Fill out this form to email this article to a friend
Perspective
Clinton listens - to herself
By DAVID BRODER, Washington Post
Published January 28, 2007
WASHINGTON - When Lt. Gen. David Petraeus came before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week in open session, its members understandably had many questions for the new commander of American forces in Iraq. They knew of his reputation as a battlefield leader, a trainer of Iraqi troops and the author of the Army manual on counterinsurgency warfare. They also recognized the difficulty and importance of his new assignment. Many of the questions probed deeply into the rationale for the president's new strategy of injecting more U.S. troops into Baghdad neighborhoods wracked by killings by rival Sunni and Shiite gangs. Others challenged the readiness of Iraqi forces and the Baghdad government to do their part in reducing sectarian violence. A few of the questions were naive, self-serving or off on tangents. But virtually the entire membership of the committee was present and senators of both parties recognized the value of probing this experienced and candid witness. With one exception. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York used her time to make a speech about Iraq policy and did not ask a single question of the man who will be leading the military campaign. Her speech replayed some of the themes from her news conference the previous week, on her return from Iraq, when she made clear her disagreement with President Bush's decision to add 21,500 soldiers and Marines to Petraeus' force. She began by blaming the Iraq crisis on a "Congress that was supine under the Republican majority, failing to conduct oversight and demanding accountability, and because the president and his team, particularly the former secretary of defense (Don Rumsfeld), refused to adapt to the changing circumstances on the ground." From that partisan opening, Clinton went on to decry "the failures of the Iraqis to step up and take responsibility for their own future." She said the escalation Bush ordered was too little and too late, and instead called on Congress to "threaten to cut money for the Iraqi troops and for the security for the Iraqi leadership," as a way to break the political gridlock in Baghdad and force efforts at national reconciliation. She wound up the speech by saying that despite her disagreement with the policy, she wanted Petraeus' assurance that "we have every possible piece of equipment and resource necessary to protect these young men and women" going into battle. "I'll do that, senator," Petraeus said, and after that four-word response, Clinton was finished. She had no questions to ask. Clinton aides said the senator thought it was important to rebut the comments from several other committee members suggesting that congressional resolutions opposing the president's policy would "undercut the troops," so she used her time for that purpose. But I can think of three other possible explanations for her reluctance to probe the general's thinking. First, she has been treading a careful line from her early support of military action against Saddam Hussein to an increasingly sharp criticism of the war and calls for troop reductions. Perhaps she feared that dialogue with Petraeus would lead her into dangerous, uncharted waters. Caution is commendable, but she is sometimes faulted for being too calculating. Second, the hearing came only three days after she announced her presidential exploratory committee, and she may have decided it was a good opportunity to repeat her views on Iraq policy before TV cameras rather than share time with the general. The third, less benign possibility is that Clinton is reverting to the mode of her ill-fated 1993-94 health care initiative, when she gave members of Congress and other interested folks the impression that she thought she had all the answers - so please just do as I say. Last week, Clinton began her presidential campaign by saying she wanted to do a lot of listening. She sure wasn't listening to Petraeus. She wasn't even asking. David Broder's e-mail address is davidbroder@washpost.com. 2007, Washington Post Writers Group
[Last modified January 28, 2007, 06:10:08]
Share your thoughts on this story
Comments on this article
|
by David
|
01/31/07 04:48 AM
|
|
Politics is politics-does Bush listen? Even to his own people? To Congress? To Americians? No. He said-"I make the (wrong) decisions."
|
|
by Calaban
|
01/29/07 05:10 AM
|
|
Ms. Clinton says she will cap the number of troops in Iraq then tells the GIs that she supports them. Hmmm...
|
|
by Georgia
|
01/28/07 11:02 PM
|
|
Clinton is giving us more of the same rhetoric and now thinks we will swallow it because we need a woman for President. This may be, but it doesn't have to be this woman. She is too busy calculating her chances to worry about our national security.
|
|
by Virginia
|
01/28/07 01:45 PM
|
|
Hilliary may be fool some of the people
some of the time, but many of us can see through her evil mind, and what she is trying to make all of us believe.
Get back into the kitchen where you belong, Hillary. You do not impress us.
|
|
by Dave
|
01/28/07 11:54 AM
|
|
Let's just say that Clinton will say ANYTHING to get elected!
|
|
by paul
|
01/28/07 09:31 AM
|
|
as opposed to bush's vast wealth of military experience? she has seen just as much combat as he has peter
|
|
by Peter
|
01/28/07 06:16 AM
|
|
Clinton is an oportunist who will pontificate on any subject inorder to impress the weak minded that she is something special. Her lack of military experience and leadership will get even more Americans killed then either her husband or Bush
|
|