Giuliani, McCain slam Hillary's 'venom' in Iraq hearings

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's the video of Sen. Hillary Clinton questioning Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker.

This sure sounds like she is calling him a lier.

"Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief."

"With respect to violence within Iraq, although the charts tell part of the story, I don't think they tell the whole story." ~ Sen. Clinton goes on to say

...

From what I've drawn from hearing the various answers the General has given throughout the hearings, he was set out to do a specific task - to weaken the insurgency militarily. His report focuses on just that, although Amb. Crocker was able to give more input on the political aspects of the situation, the reality is that the report focuses on the military task while unable to answer the larger questions.

Gary, as many have said (including well respected military leaders), this is a conflict that cannot be solely solved militarily and that is what the Senator is expressing. She and others are trying to get the General to acknowledge that in the bigger scope of things, he is really out of his element.

That doesn't make him a liar - it clarifies that a solution to the conflict goes beyond any military strategy and beyond anything he as a military leader is capable of.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[no name 1]

Here's the video of Sen. Hillary Clinton questioning Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker.

This sure sounds like she is calling him a lier.

"Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief."

"With respect to violence within Iraq, although the charts tell part of the story, I don't think they tell the whole story." ~ Sen. Clinton goes on to say

...

From what I've drawn from hearing the various answers the General has given throughout the hearings, he was set out to do a specific task - to weaken the insurgency militarily. His report focuses on just that, although Amb. Crocker was able to give more input on the political aspects of the situation, the reality is that the report focuses on the military task while unable to answer the larger questions.

Gary, as many have said (including well respected military leaders), this is a conflict that cannot be solely solved militarily and that is what the Senator is expressing. She and others are trying to get the General to acknowledge that in the bigger scope of things, he is really out of his element.

That doesn't make him a liar - it clarifies that a solution to the conflict goes beyond any military strategy and beyond anything he as a military leader is capable of.

[GaryC 7]

Here's the video of Sen. Hillary Clinton questioning Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker.

This sure sounds like she is calling him a lier.

"Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief."

"With respect to violence within Iraq, although the charts tell part of the story, I don't think they tell the whole story." ~ Sen. Clinton goes on to say

...

From what I've drawn from hearing the various answers the General has given throughout the hearings, he was set out to do a specific task - to weaken the insurgency militarily. His report focuses on just that, although Amb. Crocker was able to give more input on the political aspects of the situation, the reality is that the report focuses on the military task while unable to answer the larger questions.

Gary, as many have said (including well respected military leaders), this is a conflict that cannot be solely solved militarily and that is what the Senator is expressing. She and others are trying to get the General to acknowledge that in the bigger scope of things, he is really out of his element.

That doesn't make him a liar - it clarifies that a solution to the conflict goes beyond any military strategy and beyond anything he as a military leader is capable of.

If you were to tell me something and I replied that it requires a suspention of disbelief to accept it then how else can you spin it? She may have said it in a nice way but the end results are the same. She called him a liar.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

Here's the video of Sen. Hillary Clinton questioning Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker.

This sure sounds like she is calling him a lier.

"Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief."

"With respect to violence within Iraq, although the charts tell part of the story, I don't think they tell the whole story." ~ Sen. Clinton goes on to say

...

From what I've drawn from hearing the various answers the General has given throughout the hearings, he was set out to do a specific task - to weaken the insurgency militarily. His report focuses on just that, although Amb. Crocker was able to give more input on the political aspects of the situation, the reality is that the report focuses on the military task while unable to answer the larger questions.

Gary, as many have said (including well respected military leaders), this is a conflict that cannot be solely solved militarily and that is what the Senator is expressing. She and others are trying to get the General to acknowledge that in the bigger scope of things, he is really out of his element.

That doesn't make him a liar - it clarifies that a solution to the conflict goes beyond any military strategy and beyond anything he as a military leader is capable of.

If you were to tell me something and I replied that it requires a suspention of disbelief to accept it then how else can you spin it? She may have said it in a nice way but the end results are the same. She called him a liar.

a prime example of "you find what you look for".

Daniel

:energetic:

[GaryC 7]

Craig Crawford’s Trail Mix: How to Say 'Liar' without Saying So By Craig Crawford

Thu Sep 13, 11:20 AM ET

There is so much risk in calling someone a liar that politicians are always coming up with genteel sounding alternatives. Hillary Rodham Clinton offered two crafty examples this week.

Today in an online forum on The Huffington Post the New York senator called her Democratic presidential rivals "a little inauthentic" for criticizing her campaign contributions from lobbyists since they accept money from lobbyists' employers and relatives. Clinton moved a bit closer to the L-word when questioning Iraq commander David H. Petraeus this week. She said the general’s rosy report on the troop surge required a “willing suspension of disbelief.”

That sounds mild, but it is quite damning when you think about it — and it prompted Republican White House hopeful Rudy Giuliani to accuse Clinton of spewing “political venom.” Had Clinton outright called Petraeus a liar Giuliani’s attack would not seem so ridiculously over the top, which is why she was smart to carefully choose her words.

Contributing Editor Craig Crawford is a news analyst for NBC, MSNBC and CNBC. He can be reached at ccrawford@cq.com.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20070913/pl_cq_...thoutsayingso_1

[Caladan 19]

They don't count someone as dying in the violence in Iraq since the escalation if they die from a car bomb rather than a gun. You're not a victim of an insurgent death squad unless you were shot in the back of the head not the front. They have never counted deaths unless there are formal morgue certificates, so if more people bury their sons at home to avoid being targeted at funerals, you can have a declining death count even with more deaths.

It's redefining the terms to make the surge look like it's working by just refusing to count some of the deaths. It's like redefining unemployment to make the economy look good by ignoring people that haven't been employed for more than a year. We normally call that lying. Clinton's right to call him out on it. He may wear a uniform but that doesn't make him immune from criticism from the people, who, last I checked, were still the boss of the military.

General Petraeus is reported to be an honorable man, which is why it boggles the mind that he's carrying water for this administration.

[no name 1]

Craig Crawford's Trail Mix: How to Say 'Liar' without Saying So By Craig Crawford

Thu Sep 13, 11:20 AM ET

There is so much risk in calling someone a liar that politicians are always coming up with genteel sounding alternatives. Hillary Rodham Clinton offered two crafty examples this week.

Today in an online forum on The Huffington Post the New York senator called her Democratic presidential rivals "a little inauthentic" for criticizing her campaign contributions from lobbyists since they accept money from lobbyists' employers and relatives. Clinton moved a bit closer to the L-word when questioning Iraq commander David H. Petraeus this week. She said the general's rosy report on the troop surge required a "willing suspension of disbelief."

That sounds mild, but it is quite damning when you think about it — and it prompted Republican White House hopeful Rudy Giuliani to accuse Clinton of spewing "political venom." Had Clinton outright called Petraeus a liar Giuliani's attack would not seem so ridiculously over the top, which is why she was smart to carefully choose her words.

Contributing Editor Craig Crawford is a news analyst for NBC, MSNBC and CNBC. He can be reached at ccrawford@cq.com.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20070913/pl_cq_...thoutsayingso_1

Welcome to politics.

[GaryC 7]

They don't count someone as dying in the violence in Iraq since the escalation if they die from a car bomb rather than a gun. You're not a victim of an insurgent death squad unless you were shot in the back of the head not the front. They have never counted deaths unless there are formal morgue certificates, so if more people bury their sons at home to avoid being targeted at funerals, you can have a declining death count even with more deaths.

It's redefining the terms to make the surge look like it's working by just refusing to count some of the deaths. It's like redefining unemployment to make the economy look good by ignoring people that haven't been employed for more than a year. We normally call that lying. Clinton's right to call him out on it. He may wear a uniform but that doesn't make him immune from criticism from the people, who, last I checked, were still the boss of the military.

General Petraeus is reported to be an honorable man, which is why it boggles the mind that he's carrying water for this administration.

Is this your opinion or do you have something to back it up?

Oh, and BTW, congress isn't the "boss" of the military as much as they would like to be. The executive branch is.

[Donna A 4]

oh yeah like isnt giuliani the one who spent more time at ground zero helping then anyone else....sure.

mrs clinton is getting my vote.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Donna A

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's the video of Sen. Hillary Clinton questioning Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker.

This sure sounds like she is calling him a lier.

"Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief."

"With respect to violence within Iraq, although the charts tell part of the story, I don't think they tell the whole story." ~ Sen. Clinton goes on to say

...

From what I've drawn from hearing the various answers the General has given throughout the hearings, he was set out to do a specific task - to weaken the insurgency militarily. His report focuses on just that, although Amb. Crocker was able to give more input on the political aspects of the situation, the reality is that the report focuses on the military task while unable to answer the larger questions.

Gary, as many have said (including well respected military leaders), this is a conflict that cannot be solely solved militarily and that is what the Senator is expressing. She and others are trying to get the General to acknowledge that in the bigger scope of things, he is really out of his element.

That doesn't make him a liar - it clarifies that a solution to the conflict goes beyond any military strategy and beyond anything he as a military leader is capable of.

If you were to tell me something and I replied that it requires a suspention of disbelief to accept it then how else can you spin it? She may have said it in a nice way but the end results are the same. She called him a liar.

Holy mackerel, Gary...this is a critical situation with no easy answers and you want to put one Senator's comment under the microscope? Take it for what you will, I think many Americans, including myself find it difficult to believe that whatever progress the good General has made (and I'm sure he has) are short term and temporary gains, this quagmire that we're in with Iraq is well beyond any military solution. Without the political will of the Iraqi gov't - which has shown to be lacking, we will not succeed.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[GaryC 7]

Here's the video of Sen. Hillary Clinton questioning Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker.

This sure sounds like she is calling him a lier.

"Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief."

"With respect to violence within Iraq, although the charts tell part of the story, I don't think they tell the whole story." ~ Sen. Clinton goes on to say

...

From what I've drawn from hearing the various answers the General has given throughout the hearings, he was set out to do a specific task - to weaken the insurgency militarily. His report focuses on just that, although Amb. Crocker was able to give more input on the political aspects of the situation, the reality is that the report focuses on the military task while unable to answer the larger questions.

Gary, as many have said (including well respected military leaders), this is a conflict that cannot be solely solved militarily and that is what the Senator is expressing. She and others are trying to get the General to acknowledge that in the bigger scope of things, he is really out of his element.

That doesn't make him a liar - it clarifies that a solution to the conflict goes beyond any military strategy and beyond anything he as a military leader is capable of.

If you were to tell me something and I replied that it requires a suspension of disbelief to accept it then how else can you spin it? She may have said it in a nice way but the end results are the same. She called him a liar.

Holy mackerel, Gary...this is a critical situation with no easy answers and you want to put one Senator's comment under the microscope? Take it for what you will, I think many Americans, including myself find it difficult to believe that whatever progress the good General has made (and I'm sure he has) are short term and temporary gains, this quagmire that we're in with Iraq is well beyond any military solution. Without the political will of the Iraqi govt - which has shown to be lacking, we will not succeed.

This wasn't just Hillary, it was a gang war by the dems. The general gave his assessment of how things are going. But before he even opened his mouth he was accused of "carrying the water" for Bush. It was a preconceived idea that they were not going to accept what he said.

[Caladan 19]

They don't count someone as dying in the violence in Iraq since the escalation if they die from a car bomb rather than a gun. You're not a victim of an insurgent death squad unless you were shot in the back of the head not the front. They have never counted deaths unless there are formal morgue certificates, so if more people bury their sons at home to avoid being targeted at funerals, you can have a declining death count even with more deaths.

It's redefining the terms to make the surge look like it's working by just refusing to count some of the deaths. It's like redefining unemployment to make the economy look good by ignoring people that haven't been employed for more than a year. We normally call that lying. Clinton's right to call him out on it. He may wear a uniform but that doesn't make him immune from criticism from the people, who, last I checked, were still the boss of the military.

General Petraeus is reported to be an honorable man, which is why it boggles the mind that he's carrying water for this administration.

Is this your opinion or do you have something to back it up?

Oh, and BTW, congress isn't the "boss" of the military as much as they would like to be. The executive branch is.

I don't have time to Google it for you now, but no, it's not an opinion. They changed the methodology of counting dead civilians to make it look like we were quelling the violence. Basic political spin. You should be able to find the study pretty easily.

Both the executive branch and the legislative branch still work for the people, Gary. Either way, Petraeus' job should not be to spin the administration's story for them. He doesn't do the soldiers in Iraq any service by pretending the surge is working if it's not. And I don't know conclusively if it's not, but I do know that when someone decides not to count violent deaths that just conveniently make them look bad, I get skeptical.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

cha-ching... I hear more money for Cassie's piggy bank...

Here, paying in advance.

hmmm, Cassie's not around....so she'll never know

Thanks mate! *grabs cash and runs......... *

Ahem, we'll have none of that one here thanks.

*knocks Frances on her butt and runs away with the dosh herself*

Thank you for understanding.

pffft

so that's how mods get paid for modding

[one...two...tree 2,762]

from the transcripts... (the most relevant part of the dialogue)

Sen. Clinton: General, I want to ask you what -- about what appeared to be a contradiction in your testimony. Earlier today, you were asked by Senator Biden if, in fact, the circumstances on the ground are exactly what they are today in March of next year, will you recommend the continuation of somewhere between 130,000 and 160,000 American troops being shot at, killed, and maimed every day.

Your answer, "I would be very hard-pressed to recommend that at that point in time."

In response to Senator Collins, who asked, I thought, a very important question about what if in a year from now, there has been very little progress, your answer was, "Well, we would have to consider what to do at that time."

General, don't you think the American people deserve a very specific answer about what is expected from our country in the face of the failure of the Iraqi government to pursue its own required political agenda that they have essentially been unwilling or incapable of doing so?

General Petraeus: Senator, I don't see quite as big a difference in the answer.

But, I mean, I will stand by the answer that I gave earlier, which is that I would be very hard-pressed, at that time, to recommend a continuation.

As you know, this policy is a national policy that results from policies put forward at one end of Pennsylvania Avenue, with the advice and consent and resources provided at the other. And I would, obviously, provide recommendations to that.

And again, I would just say, I would be very hard-pressed at that time. It's an awfully big hypothetical. And it is not something that I would want to try to determine right here, right now, about a point a year from now, without some sense of all the other variables that, I think, understandably, would go into a huge recommendation like that.

[GaryC 7]

So all of you and the Senators know more about what is going on in Iraq than the General in charge? Hardly. Face it, the real reason for the attacks by the dems is because they have been shouting out about how we can't win or how we already have lost. Any good news must be put down out of their own political survival. Things may not be rosey in Iraq but it is improving. But in order to cover their own butts the dems must make it look as bad as they can. That is the real bottom line here.