Obama's Star Turn At The Petraeus Hearing
After spending the morning with the Senate Armed Forces Committee, Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have moved over to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
(Reminding me of Saint Lawrence, who, when being grilled on a stake, said, "Turn me over, I'm done on this side.")
The Foreign Relations Committee -- which includes Barack Obama -- is led by Democrat Joe Biden and has as its ranking member Republican Richard Lugar. Despite the bi-partisan make-up of the committee, however, a consensus is emerging among the senators this afternoon. Bottom line: we need to be thinking about getting out of Iraq.
Questions turn on certain themes: a) Why are we in Iraq and not in Afghanistan/Pakistan, where Al Qaeda is much more of a threat? b) Is our strategy working? Isn't there another way? c) How will we know when it's either bad enough or good enough to leave?
Crocker and Petraeus strike a mainly candid tone, if occasionally defensive and circumspect (Petreaus more often the former; Crocker more often the latter). The word "fragile" keeps coming up. Our gains in Iraq are fragile. The situation in Iraq is fragile. "Nothing in Iraq is easy," says Petraeus. One has the sense that Iraq is thin and as brittle as kindling.
Barack Obama, the undisputed main celebrity at the event, has been sitting a bit high on the dais given his junior status on the committee. He was also allowed to speak out of turn -- early -- owing to a scheduling issue. ("Yeah, getting on the evening news," said the journo next to me.)
Obama managed at once to bat clean up by summarizing his colleagues' arguments; to play star lawyer by rhetorically leading around the general and ambassador like they were witnesses at a trial; to be collegial by thanking Biden for his "indulgence" of an extra minute and by referencing fellow member Senator Barbara Boxer's comments; and to underline his status as front-running presidential candidate by offering concluding remarks straight to the camera, as if the senate were simply another town hall in which to deliver a stump speech.
Oh, and he also played the glamor girl. At one point he flashed a mega-watt grin, and so many cameras in the room went off at once that the shutters sounded like someone shuffling playing cards.
Onto the substance.
Obama, who favors withdrawing troops from Iraq, pointed up the confusion surrounding how exactly to determine the criteria for success in Iraq. He outlined his stance in four points:
1) We all have the greatest interest in seeing a successful resolution to Iraq.
2) He continues to believe the original decision to go into Iraq was a massive strategic blunder.
3) The surge has reduced violence and provided breathing room, but the opportunity to breathe has not been taken.
4) Our resources are finite. When resources are stretched, we have to focus tightly and modestly, and Al Qada is feeling a lot more secure when we're focused in Iraq and not Afghanistan.
"No one's calling for a precipitous withdrawal," he said, presumably for the benefit of critics who say that's exactly what he wants to do. But, he believes we are more likely to resolve the situation in Iraq if we apply increased pressure in a measured way, which includes a timetable for withdrawal, and create a "diplomatic surge" that includes talking to Iran.
In what was a useful point for a rather stalled discussion, but perhaps a phrasing that is going to cost him politically, Obama argued that our standards of success were perhaps so high as to be impossible without staying another 20 or 30 years.
In short, if US troops can leave, and Iraq maintains the current messy status quo but is not a threat to its neighbors or a base for Iranian expansion, would that be okay?
The question remained unanswered.
His time up (indeed stretched well beyond the seven-minute limit), the senator from Illinois exchanged a friendly word with the senator next to him, stood up, and disappeared. A third of the spectators in the room went with him.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Hillary's cult is out in force to tear Obama down--as usual. It seems you people whine about all the negative remarks made about Hillary but sure don't mind dishing it out against Obama. I'm sorry your candidate wasn't impressive at the hearing and you feel you need to tear Obama down to compensate for her lackluster performance--but it's time to grow up.
IF Obama is elected he will be in for a rude awakening if he thinks getting out of Iraq is simply a matter of cutting our losses there and leaving. The reality is the situation is MUCH more complex than that and the problems that will have to be faced are much more complicated and the potential consequences of the CIC's decisions will be great.
That said, the truth about Obama's experience (and we are finding this out about him now) is that he has no practical experience in federal government. Some may say this is a good thing. It might be. IMHO it's a liability. The way he speaks on these issues demonstrates to me a true grasp on the issues and what we need to do to resolve them in the best possible way. He may be brilliant. I don't think he's brilliant enough to make up for the other two candidates experience. And in the General Election it will become his biggest liability and the Republicans will make absolutely sure everyone knows how inexperienced Obama is at the federal level.
Considering Senator Clinton has said she will begin to withdraw troops immediately without heeding what the military says, whereas Obama says he will be consulting with the military, I can't imagine why you would give her "experience" (often misused) an edge here.
sorry, she said he we consult with the military, can't any of you obama supporters tell the truth.
StephenJK, You are making one of the common grand assumptions that people under an illusion make. We are not in a humane enterprise in Iraq, it was conceived as a means to destatbilise the Middle East in order to manipulate oil prices the advantage of Saudi and American industrialists. Why you think we care about the life and death issues or even about the buildings and infrastructure of a place that was used as a political means to an end is curious. The truth is that we are beastial in our greed and we less for lives other than our own. And the truth within THAT truth is that the engineer intends to wreck the train (the engineer being the Bush people, the train being America).
I guess you are not very fond of Sen. Obama are you Kelly? Because I am wondering if you were watching and listening to the same hearing...
Republicans are getting very nervous. I do not care what the stupid MSM says, the Iraq War is a huge issue with Americans, and with over 70 percent wanting it to end (one way or another and they have stopped buying the lies of the Bush malAdministration). Any republican who is up for reelection in Nov 08 (all of them in the House of Representatives and republican cabal in the Senate) know they are about to lose their jobs, the voters will throw them out in mass and hopefully all the Democrats like Pelosi and Reid who have refused to follow the will of the public. Cannot wait, so looking forward election night in Nov 08 and watching the election returns. The American public is not stupid, even as politicians hope they are. (For those voted out of office in November 2008, don't let the door hit you in the butt, goodbye and good riddance).
CEO Obama.
Hilary continues to look every inch the middle level manager.
He was grandstanding for the cameras, he asked rhetorical questions he knew they wouldn;t answer.
What a con man.
And his ego is getting bigger by the minute.
She looked washed out - appeared mean spirited/ unpleasant and she was scripted as usual - what a con woman - and she needs to get an ego or at least try to pick an ego from one of her three faces of eve -
a con man?
where exactly . . . on a scale from nafta to bosnia.
Can you tell me honestly, exactly which Senator on the Foreign Relations Committee, or the Armed Services Committee.
Thank God that there are others out there who see Obama for the snake oil salesman he really is. The issue of Iraq is so important to him that he couldn't wait to get out of the room and back to his swooning fans and their money.
Obama is nothing but a dopplegager, a trait he has shown throughout the debates. Hillary complained at the last debate, "Why do I always get the first question?" She wasn't talking about the first one of the debates, she was reffering to the fact she got the first question on each issue.
She would answer the question, and Obama would say "I agree with much of what Hillary said but than add a pedantic diatribe with flourishes of rhetoric..
Really? You believe this? That he sits around waiting for HRC to speak so he can mimic her every word and idea. I'm sorry but it seems absurd to me. I think you are just fond of the word doppleganger.
I WAS WONDERING IF I WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT GOT THAT. AND IN ASKING THE QUESTION, HE HAD TO ASK THREE TIMES BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. HE WAITS FOR HILLARY, THE HE ME TO'S.
The most significant development of the Obama/Hillary interrogation of Patraeous was the comparison between Hillary's simplistic questions read from notes with an unemotional delivery like a robotic interrogator and compare it with the impassioned persistant attempt by Obama to squeeze information from recalcitrant stooges who had only answers that were prescribed before the interrogation took place.
If you were to compare who in fact has a Commander-in-Chief quality and who does not have it, just compare Hillary's posture, delivery and scripted questions, (did you notice the note that was passed to her by a page during her questions?) and compare her performance with Obama's executive style of interrogating hostile witnesses. And his rephrasing of the same questions was his attempt to break through the obvious stonewalling of Patraeous and Crocker which Obama did managed to get through by eliciting statements from Crocker and Patraeous that clearly exposed the Bush's lack of any strategy to end our presence in Iraq under any any type of scenarios that Obama suggested.
Obama was brillent and his performance could convince many Hillary supporters to switch over to Obama.
Totally agreed, UNCLEJOE.
I think some people (certainly Chris Matthews) took Obama's continual re-phrasing of the questions as lack of precision. I also think it's clear his rephrasings were intended to remove the "wiggle room" for vague answers. it was almost like watching a cross-examination.
It was during his questioning that it was most apparent how the General and Ambassador were actively trying NOT to answer the questions of the Committee.
EXACTLY!
Uncle Joe, Obama is anything but passionate. Arrogant and condescending, though.
IA with this assesement and whats interesting too you could see that Crocker and Petraeous were Nervous when he was questioning them. I think Obama knows they were briefed and told what to say. These people are fighting a war and had Fuzzy plans on what constitute success. He pointed out that they've set the bar for success too high and when you have limited resources you have to be modest in terms of what you plan to achieve. Its gets to the heart of their tautology that when violence is down they can't leave because it will flare up and when its up they cant leave. Thats NOT a policy since there is no way to measure success. He came off more as a CIC trying to get at the truth.
Carol
They were laughing at his questions. He was on the soap box, grandstanding as a junior senator, sitting up with the big boys on the top tier. You call it interrogating reluctant witness', I call it an "interview" for anyone watching the hearings. His ego was too big for the room. (maybe it was all the paparrazi) And tell me what was so important about the evening news that he needed to split early and miss the 2nd round of questions? It had nothing to do with the war and everything to do with the democratic nomination and beating Senator Clinton with his articulate and well rehearsed oratory while she read from a prepared, but very pertinent set of questions about the S.O.F.A. (look it up) As to the tone of the candidates, Hillary was subdued and succinct and Barry sounded like a preacher on the pulpit in a Southern Babtist church. If only these hearings meant anything. Opening statements no answers. The surge is working, no troop withdrawals, no end to the killing and dying, and, if you listened closely, no chance of Obama's plan to end the war. It made me think of all the promises made during the election process (wishes and Hopes) and all the promises kept after the candidate reaches office (reality). Does uniter/divider ring a bell? The hearings were just a charade.
"Obama was brillent"
Yes, I think you're approaching his brilliance with this post. Good job, Uncle Joe! I'm voting for Obama!
HAHAHAH
Ms. Nuxoll:
Yes, indeed OBAMA was very presidential than Ms. Clinton and McCain. Obama within his 7 plus minutes a great moment of his spendid ability and capacit. Ms. Clinton would say they were just words and rethoric. Obama was a star intelligent and briliant mind that I want to see in my PRESIDENT. Ms. Clinton, Mr. Clinton and the entire entourage they've got should be ashamed for for all kitchen sink and belittling him in the public atrium.
General Petreus and Ambassador Crocker did their best they could and it was tough for them to give straight right answers to Sen. Obama. St. Lawrence's analogy was correct. They were grilled and well toasted in one side and they are looking to be grilled until out of Iraq, the war that Senators. McCain and Hillary authorized.
Bravo Obama for bringing in Iran on the table for discussion.
OBAMA '08
You are right they w
I watched the hearings, both Armed Services and Foreign Relations. I must say, the Foreign Relations hearings were more confrontational than the Armed Services hearings. With that said, I found that all senators on the Foreign Relations committee were very direct in their questioning which allowed a perfect opening for Obama's questons (and reiteration of his opposition to the war).
In my opinion Obama set up the next president for an out to Iraq by being able to declare a "victory" however shallow. He basically stated the US military can leave Iraq without having installed a pure sense of democracy or having completely rid the country of AQI. It was a very clever move of his part and did make the issue of what "success" actually is. He allowed himself an opportunity to define what that success is on his own (or his administration's) terms. I say "Bravo Barack!"
I think that his questions gave insight into the way OBama thinks and the way you would think that military peole particularly would think. What constitutes success and how do we achieve it with the limited resources that we have. It gets back to his belief that there is no good options in Iraq there is just bad and worse and if you are setting the bar too high and we dont have the resources to meet that bar its time to start lowering the standards. I thought he thinks like someone who realize that Yes Iraq is important but as President there are other national security and economic concerns and he has got to look at the big picture. I thought his questions were the toughest of the three. Even McCain doesnt seem to be grounded in the reality that this war is severely weakening the country economically as a whole and in terms of the morale for new recurits and the current soldiers.
The thing is that we need a reality check this cost is economically unsustainable. If our goal is a peaceful democratic Iraq we may be there for 10,000 years. Its time to start lowering the standards. I think it gives us an insight into how an Obama administration would run. Programs will have clearly defined goals and programs that dont meet these goals will be scrapped or scaled back. He wants measureable success and accountability.
Carol
Did you watch the hearings on CSPAN? It did give insight to how Obama thinks....
I happened to be watching with several other people, and the concensus of our group was that he asks questions the same way he answers them....va
Splurge on a newspaper now and then, Carol.
Then I suggest that you and your friends have your ears examine. BTW when someone pause a lot or saying uhs before they speak its NOT an indicator of intelligence although it might be lacking intelligence on the listeners part if he can't follow. BTW sometimes when you are an intellectual its difficlt to bring your words down so that the person you are speaking to understands what you are saying hence the ahs pauses. He is trying to find the words that would explain it better. So pauses and ahs is a sign of Intelligence.
in fact Obama lost an election in Illnois his first and the reason was get this because he was too intellectual. Empty HA the guy is brilliant.
BTW check the WSJ do you think thats a pretty good paper right? Cause they agreed with me that he was the toughest of the three demanding measureable results.
Carol
We don't care what the KKK thinks of Obama.
What a hoot!
Clinton complains that Obama is all style and no substance and now here you are complaining about his style so you can ignore the substance of what he said.
Here is the crucial question he asked:
~~~~~~~~~~
If we were able to have the status quo in Iraq right now without US troops, would that be a sufficient definition of success? It’s obviously not perfect. There’s still violence. There’s still some traces of al-Qaeda. Iran has influence more than we would like. But if we had the current status quo, and yet our troops had been drawn down to 30,000, would we consider that a success?
~~~~~~~~~~
It is most disingenuous of you to claim this question is empty and vague. You're letting Ambassador Crocker off the hook for ducking this crucial question. Can we use the current post-surge status quo as a yardstick to measure our success in Iraq? Crocker ducked the question because any answer would expose either his lies about the status quo or his wildly unrealistic measure of true success.
"Did you watch the hearings on CSPAN? It did give insight to how Obama thinks....
You're so unused to a politician actually thinking while they talk that you think it's a sign of stupidity.
All the politicians you're used to watching do no more thinking and speaking than it takes to figure out how to segue into the nearest talking point.
Carol sounds much more intelligent than you. I happen to like the pauses--it shows he actually thinks before he speaks and lends authenticity, which his many supporters admire, to his character.
I watched the hearing on CSPAN live. I can report that the bar was set very high for Obama (with both Clinton and McCain having been featured in the morning and all media was abuzz as to how Obama would do). But again, he leapt over it in flying colors. I was watching and listening carefully to every nuance of his questioning because I know that he will be setting foreign policy next year. Kelly Nuxoll reported accurately on what I also observed – except I did not pay any attention to his smile. He asked a direct question about hardening the definition of our end-goal so as to better be able to direct policy. His question remains unanswered: If current status quo is successful surge, suppose this can be attained without occupying the country, will that be in the national interest of the United States. Those are the words of a president.
The ambassador tried to paraphrase the question into an advocacy for immediate withdrawal, and Chairman Biden immediately chimed in “That was not his question. He asked about maintaining the status quo but without US troops.”
The current occupant of the oval office has never told us what is meant by success in Iraq.
Yes, much as I like and respect his intelligence, I was prepared to be disappointed.
The bar was set very high and as you say he leapt over it perfectly. His was unquestionably the clearest summary of the situation and the various problems faced as well as possible solutions.
Usually, it is annoying to watch Senators at work--too much grandstanding, even among some Democrats (cough*Bid
How refreshing that would be. (And how sad it will be if instead we have McCain or Clinton which, imo, will be "same old, same old", with a few minor variations between them.)
People in the U.S. want to feel love and patriotism again in this country. We're weary of a government that tries to scare us with the boogey-man. Joe Biden is a true leader of men. It's a proud and reassuring moment to hear he immediately came to Barack Obama's aid in deflecting the deflection. The smoke and mirrors are being driven away and broken and all credibility is being eroded. History will judge this as a bad time in America. Your voting for a president is important, but so is holding people in office accountable. All public office holders should be held to what they say, and no shoving their opinion into policy should be tolerated. The highly criminal and sweeping breadth of the expansion of the executive branch is unconstitutional and against the Rule of Law. No matter who the next president is, these powers that be now, need to be abolished. Power corrupts and to not indict those that abused this will set a bad precedent for future Commanders in Chief.
Men are idolaters, and want something to look at and kiss and hug, or throw
themselves down before; they always did, they always will; and if you don't
make it of wood, you must make it of words. -Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.,
poet, novelist, essayist, and physician (1809-1894)
"meh" -me, (1974-present) brewer, patriot
General Patton would never have said, "Nothing in Iraq is easy." George Bush's hands remain on the steering wheel and he's forced/turned General Petraeus into a politician.
Since Barack Obama is going to be the next president of the United States, I think we can understand why he got so much attention.
Here's an interesting quote from Kelly Nuxoll's piece: "Oh, and he also played the glamor girl." Handsome men can't smile without being called glamor girls?
On Senator Clinton's tough line of questioning: "Oh, and she also played the macho man."
What is showing up is that the "girls" have decided to try and "dismiss" Obama by talking about his looks. Even Cokie Roberts about a month and half ago called Obama "a cute man" What is so offensive about women like Kelly is that their "gender" run for president has them all behaving like they have severe menopausal sweats. I know they have all excused their surrogate furor 'by chanting the mantra "men have done it for years--why can't we?" For exactly that reason ladies, and I use the term advisedly. Hillary is the absolute worst female candidate for that job...Bill showed us that years ago, when he tried to tell her she was the absolutely worst woman to be his wife...she didn't listen then and she is not listening now.
Well, "if the truth hurts", that must KILL. The absolute best argument I've heard on the fervor of having any woman as long as IT IS a woman (no matter what). When you suggest that very pertinent fact, you get a glazed eyed, phlegm from every orifice, strange gurgling, shoulder twitching denial that borders on dark lunacy. (It's quite off putting!) Obama '08
As I watched Senator Obama I felt I had been accorded the rare opportunity to watch a President at work questioning his General and Ambassador -- the main problem however was the neither the General, nor the Ambassador was prepared to actually answer any question. Our current President should be asking these questions in the Oval Office and gettting real answers!
What is success in Iraq-- how do we define it and when do we give up on it?
What do we do if we cannot achieve it? What do we do if we do?
I used to believe these questions were being asked behind closed doors-- years and years ago, I used to believe. Now, I don't believe anybody is allowed to say anything that isn't welcome news and that very few questions are actually asked.
I believe the way the current administration behaves to negative news, is precisely why neither General Petraeus, nor Ambassador Crocker actually answered a single question put to them by Senator Obama (or Senators Boxer, Voinovich, Biden, et al.). January 9, 2009 seems so far away; how I wish it could arrive sooner (without my losing days from my life, of course).
A president at work??? Hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah...
When was Obama elected to that office??? Never that is when.
Your reading comprehension skills are lacking, it would seem. She said she -felt- she was looking at a President, not that -he- was a President. Do you realize the difference?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
