The Iraq Question

From the transcript of Thursday night's debate between Senators Clinton & Obama.

Analyze closely the difference between the two candidates' answers. I'll let you read first, then share my thoughts.

(APPLAUSE)

BROWN: All right. We're going to stay with this and stay on Iraq.

John King?

KING: I want to continue in this vein, and hone in on the very point you just made. Because one of you, unless this remarkable campaign here takes another wacky, unpredictable turn, is going to be running against a decorated war hero, who is going to say that you don't have the experience to be commander in chief.

And you have both said, it's not about that type of experience; it's about judgment.

You both had to make a judgment, a short time ago, in your job in the United States Senate, about whether to support the surge. And as that was going on, Senator Clinton, you had the commanding general in Iraq before you. And you said, "I think that the reports provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief" -- your words to General Petraeus.

KING: I want you to look at Iraq now and listen to those who say the security situation is better. Ideal, no, but better -- some say significantly, in recent days, even some steps toward a political reconciliation.

Is Iraq today better off than it was six months or a year ago because of the surge?

CLINTON: Well, John, I think you forget a very important premise of the surge. The rationale of the surge was to create the space and time for the Iraqi government to make the decisions that only it can make.

Now, there is no doubt, given the skill and the commitment of our young men and women in uniform that putting more of them in will give us a tactical advantage and will provide security in some places, and that has occurred.

CLINTON: But the fact is that the purpose of it has not been fulfilled. The Iraqi government has slowly inched toward making a few of the decisions in a less than complete way, but it hasn't taken advantage of the sacrifice and the losses of life and billions of dollars that have occurred since the surge began.

That is why I have said, upon taking office I would ask the secretary of defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and my security advisers to give me a plan so that I could begin withdrawing our troops within 60 days.

And I would begin that with...

(APPLAUSE)

... with a very clear message to the Iraqis that they no longer had a blank check, as they had been given by President Bush, that as we withdraw our troops, probably one to two brigades a month, they would have to step up and make these decisions.

CLINTON: I believe that is in the best interest of our military, which has been stretched thin.

Last night in Brownsville, you know, a woman grabbed my hand and said, "Please, my husband's there for the third time. Bring him home."

And I told her privately what I have said publicly many times -- I will bring him home because I do not think it is in the interest of America or of the Iraqis that we continue to be there. It is up to the Iraqis to decide the kind of future they will have.

(APPLAUSE)

BROWN: Senator Obama, in the same vein, you were also opposed to the surge from the beginning. Were you wrong?

OBAMA: Well, I think it is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. And that's a credit to our brave men and women in uniform.

In fact, you know, the 1st Cavalry, out of Fort Hood, played an enormous role in pushing back al Qaeda out of Baghdad.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: And, you know, we honor their service.

But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder.

(LAUGHTER)

And I think that, when we're having a debate with John McCain, it is going to be much easier for the candidate who was opposed to the concept of invading Iraq in the first place to have a debate about the wisdom of that decision...

(APPLAUSE)

... than having to argue about the tactics subsequent to the decision.

(LAUGHTER)

Because, ultimately, that's what's at stake. Understand, not only have we been diverted from Afghanistan. We've been diverted from focusing on Latin America.

We contribute -- our entire foreign aid to Latin America is $2.7 billion, approximately what we spend in Iraq in a week.

OBAMA: And it is any surprise, then, that you've seen people like Hugo Chavez and countries like China move into the void, because we've been neglectful of that.

Iran is the single biggest strategic beneficiary of us having invaded Iraq, and that is something that I think John McCain has to come to terms with.

So that is a debate that I'm happy to have.

One last point I want to make on this, and that is, the incredible burden that has been placed on the American people, starting with military families, and the fact that we still are not doing right by our veterans, that we still don't honor their service, that there are still homeless veterans, that we still don't screen properly for post-traumatic stress disorder and make sure that they're getting mental services that they need, that we are still...

(APPLAUSE)

... having veterans in south Texas have to drive 250 miles to access a veterans hospital.

OBAMA: That's unacceptable. But we talked about the economy earlier, the fact that we're spending $12 billion every month in Iraq means that we can't engage in the kind of infrastructure improvements that are going to make us more competitive. It means that we can't deliver on the kinds of health care reforms that both Senator Clinton and I are looking for.

And that is also an argument that we have to have with John McCain because he has said that he is willing to have these troops over there for 100 years. The notion that we would sustain that kind of effort and neglect not only making us more secure here at home, more competitive here at home, allow our economy to sink. As John McCain says, he doesn't really understand the economy that well. It is clear from his embrace of George Bush's policies that he doesn't, and that's what I intend to change when I am president of the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

BROWN: All right. We've got to take another quick break. We've got a lot more ahead. Stay with us. We'll be right back.

Jesus H. Christ, that's the sort of answer I woulda given ostie. Where were these types of strong, incredibly intelligent, thoughtful answers back in March 2003, or February 2006? When the United States and the world needed someone to speak truthfully and forcefully against this war and with the sort of knowledge and reason required on the matter, there was no one.

Lemme break the two candidates answers' down, and no, I'm not going to try and hide my leanings. Mrs. Clinton responded to the question and turned it around to say that yes, the surge may have worked, but the war must still end. Admirable, succinct, correct. I agree ma'am.

Mr. Obama on the other hand, waves the entire idea of the surge and the war away with a swipe of the hand, and the line "a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder." Amen, brother. To translate, he's saying "Fuck the surge, even if Iraq was miraculously fixed right here and now, look at what we lost. He mentions, importantly, that he's against the very concept of invading Iraq. There's no way on Earth this could ever be seen as a victory.

That is especially crucial, because, lemme assure you, rolling back W's preemptive strike doctrine has got to be the first step towards both curbing the now half-trillion dollar Pentagon war machine as well as ensuring a safer, less war-infected planet.

Obama goes on to strike important notes with Latinos about the pitiful aid budget to Latin America, to the distraction from other, much more strategically important conflicts like Afghanistan and the rise of China and of course, multilateralism as a whole.

And finally, yes, the burden on America itself. When you have a guy talking about post-traumatic stress disorder for troops returning home, homeless vets and military hospitals, you have before you someone who understands that war is fundamentally a human action. He shows his empathy and his understanding of the sort of costs and toll that war has on human beings, and if someone has that, he will consider military options much more carefully. This sort of empathy is a rare damned thing I tell you. Watch this movie called Thirteen Days if you want to see what I mean.

I don't see that kind of empathy from Clinton, who seems to still be in campaign-mode trying to get everyone to like her.

And finally, he brings it back home in a way that all Americans can understand. The war is another reason for this shitty economy. The more you spend on the war, the less on roads, hospitals, social programs, bread and butter. He understands the big picture of how a country is supposed to work, and how a massive blunder, to use his words, like Iraq can bring the United States consequences it never even imagined.

He's got my endorsement.

Let's see what the voters will say, come November 4th.

=//Turnquest