is the greatest threat against the United States and that Secretary of Defense Gates acknowledged the central front -- that the place where we have to deal with these folks is going to be in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.
As I note above, Obama talked about expanding the war by sending 10,000 to 15,000 more troops on top of the 32,000 troops already there. Instead he has now decided to send 66,000 more troops to bring the troop level to 98,000 by the end of this summer. Indeed, Obama ordered more than 30,000+ new troops into Afghanistan within weeks of taking office and then agreed to another 30,000+ troops last fall. This was not what he campaigned on.