Hillary To Speak On Iraq Policy, As Campaign Attacks Obama
Hillary Clinton is set to deliver a major speech this morning outlining her policies for Iraq, part of a planned week-long offensive on the issue coinciding with the five-year anniversary of the invasion.
Meanwhile, the campaign has put out a memo challenging Barack Obama's ability deliver on his anti-war rhetoric. "This week, the Clinton Campaign will continue to discuss which candidate is ready to be Commander-in-Chief on day one," the memo says. "We will urge Senator Obama to show that he hasn't simply amassed five years of words, that his record on ending the war is one of action."
The full memo is available after the jump.
To: Interested Parties
From: The Clinton Campaign Date: March 17, 2008
RE: Just Words for Five YearsOver the last few weeks, the question of who is most ready to be Commander-in-Chief has rightfully dominated the presidential campaign. Who is ready to take the 3am call? Who has a record of action on national security issues? Who is ready to be president on day one?
Senator Clinton has worked to answer these questions by presenting her record to voters and enabling them to judge her based on the record she has amassed during her 35 years of public service - as a first lady who traveled to 82 countries and as a U.S. Senator who sits on the Armed Services Committee.
Lacking a comparable record, Senator Obama has premised his campaign on just words, most notably the resounding speech he delivered in October 2002 against the Iraq war.
But with the fifth anniversary of the invasion upon us, the onus is now on Senator Obama to demonstrate what he did to act on that 2002 speech when he got to the U.S. Senate.
Hillary has long argued that what matters in this campaign isn't what we've said but what we've done. Are words backed with action?
This week, the Clinton Campaign will continue to discuss which candidate is ready to be Commander-in-Chief on day one. We will urge Senator Obama to show that he hasn't simply amassed five years of words, that his record on ending the war is one of action.
Senator Obama gave an anti-Iraq speech in 2002 that he removed from his website in 2003, calling it "dated." When he got to the Senate, Senator Obama failed to take advantage of the opportunity provided by his new position and did little to turn his words into action until he became a White House candidate. In fact, he voted for over $300 billion in funds for the war and waited 18 months to speak on the Senate floor about Iraq, delivering a speech AGAINST the Kerry amendment that set a hard deadline for withdrawal.
When he took over the subcommittee that oversees NATO and Afghanistan and had a chance to follow up on the part of his 2002 speech that argued that Iraq diverted attention from Afghanistan, he failed to hold a single hearing. And as a candidate, he regularly touts a plan to set a hard end date for Iraq that has now been dismissed by one of his foreign policy advisers as just words.
Voters need to know whether they can count on their candidates to act on the ideas they tout on the stump. While Senator Clinton has acted on the words she uses on the campaign trail, Senator Obama's words aren't backed by action.
At the end of the day, the true test for a president is not the speeches he or she delivers - it's whether he or she delivers on the speeches.
They still think this is going to erase her vote for the war? Jesus, they really are stupid.
Hey Clinton campaign. You want my support? Tell me, in credible detail, what your candidate is going to do about the economic disaster the next president is going to inherit. Obama has done a lousy job with that, or more like no job at all. Here's your chance to show you really are ready to lead from day 1, because on day 1 there's going to be a deep economic crisis going on.
March 17, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like a nice soft pitch to Obama...
Hit it out of the park!
March 17, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, Hillary wants to remind us of her record on Iraq. Nice... Without her help we wouldn't be there.
March 17, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
But don't you understan; she had to vote the way she did or when she ran for President the GOP would paint her as, "Weak on Defense."
Sure, thousands are dead, but the GOP won't be able to call her a wimp, so it is worth it.
March 17, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fifth anniversary of a war that we...um...you know..voted for. *ahem* And that, well, we are not sorry for either. Bush tricked us into believing that the resolution was about more diplomacy and letting the inspectors in, too. Totally unfair. Although we never read the NIE at the time, we were totally briefed on it which is very presidential, yo.
Gimme a break.
March 17, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"We will urge Senator Obama to show that he hasn't simply amassed five years of words, that his record on ending the war is one of action."
Conspicuously missing from the memo was any mention of what action Hillary has taken to end the war that Obama hasn't.
Also, it would have been nice to hear some words of outrage from her after President Bush took us to war, which she now says was against the spirit of the Iraq War Resolution.
March 17, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
With the Rezko and Wright disclosures from this past weekend, it's pretty clear that the Clinton campaign has very little to hang its hat on going forward. Hence this weak memo.
It will be interesting to see what she says in her speech today. My guess is that there will be nothing new.
March 17, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton: She has such great judgment to be commander-in-chief "On Day One" that she doesn't even need to read the NIE before voting for the Iraq War. Trust her instincts. Just like she trusted George W. Bush's.
March 17, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm Hillary clinton and I approve...
this message
this war with Iraq
this war with Iran
NAFTA
thinly veiled race baiting
changing the rules halfway through the game
my husband stumping for the GOP vote on Limbaugh
did I miss any?:)
March 17, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
They both voted against the Kerry Amendment.
What kind of bizzaro world do we live in where you can you attack an opponent for doing what you did?
March 17, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
We live in the [mis]Information Age.
Since finding the truth is easier when the water is clear, the idea is to dump as much silt into the water as possible, making it difficult to find the truth.
Her campaign assumes (rightly, I'm afraid), that the 24-hour news networks will simply read her memo on the air without fact checking it at all. The campaign denounces Obama's push for them to disclose Hillary's records as "negative attacks", while putting out this hit piece on Obama suggesting he has done no more than give speeches, and that he hasn't even been consistent there (while carefully ignoring Hillary's role in promoting the war that she is now against).
Their spin is nausea-inducing, and is why she will be a disastrous president.
March 17, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Open bold tag!
Amazing the ongoing ability of the Clinton campaign to unironically attack Obama for positions he's taken that are superior to her own. (See Returns, Tax)
March 17, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
She sure is reaching isn't she? I've yet to hear her response to what she'd do after pulling the bulk of the troops out of Iraq, when Al Qaeda show up there?
March 17, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is Hillary was supporting the war long after the Democratic party started to be against it.
Does anyone else remember this?
From 2004:
"Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/
"I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit, and I reject an open timetable that has no ending attached to it."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/11/AR2005121100846.html
March 17, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
This 3am call -- what's her response to Zogby Poll showing SHE and Obama are way behind McCain when it comes to getting that phone call?
March 17, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is Hillary willing to admit that if Pres she get's Different information on Iraq's problems, that she MIGHT have to WAIT on that withdraw she's promised?
March 17, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
was what was needed here.
Obama/Edwards '08
March 17, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, just looking over at the polls on the right, Rasmussen has Obama outperforming Clinton in New York and Florida. Still, I'm sure this won't convince Clinton supporters that the campaign is wrong about her having a better chance to win states where she took the primary.
March 17, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny that they would fall back on the "words" motif to frame this. Since they initially worked that angle prior to March 4, it has been revealed all over the place that Clinton's own heralded experience is nothing but words (Northern Ireland, Kosovo), and misleading ones at that.
March 17, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Man, someone turn off the bold tag already.
Jesus, she is stupid. Yes, let's give a speech about your plans to get us out of Iraq Hillary. The week of the five year anniversary of the start of the war... you... voted... to... autho... aw, f#@k it.
I'm surprised Obama hasn't hit her with the twofer no one is talking about: the fact that she specifically mentioned the AlQaeda/Saddam 'connections' in her AUMF speech - with this new US Joint Forces Command report saying that, ah, yeah... that was kind of all bulls#!t. Our bad.
Four thousand dead any day now. D'oh!
March 17, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
It will be interesting to see if/how Obama will answer the question about what he has done on Iraq.
March 17, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Obama's Plan
Judgment You Can Trust
As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq.
In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;
In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;
In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.
In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.
source: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
Please note the Jan. 2007 tidbit. He INTRODUCED LEGISLATION to remove troops. What more, as a Senator, can he do that propose law to end the war?
Hillary is trying to nail him with guilt by association because he's voted to continue to fund the troops.
The problem with this method of attack is that were either Hillary or Obama to defund the war with the troops in the field wouldn't change Bush's strategy, it would only hurt the young men in women in harm's way which are simply following their orders.
This is a road which Hillary should avoid as it brings into clear focus their real differences...
March 17, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
This lady's got some chutzpah.
March 17, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's War in Iraq IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
March 17, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is another diversionary tactic.
Hillary wants the press to focus on CinC threshold vs. Obama's memo which is a full scale assault on her for transparency.
Which way will the press go...CinC or demand HRC release tax records, earmarks, donors to hubby's library?
The CinC threshold is actually illuminating another possible strategy which is to focus on Iran and what we are doing.
The retirement of Fallon coupled with Hillary's K/L vote is frightening.
Fallon was the one opposing striking Iran and who was trying to bring home troops..he was the opposition to Bush moving forward in Iran. Bush had been demanding a plan of attack on Iran from Fallon and Fallon was pushing back.
We may be headed for a Bush attack on Iran in the next 90 days.
Which would dovetail nicely with Hillary's CinC focus, no?
Hillary however has no more standing on CinC qualifications and I can't wait for Rockefeller and Leahy to come out and say that she has no standing when it comes to this type experience and that no one can know what the CinC will face.
March 17, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
When it comes to facts vs reality, Hillary is the new 'Decider'. Take your facts, folks, and shove em, 'cause Hillary Clinton has taken lessons from Bush........just keep saying something as though it is true, and let the stenographer media repeat it.
March 17, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get over the vote for the war. Both have supported the war since. Both say they want out.
Not that it matters since Obama and his church of 20 years is America-hating and racist. Obama has no credible standing on any topic. And personally, anyone supporting Obama at this point needs to seriously explain their own apparent racism and hate America perspective--yes, very rightly, guilt by association. Just as supporting Farrakhan or Hitler or others costs credibility, being a member of a church and having continued friendship with this community and reverend that hates America and is blatantly racist is over the top. Obama can't say this didn't and isn't happening. He can't credibly say that he didn't hear any of this. Was he asleep for 20 years? Treated this hatred as "just words", or is he simply lying now for the sake of his political ambition?
Are you, especially the Obama Cult that posts hatred on anything and anyone not supporting Obama, comfortable with guilt by association? You are, by supporting and promoting Obama, equally supporting his racism and hate America views. Its his religion and nothing can undo his 20 years of supporting, funding, and participating in a church and community that expouses racism and hatred for America.
March 17, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't hate America, Matt.
I just hate fascists like you.
March 17, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Matt raises a good point. War is so trivial, why hold those accountable who vote for it "with conviction" then refuse to own up to their vote when it is no longer popular. We're only talking about the needless killing and maiming of countless thousands. As Matt rightly points out we should all get over Hillary's abysmal judgment on matters of life and death and get on the phone to the SuperDelegates so that they can overturn the will of the people and get Hillary in office so that when the phone rings at 3am she can check the latest polls and make whatever decision is best for her politically at the time whether it is disasterous for the country or not.
March 17, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary believes she should be the one answering the 3AM phone call and making all the decisions.
Obama believes he can answer the phone call and round up the best group of advisers to help solve the problem.
Big difference there.
March 17, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, that's just BS.
Obama believes he has better judgement personally then Hillary.
Where do you read that Obama won't be able to make an on-the-spot-decision?
I trust Obama to make that kind of decision better than Hillary, who STILL makes bad decisions, DESPITE all her advisors.
March 17, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew,
Cute. So let's see here, who else is a member of the same Church as Senator Obama:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ
4 Senators, 3 former Senators, Two Governors(Howard Dean among them), Oprah, members of the UN.
John Adams and Calvin Coolidge were members of an early incarnation of the same church.
http://blog.cleveland.com/plaindealer/2008/02/obamas_religion_brings_puts_sp.html
But they're all racist idiots who hate America, nevermind....
March 17, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention closet Muslims.
March 17, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
HRC voted against the cluster bomb ban in populated areas. She voted for the Iraq war. She voted for Leiberman/Iran -She is just too much like Bush and the neo-cons for me.
March 17, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama helped pass the Lugar-Obama Act regarding nukes in the former Soviet Union, which is a concrete, specific action toward keeping the world safer.
Where is the foreign policy legislation with Hillary's name attached? How many significant pieces of legislation has she actually had made into law? Truth is, very little of substance.
March 17, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink