« Hillary: We Need A "Commander-In-Chief" For The Economy | Home | Hillary Will Release Tax Returns At Least Three Days Before Pennsylvania Primary »

Obama On 4,000 Troop Deaths: "Each Death Is A Tragedy"

Obama is out with a statement on the death of the 4,000th American in Iraq...

"It is with great sadness that we have reached another grim milestone in Iraq, with at least 4,000 of our finest Americans having been killed. Each death is a tragedy, and we honor every fallen American and send our thoughts and prayers to their families. It is past time to end this war that should never have been waged by bringing our troops home, and finally pushing Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future. As we do, we must serve the memory of all who have died as well as they served our country, by providing support for their families, caring for our troops and veterans, and upholding the American values which our fallen heroes exemplified through their service."

It's interesting to note that in this statement, Obama describes the war as something that "should never have been waged," but he stops short of adding that the war "should never have been authorized," a formulation he frequently uses that implicitly criticizes Hillary's vote for the war.

In other words, Obama is quite properly refraining from injecting even the merest trace of politics into his reaction to this grim milestone.


38 Comments

| Leave a comment

Hillary Rodham Clinton voted for the war that wasted all those lives.

John McCain voted for the the War. He wants to maintain and endless war in Iraq.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has endorsed WAr Monger McCain for Commander in Chief ahead of Senator Obama.

Since Hillary voted for the war, and has endorsed War Monger McCain, you should not trust her to end the war.

Hillary is the new Lieberman.

It's also "interesting to note" how you do actually (now that I'm reading your posts a bit more critically) inject a personal opinion into Obama's statements that seems to be lacking in your posts which cite statements from Clinton.

"Obama describes the war as something that "should never have been waged," but he stops short of adding that the war "should never have been authorized," a formulation he frequently uses that implicitly criticizes Hillary's vote for the war."

You guys parse as brilliantly as any educated lawyer (I'm a pretty good judge of their logic). Unfortunately, I think the media over-analyzes just about every statement made by politicians of any stripe. The above, to me, seems to be a perfect example of it.

Basically, the question is, then, do politicians ever say anything (or their campaigns, for that matter) that may NOT be for political purposes?

Or, put another way, to politicians ever act like humans? Meaning, to they say certain things because they need to be said, rather than because people will give them more votes for that particular statement?

I think Obama has shown that. See his speech from last week for a further explanation....

user-pic

anyone having trouble commenting?

Initially, I did. After five minutes, however, the problem disappeared. The problem, apparently, was a failure for the comments section to load, and I was given a "re-direct" page back to the main TPM-EC page.

Of course, that problem mysteriously vanished after five minutes.

Yes, Greg. I have problem with posting as well as your parsing every comment/speech/statement/reply from Obama's camp.

You do know that Ben Smith was forced off to a holiday due such anti-Obama snarks, don't you ? May be you need a holiday, too ?

Calm down, please.

user-pic

In other words, Obama is quite properly refraining from injecting even the merest trace of politics into his reaction to this grim milestone.

Well, he's not interjecting intra-partisan politics, but the statement is certainly political. Not that that's a bad thing.

While American soldiers are dying in Iraq, Obama issues a statement from a beach in the Caribbean....

No thanks. Keep the change...

Four thousand of our sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, are gone thanks to Dubya and those who gave him the authority to wage war. Over twenty thousand more maimed for life, and many more will suffer PTSD and other ailments for the rest of their lives.

All for what? Absolutely nothing. I have not even mentioned the thousands upon thousands of Iraqi citizens who have been killed and maimed. This war has been an unmitigated financial and humanitarian disaster.

I will always honor our brave men and women in our armed forces, but I spit on the president and those who gave him the power to create this clusterfuck.

I am glad Obama spoke without a hint of reference to Hillary. He is a class act all of the way, and this just shows it.

The war had actually started several months before Congress went through the public motions to "authorize" it. Called Operation Southern Focus, it was an attempt by Rumsfeld to provoke Saddam Hussein into an artificial casus belli. Saddam didn't bite.

Obama is quite properly refraining from injecting even the merest trace of politics into his reaction to this grim milestone

Saying the war should never have been waged is a political statement. Just because one might be able to suggest it isn't aimed at Clinton doesn't make it less political.

Is it really not "politics" if it is only aimed at the Republicans in general or Bush in particular? It was a political statement. Not that I think there is anything wrong with that. But it is what it is.

user-pic

billy sunday, I guess you missed the post below where I said that phil singer's claim that Obama's attacks are "based on lies" was "excessive?"

does that count as an opinion?

also, it would be hard to read this post as anything but praisworthy towards Obama, methinks.

Greg:

I'm glad you made this post though. What posters here are tired of is the verbatim posting of conference call talking points without any given journalism into whether these talking points are valid or not. Or else it could be they're just tired of talking points.

Greg, why don't you just lay off the commentary altogether and just bring us the news. You keep trying to frame things as if you opinion is either intelligent, insightful or better informed. It is not. Some people like to accuse you of bias. For me that is not the issue. The issue is that your commentary is not the least bit insightful. Please stop if your ego allows it.

Relax, please. I've given Greg some gruff before in some of his postings, but he didn't do anything wrong in this one.

See, I am trying to help him avoid getting it wrong, as he too often does. Bring us the news. Stickto what you are good at. Leave the junior high commentary out.

Or...you could just leave and don't come back. Save yourself. Really.

I disagree.

Without commentary, I would just go to Obama's or Clinton's website for info.

I come here for the commentary.

I appreciate that Obama made absolutely certain that his words could not be construed as trying to one-up Hillary. At times it's important to let the gravitas of the subject stand on its own.

And kudos to Greg for high-lighting it.

I agree. It's an important recognition of the sad milestone today.

How about that this isn't a time for politics. 4,000 dead is a big enough statement without getting into the stump speech.

Obama spewed he did not know how he would have voted if he was in the Senate.

He voted for it every single vote when he was in the Senate.

President Clinton is wright.

Its a fairy tale and why he did not make it political.

If ya'll are too snotty to Greg and Eric, we may end up with someone like Goatlife posting the stories.

Think about it!

"President Clinton is wright."

[studio audience groans]

Goatlife,

Do you actually stay up at night testing your witticism, or is your improv writing just that sharp? Thanks for the oh-so ironic play on words, you must've learned that at the Captain's Quarters.

Greenley... I presume you're the type that isn't interested in being swayed otherwise, but would you care to share with us how you believe such a milestone should be handled, given that the timing of such milestones are out of anyone's hands? I agree that the timing isn't flattering for any politician, but are we to presume that any and all candidates should clear days off their calendar at approaching milestones? Should other observers give this the decisive weight that you've assigned to it? Any other criteria you would wish to share with us to help us understand how candidates would handle this better, in your estimation?

Sincerely,
Little Fish.

Equal opportunity (with typos corrected):

Hillary Clinton began a speech on the housing crisis here Monday by acknowledging the 4,000th U.S. fatality in Iraq, a milestone that occurred yesterday when four American soldiers were killed by an I.E.D. in southern Baghdad.
"I want to take a moment to note yesterday's heartbreaking news that five years after start of war there have been 4,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq," she said.
"Tens of thousand of our brave men and women have also suffered serious wounds, both visible and invisible to their bodies, their minds, and their hearts. As president, I intend to honor their extraordinary service and sacrifice of them and their and their families by ending this war and bringing them home quickly and responsibly as possible."

Interesting to note she specifies "military deaths."

Heckuva job Hillary

She supported Bush's war for FOUR YEARS

Now either she:

1. cynically triangulated so that she could prove that she was tough enough for commander-in-chief
or
2. she failed to appreciate what so many did - that the US was "opening the gates of hell"


Either way she's failed The Commander-in-Chief test six ways from Sunday.

It's 11:59 PM

Time for her to go home

John McCain wants to continue the War in Iraq, and yet Hillary has endorsed him for Commander in Chief instead of Senator Obama. That means that Hillary does not really care about ending the stupid War in Iraq that she voted for.

Greenly Greene, George W Bush went AWOL when in the service, instead of going to Viet Nam. What's your point? No one in the senate is in the service.Think about it.

user-pic

Well, between yesterday afternoon and today, Greg has been decidedly damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

It's a tough job - and he's doing his best, in my opinion.

lastquarter, I would expect George W Bush to issue a statement from the golf course about this somber milestone. It makes the milestone all that sadder that Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, is issuing important statements on the Iraq war from a beach in the Caribbean. I think the anti-war Obama - with his words from a beach - symbolizes true tragedy of this war.

user-pic

all that sadder that Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, is issuing important statements on the Iraq war from a beach in the Caribbean. I think the anti-war Obama - with his words from a beach - symbolizes true tragedy of this war.

There are now 4000 dead Americans, and you think Obama in the Caribbean "symbolizes the true tragedy of this war"?

I think you need some perspective.

Greg Sargent said:

Obama is quite properly refraining from injecting even the merest trace of politics into his reaction

The editorializing occurs in the phrases "quite properly" and "even the merest trace," both of which not only qualify the words they precede but inject a value judgment. Watch how this works:

"Quite" is booster rah-rah-ing for the correctness contained in the adverb "properly."

"Merest" is a superlative, intended to extract the trace left within the word "trace." "Even" further erases whatever trace has already been erased.

Of course Obama's words are 100 percent political! Or are you being ironic?

There's also Vice President Dick Cheney's apolitical comments about the 4000 (all-volunteer) U.S. deaths in Iraq.

Compare the Obama statement to the one from Clinton. Obama references "we, us, our" constructions 10 times. He does not mention "I, me, my" at all... not once. ZERO.

Clinton mentions "I, me my" and in a circular or reflective reference (the troops "speaking" to her, which she references herself as "you") 8 times, "we, us, our" references: 9 timees.

Okay, so in Clinton-speak it's usually about "Me, Hillary Clinton" except when you refer to me, Hillary Clinton as "you, Hillary Clinton" and then it's still about about me.

I agree with jade7243, for Clintons it is all about themselves and their feelings, very lame, absolutely not presidential.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address