The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Video Report

Clinton's Questions for Crocker and Petraeus

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) asks Ambassador Ryan Crocker about the future of U.S. operations in Iraq. Clinton also asks Gen. David Petraeus what conditions would need to exist in Iraq for the general to say to President Bush that the current strategy is not working.

Posted at 4:57 PM ET on Apr 8, 2008  | Category:  Video Report
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Clinton: Time for 'an Orderly Process of Withdrawing' | Next: A Clinton Supports Colombian Trade Deal


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Hillary Clinton was articulate and informed and it was clear that she did her homework. Obama, on the other hand, was his usual self...."I was against the war before I voted to fund it", and by the way, aren't I charming? It is equally clear why he has so little support from the military in comparison to the military officers who have publicly supported Clinton. In his questioning of Gen. Petraeus,he was lost just as he has been in the debates. What have we come to if half of all Democrats believe that he is competent and can serve as Commander in Chief?

Posted by: darlenedeminSoCal | April 10, 2008 9:32 PM

absolutely -- hillary came across as more knowledgeable, more thoughtful, more informed, more respected. she has and continues to do her homework, while obama is just concerned about appearances. he's such an infant in all of this, that it's shocking that people are willing to support him, and take such a risk at such a dangerous and important time. haven't we had enough inexperience with 8 yrs of bush? mccain is losing it, and obama is just not willing to do the real work, kind of like GB -- all personality, no substance. if hillary is not the nominee, we are in real trouble, and will continue to lose standing in the world. even with the media giving the others a free ride, she still is working hard to get this nomination. obama's past relationships and poor judegements will come back to haunt him in the general election, and the republicans will destroy him. WE NEED HILLARY TO BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE! THE TIME IS NOW!

Posted by: ifish | April 9, 2008 4:30 PM

Senator Hillary Clinton was articulate, thoughtful, and informed in her questioning. Her intelligence shines through without a doubt.

When I listened to BO I was startled at his stumbling and clumsy attempt to put his thinking into words. Did he just walk into the hearing without any preparation for what he wanted to ask?? Come on folks. He is just not ready. Period. He can barely talk without his teleprompter.

Senator Clinton has been endorsed by over 27 Military Flag Officers including General Wesley Clark, Admiral William Owens,Rear Admiral David Stone, and Brigadeer General John Watkins. Do you think these men don't know who is best prepared to lead our nation?

And regarding the comments here about Hillary Clinton probably not being our nominee... IT'S NOT OVER TIL IT'S OVER. ALL AMERICANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND BE HEARD AND THERE ARE STILL STATES OUT THERE WAITING FOR THEIR TURN TO HAVE THEIR SAY. She's in the race. She's staying in the race and AMERICA WANTS HER TO DO SO!

I believe SHE WILL BE OUR NOMINEE. For all those who are addicted to hating OR DOUGTING, I have a news flash. For every one of you are there 2 who LOVE SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON. We admire her strength, persistance, intelligence and grace. WE WANT HER AS OUR NEXT PRESIDENT and admire her plan to get us out of Iraq, take care of our veterans, our students, our elders, our economy, and our health. I'TS TIME TO START TAKING CARE OF PEOPLE AND SHE WILL LEAD OUR NATION IN DOING THAT.

HILLARY '08

Posted by: hummingbirdv | April 9, 2008 12:40 PM

Getting a report from the envoy and the General will not be giving us the true picture of what is happening at the level of the foot soldiers. Both these guys would have their testimonies sanitized and coached. Senators can find the true picture only by deposing ordinary soldiers who are facing death every day and the Iraqi security personnel on the ground.
This only give us a true picture as to how to proceed further in Iraq.

Posted by: cepasu | April 9, 2008 12:40 PM

Petraeus, Crocker Warn Iraq Progress Is Reversible

Should the U.S. continue to fund the Iraq War?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2058

.

Posted by: Jeff | April 9, 2008 10:50 AM

I am not a friend of the Iraq invasion. However I am not prepared to call the invasion a "massive strategic blunder" (B. Obama). Obviously Obama knew nothing about Saddam Hussein and his cruel regime or he didn´t bother. Noboby can ever say anything about the situation in the Middle East today if Saddam hadn`t been forced to resign. Thus it´s impossible to say whether the invasion was a "massive strategic blunder" or not!

Posted by: Elisabeth | April 9, 2008 10:41 AM

YOU just "talked" about the lies he told. BTW why do you suppose that McCain asked his questions before the two JUNIOR Senators?

Posted by: JakeD | April 9, 2008 10:25 AM


I believe for all that watched Hillary yesterday in her questions to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker should have recognized her ability. She would make a better President.

Barck Obama never fails to mention he was against the war from the beginning. How does anyone know for sure on this as he was not in the senate to vote. I think he would have voted just like the other senators that are supporting him.
I have heard said Hillary lies. No one talks about the lies Obama has told.

Posted by: Pat | April 9, 2008 10:05 AM

Barack Obama (during the Foreign Relations HRG) asked if "status quo" in Irak would be a "success enough". Didn´t he? This one of the most stupid question that I have ever heard! If USA should leave Irak now it would have been chaos in the country and maybe the whole Middle East within only a couple of months. This man is really naive. He also seems to be accepting to hand over the power to Iran..... Hillary Clinton has always been talking about leaving Irak in a responsible way. That`s a realistic vision.

Posted by: Elisabeth | April 9, 2008 8:22 AM

I will agree with the "Hopefully McCain will win" part.

Posted by: JakeD | April 9, 2008 5:29 AM

We had three senators asking questions. One just out of diapers (Obama, one with the only real grasp of the situation (Clinton) and another needing to change his Depends.

Unfortunately one of the two lesser qualified candidates (Obama or McCain) will probably be the next president.

Hopefully McCain will win and in 4 years he will be defeated by either Clinton or a more knowledgeable and more mature Obama.

Posted by: Hornsby | April 9, 2008 3:27 AM

Gawd I hate to repeat myself! Thank "Myself" we have Pastings Available! ;~)

Uhhh, hasn't she caused enough problems in Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine to be told to STFU about Iraq?

Posted by: Rat-The | April 9, 2008 2:40 AM

Hillry's second question captured part of my issue with Ira policy. There are no real criteria. Petraeus, Bush, and McCain speak in platitudes.

Her first question (and this whole issue with Bush entering an agreement) is less relevant to me. The next president will do what they want. I don't believe either Clinton, Obama, or McCain will allow their hands to be tied.

Finally, her third question (I agree Dave) made very little sense. I guess she was scared that actions were being taken but not reported?

Until someone speaks to me about specific goals of the war (and how we will get to them), I can't support our continued presence. Obama 2008.

Posted by: Chris Stewart | April 8, 2008 11:48 PM

Anonymous:

Is it "stress" just because I can recognize that her 1% chance of getting the nomination is less than our 2% chance of total and complete victory in Iraq?

Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:16 PM

-------------------------
So you are saying because Hillary wont get the nomination and continues to stay in the race that she cant comment on the futility of Iraq? Last time i checked nobody is dying as a result of the nomination process. One month of the Iraq war will cost 12 BILIION dollars, Her election run will cost roughly 400 million. The DAILY cost of Iraq is nearly 720 Million Dollars. Your correlation, while wordy, is obtuse. While i would like the nomination wrapped up sooner than later i dont think the assertion that she shouldnt have an opnion in the meantime is remotely valid.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2008 9:16 PM

Her 1sr question was great, her 2nd question was twisting n lying, and her 3rd question made no sense in regards to her position.

Posted by: Dave | April 8, 2008 8:57 PM

so basically clinton lied again

Posted by: Dave | April 8, 2008 8:53 PM

Anonymous:

Is it "stress" just because I can recognize that her 1% chance of getting the nomination is less than our 2% chance of total and complete victory in Iraq?

Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:16 PM

It's sad that some people can't get beyond their hate of the Clintons and admit that Senator Clinton is a very effective U.S. Senator who has earned the confidence and respect of the military. Her questioning of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker was both respectful and informed. Of the three candidates she obviously has a better grasp of the big picture. Will she win the nomination? Probably not because if America voted based on knowledge, would we have had W in the first place?

Posted by: Jeff | April 8, 2008 6:04 PM

This'll be in a campaign ad by the Pennsylvania primary. Weak swipes at the war while Obama sits back, the real deal for most anti-war types.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | April 8, 2008 5:58 PM

What a thoroughly baseless claim. Stress getting to you?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2008 5:47 PM

We have a better chance of winning in the Middle East than Hillary DIANE Clinton has of winning the Democratic primary, yet she wants to fight to the end in her campaign, but quit in Iraq?

Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 5:20 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company