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
Hi thanks for all the comments. To clarify a couple points:
Clinton and McCain spoke at the morning hearings, which I didn't attend, so I can't report on what that scene was like or exactly what their comments were.
I don't know that it was Obama's intention to outshine Petraeus -- all I can tell you is that there was a lot of attention on Obama in that room. Whether it was deserved is a whole other topic. There's the celebrity factor, which I agree is a little creepy, but beyond that, I think any insight as to what the candidates think about the war and how we should proceed is worth paying attention to, as likely one of them will be in a position to influence policy come next spring.
Obama's tack seems to be to redraw what the line for "success" is. I'd be curious to know what others think about that as a strategy.
St. Lawrence was grilled on a griddle?!
A LITTLE creepy? Barbara Walters calls obama SEXY? Also creepy!
I thought that given the limitations of time and the fact that you know the witnesses aren't going to answer any remotely difficult questions, Obama did a masterful job. The Bush administration and, more importantly, McCain, have been saying that we have to stay in Iraq until "victory," or "success" or "the job is done." They define that as there being a democratic, pluralistic Iraq that is our ally in the so-called war on terror and that can defend itself against internal and external threats. As Obama pointed out, any objective, clear-headed person knows that this objective is not achievable during a time period that is acceptable to the American people. (A number of Senators got at this point in different ways, including Biden in his closing remarks--but that's ok, it's a point that deserves repeating).
Obama then went on to ask a specific question about whether a particular set of circumstances that might be acheivable in the near term would be "good enough," given that it may be all that we can realistically hope to accomplish. He didn't expect to get an answer, but he made sure that it would be obvious that the question both deserved an answer and wasn't getting one, and thereby demonstrated the bankruptcy of the administration's policy. At the same time, he framed his debate with McCain nicely, particularly in light of McCain's inability even to keep the players straight without a scorecard.
As a worker in the business world, I can say that there's nothing that focuses the attention like a deadline. The notion of an open-ended US commitment will just lead to ineffective local government, as it did in Vietnam. The South Vietnamese were so use to living off the American teat that when the time came to stand on their own, they folded like a lawn chair--to coin a phrase. This misadventure has cost America enough already in life, fortune and opportunity costs and I fail to see the upside--unless you work for Haliburton. If the idea was to create a new, stable US client state in the region to replace the Shah of Iran (which I've always thought was the real long term objective), I can't see that in the situation that will continue to exist on the ground there. Maybe I'm selfish, but when it comes to this continued occupation, I want to know what's in it for America. I think we should just declare victory, leave and let the Iraqis have their country back and do their own nation building. We'll deal with whoever is left standing in the end. That's a hard thing to say, and it sounds like I lack compassion for the Iraqi people, but in the long run I think the Iraqis will be able to govern themselves and any puppet government we install will only cause us grief down the road.
Obama's tack seems to be to redraw what the line for "success" is. I'd be curious to know what others think about that as a strategy.
I think he would like to leave Iraq, but I also think he would like for it to be considered a success. We can only do that if we redraw that line and to have it be considered a success (real or not) is in our best interests as a country. IMHO
As Lt. General William Odom testified in Congress last week says it all in a nutshell. There is no victory possible in Iraq. There are many men/women of high rank in the military that agree. Petraeus is mouth piece and speaks out of turn, as there are layers of rank higher than his. He has authority given to him out of turn and protocol. The ONLY reason he enjoys such stature is his total whoring to the personal policies of a Dick Cheney and George Bush (with all the usual suspects involved). This war was an attack on a sovereign country with extreme aggression. Nazi Germany performed an identical act and paid dearly for the offense. Why is this any different?
Obama used the occasion to state his political talking point, that he has been against the invasion of Iraq. Who was he trying to convince? Unfortunately, we have no record of his voting against it, I believe. Was he not elsewhere employed? The session was intended as an opportunity to ask incisive questions, to get further insight. Obama did not ask any questions, other than would it be o.k. to do the job sort of halfway, kind of? Just as good. Right? Well, we went further than that in Afghanistan and lookie, lookie what happened. Al Qaeda is in Iraq, in Afghanistan, probably also in Pakistan, and certainly active in Gaza and around the world. Talking to Iran is an idea. Who would Obama talk to? Ahmadinejad? And who controls Ahmadinejad? Does Obama know that the Messiah is hiding in a cave in Iran and that Ahmadinejad has spoken to him? Maybe Obama wants to discuss his conversion with Ahmadinejad and advise Ahmadinejad to do the same thing. Would it not be nice if Ahmadinejad, too, would go to Heaven. I read today by the way that Condi Rice's insistence that Israel give up control points has lead to a possible invasion of terrorists in Jerusalem. Who is Obama going to pick for his running mate? Condi would be an idea. Yes, I know, she is a Republican, but she can always convert. Let us all get together and be one happy family.
"Obama did not ask any questions, other than would it be o.k. to do the job sort of halfway, kind of?"
You really should try either watching the event or reading the transcript before you start trying to describe it. Simply making stuff up isn't going to get you very far.
"Maybe Obama wants to discuss his conversion"
Troll. Obama was never a Muslim.
Jeez! Can't you give the guy credit for anything?
...the political analytic version of 52 card pickup in this comment... condi for obama's vp? how about geraldine ferraro as mccain's vp? after all, they're both old and screw up alot...yeah, that's the ticket...
Perhaps you miss the point. Obama is trying to get a reluctance Bush administration and perhaps the general American public to accept that we may not achieve what we said we would achieve in Iraq, that the Bush version of post-war Iraq never meshed with reality. Now we as a nation (and our military) have to define what are acceptable criteria to say "Yes, we have done our jobs." This was NEVER DONE in the beginning and the Bush administration only gave vague platitudes about "establishing democracy", etc. In other words, it's asking the military to help prod the Bush Administration to define _clear objectives_ tied to facts on the ground with realistic benchmarks which the military and others can work to to define when they are "done". For example if NASA said it was going to build a rocket to "explore space" and we poured billions while NASA built & launched rockets and we got absolutely NOTHING back, no pretty pictures, nothing. You'd ask at some point "what was it we were planning to accomplish in "exploring space"? And then you'd ask for benchmarks to say, after spending xxx dollars I want to see yyy results. You know that you'll never complete "exploring space" but you also want to be assured you're not pouring money into a black hole (pun intended). And that's basically what Obama is getting at for Iraq, where it's not just money, but lives as well.
What revisionist history - pure idolization, blather. Clean up hitter indeed. Mr. Obama demonstrated his lack of grasp on the issues. He seemed to be reading from notes that were written by someone else but he seemed completely uncertain of the meaning and frightened that someone might ask a question that would expose his shallow knowledge.
When he asked his final “clean-up” question, he stumbled around incoherently and even an idolizing Chris Matthews in his summary of what he thought Mr. Obama said had to add, “I think that was what he was saying.” As for outshining, if that was his goal, it certainly would be consistent with the divisiveness we’ve seen from the Obama campaign. However, I think you are misreading the general’s reaction; he wasn’t outshined but stupefied at the incoherence of the question and the inexperience of the questioner.
"Mr. Obama demonstrated his lack of grasp on the issues."
How so? By posing the reasonable question of what is hoped to be achieved in Iraq?
I have noticed that a lot of the Clinton supporters do seem to take the tack where they kind of project. I could swear I read that -she- was the one reading from cards.
Now, now, . . . don't hate. He demonstrated an understanding of the situation we face, and offered the only possibility of sensible options for us to get out of that quagmire, which includes involving Iran. Perhaps you fell asleep on that part.
You are absolutely right. I listened very carefully and the author's assessment was mine too. He seemed very "green" to me, like he wasn't sure how to express in words what he had in his head to say. I was surprised to see him so uncomfortable. And I found it odd that he was only interested in what HE had to say, but didn't stay for anyone else's comments. That's not how the presidency works. Maybe he finds this stuff tedious and boring. Just wait til he finds out how tedious and boring many of the days are as president (shudder). Sorry, but he needs a few years in Congress doing his "due diligence" before he'll be ready, if ever, to be president. Oh yeah, right - Michelle said this is the one and only run for Pres. Really? Just like Obama said a couple of years ago that he would not run in '08 because he didn't feel he was experienced enough yet. Sigh. Well, if he wins we can only hope he can sit still long enough to attend all the small audience meetings (sorry, no podium) boring and tedious as hell. Presidents have been known to nod off during these endless meetings --- like Bush, Bush, Reagan ... and even the evil Cheney.
St. Lawrence of Rome was not grilled at a stake, he was grilled on a griddle. The griddle (a kind of metal fretwork structure with legs) is his attribute in the iconography of Christian art.
At this point, not a bad idea for this administration (figuratively speaking).
What a nonsensical headline you have "Obama outshines Petraeus"? When was it Obama's intent to outshine a general when they are not in a competition.
Obama did well and so did the General. On a side note, I like that picture of Obama looking like a deer caught in a headlight.
Picture of Obama whoffing down a ham sandwich? Unremarkable!
Picture of Obama leaning downwards towards the camera? Ok.
Picture of Obama looking like a deer caught in the headlights? Priceless! You didn't know where i was going did you?
There was ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, NOTHING - new or insightful or visionary AT ALL about the questions that Obama asked! In fact, now that he has accumulated so many votes - he is now back peddling on his initial promises about immediately ending the war! Right or wrong his "rock and roll" fans don't seem to care one bit! Why? It's not about the issues with his fans! It's about him being some kind of "dreamy celebrity!!!"
ON COPYING AND RIDING ON OTHERS IDEAS: In fact, as usual he was riding on the coattails of the exact line of questioning that Barbara Boxer had just addressed AND later after the hearing - MANY other military leaders said THAT THEY HAD IN FACT BEEN THE ONES pressing for answers that Obama was asking! Just like he uses everyone's words in his speeches - he can't come up with an original vision for this country either! And the sad part is - WE DO NEED CHANGE! He's not providing it!!
No, instead - this GROSSLY BIASED and SHALLOW PRESS took so many "celebrity" photographs of him, after he asked nothing new or substantial on his own merit, that even this writer speaks of the sound of the cameras liked to the "shuffling of cards!"
"MANY other military leaders said THAT THEY HAD IN FACT BEEN THE ONES pressing for answers that Obama was asking!"
Oh my! You mean he is willing to listen to the military leaders of this country and ask the questions that they feel need to be answered? You mean he's actually concerned about what the military professionals want to know? Shame on you Barack! Don't you know that presidents are supposed to already have a plan in action before asking any questions? Hasn't Dubya shown us how well that works?
It is about the issues with his supporters. That's one reason I don't support Hillary, who's chief campaign strategist and husband took money for working with Colombia on an FTA. That's why I am very concerned with the fact Senator Clinton sat on the congressional committee that provided oversight on Blackwater, and she has done nothing to further regulation of war contractors like them while Barack has tried to pass legislation holding them accountable for their crimes. Oddly enough, her chief campaign strategist's company worked for Blackwater. THESE are issues.
Someone not having NEW questions just means that others probably already asked the important questions. Should Barack have asked Petraeus what his favorite color was just to have a new question? Please, get real. At least, if you think you're so brilliant, tell us what questions Obama should have asked that weren't already asked?
Face it, he nailed it--he outlined the situation clearly and talked about standards of getting out.
"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."
The key is to push the administration on the END GAME--because that forces their hand; they have no intention of leaving (nor do I trust Hillary to do so.)
The unanswered question of the day was his:
"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. "
Help us, Obama Wan Kenobi. You're our only hope.
None so blind as those will not see. My chest was about to burst with pride as I watched the Commander-In-Chief (to be) question the General and the Ambassador. He was brilliant!
MariaHopeful, you're in love!!! He made absolutely no sense and sounded very inept, uhm, uhm. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
You're right of course but have you ever seen one of those movies where some teenager had joined a cult and the poor parents hire someone to try and deprogram them but most of the time it doesn't work ? Well, give up because the press that is taking all of the pcitures and worshipping at the altar are all paid by big, rich corporations.
Then why in the world did YOUR HILLARY the very next morning use OBAMA'S very words.
what is THE END GAME in her speech. She did not ask that question, Obama did, but yet Hillary stole his question and used it in her speech.
Although I support Barack Obama, I felt his performance yesterday was mediocre.
There was no "brilliant" strategy in which he articulated, he just repeated his basic premise that he was against the war from the start. He also made no truly strident comments against the surge and its results. Rather disappointing. I felt Hillary did no better. Frankly, all the Democrats are not very convincing in their opposition. Could this be the reason why Bush and his team will have a cake walk to the end of his term, and then go and claim the billions they have amassed through no bid contracts given to well connected corporations, throughout the war's duration? What a party that is going to be. Good job Dems!
He was there to ask questions and had 7 minutes. Are you clueless?
Hey, that's my President!
Dear Kelly Nuxoll,
Your bias is showing. BTW he had speaking ingagements in PA last night.
Bet your a Hillary supporter right?
So what is the point? He is going to be the Democratic nominee and he should get a lot of attention because of that? Your article was alame waste of time.
I partially agree. The first part was unneccessarily snarky, making him look silly. "Glamor girl" was a particularly low blow.
BUT you pulled it out on the summary; there it was, clear as day--the situation as it is and what we need to do.
50/50 but you nailed the important part to score in your favor.
But please I beg you cut down on the snark; some of us are getting ill with it during this Bataan Death March of a Democratic campaign.
Jeremiah Wright is now an enemy of the state??
Jeremiah Wright is now an enemy of the state?
R U STILL TALKING ABOUT WRIGHT. W. T.F. HE'S OLD NEWS AND SO ARE YOU. PLEASE CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
HRC did a pretty good job as well
I thought Barack Obama did the best job out of all three candidates. Obama was more presidential and had the right question that Americans wants to know with his phrase of 'parading horribles' with no end in sight with this war.
Gee...I wonder why? From your profile:
---
Morning Shows Snipe At Clinton Over Bosnia Remarks
Hilary Rodham RAMBO Clinton OR
Hilary Rodham LIAR Clinton!!!!
LIAR! LIAR!! LIAR!!! posted 03/25/2008 at 12:43:35
SOMEONE DEFINE WHAT MAKES A CANDIDATE MORE 'PRESIDENTIAL." I'VE NEVER UNDERSTOOD THAT...IT SOUNDS LIKE A PHONY, SUPERFICIAL ARGUMENT TO BEGIN WITH.
Hillary Rodham or John McCain didn't get anywhere near the time that Obama did because there are MANY more people on that committee and it was tightly ruled. Instead Obama got to pull his usual celebrity grandstanding - and plagurizing other peoples words and ideas while this grossly biased and SHALLOW press took so many photographs of him - that the writer says it sounded like the "shuffling of cards!" GREAT. Just what we need in this country.
So where is he going to get all these ideas of CHANGE then? From all the people on the "inside" that he now speaks so harshly of in Washington D.C.? YES! He's a hypocrite!
You're pretty ignorant, aren't you? First of all, re-asking someone's questions from minutes before is not plagiarizing (the word is plagiarizing, not plagurizing). What does the press' adoration of Obama have to do with Obama himself, other than that it makes you fume with irrational, jealousy and hatred towards him? It is not up to Obama whether the press takes pictures or not, and just because the press loves Obama does not mean that his supporters only like him because he is a "celebrity". I've supported Obama longer than the press has, and I remember a time a few months ago when Hillary Clinton was the press' darling, but she screwed that up, not only by showing her true colors through myriad lies and now through her husband and Mark Penn's FTA dealings with Colombia, but also by having her surrogates cry about her treatment in the press.
Who does Obama speak so harshly of in Washington D.C.? Does he speak harshly of every single person there? Are there not people outside of D.C. that he could bring into his administration?
I agree, Hillary Clinton did well during the questions. Actually, I was finally happy to hear her in the non-candidate moment. It was refreshing.
As more and more information comes out about Senator Obama's links to various people and organizations that are arguably a danger to American security, I think it's time to ask some questions – and it's time the Senator provide some answers. Why does Senator Obama surround himself with sworn enemies of the state, from William Ayers, the former Weather Underground member, to Jeremiah Wright, to others who have collaborated with Saddam Hussein? Why does he choose such people? And how does that jibe with his wife's lack of pride in the USA? More important – what does it tell us about his judgment – that "judgment" he touts as his greatest quality, the reason he should be given the office of the presidency – and entrusted not just with America's safety and security, but with its integrity and standing in the world?
By Abigail R. Esman
World Defense Review columnist
Good lord, you're reaching.
Look Abby, it is time to recognize that neocons do not create reality but can really mess it up. Think about it.
I too have had a lack of pride in the USA from time to time.
Most recently when my government has taken away constitutional rights, when my government has broken the law without a word spoken, started a war under the pretense of fear, and government officials making money hand over fist.
I had lack of pride in days gone by, a president having sex in the WH, a president spying on opponents, a president putting his tail between his legs and running when our troops were attacked (2 presidents on this one) a president running a very dirty campaigne smearing veterans while hiding his own butt during the war......
Am I too unpatriotic??
Look @ the people Mc Cain surrounds himself with, from pastors /preachers who have said very very hateful things that effect many Americans. Where is your outrage??
Where is your outrage at over 4,020 dead for what??
Al Qaeda who was not there before the invasion? Or the Al Qaeda who's head quarters are in another country??
olandug, apparently Ms. Esman has not done her research, which is sadly disappointing since she touts herself as a professional journalist. And you only make yourself look more ignorant by circulating this ridiculous statement.
"to others who have collaborated with Saddam Hussein?"
Like Rumsfeld, Reagan, Cheney et al in the 80's?
lolz. Every enemy we've faced in the late 20th century and early 21st has been of our own creation.
olan, you are a dittohead.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
