US Democrats Clinton, Obama skirmish over Iraq

ALIQUIPPA, Pa., April 9 (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Wednesday attacked her rivals over Iraq, saying Democrat Barack Obama is all talk when it comes to ending the war and Republican John McCain would keep it going.

New York Sen. Clinton and Illinois Sen. Obama traded barbs in Pennsylvania, whose April 22 vote is the next milepost in a long campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination to determine who will face McCain in the November election.

Polls showed a tightening picture in the state with Obama making a move against Clinton's former big lead.

The rivals spoke a day after testimony to the U.S. Congress from the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, whose remarks left no doubt that more than 100,000 troops will still be in Iraq next January when the successor to President George W. Bush takes office.

Petraeus' testimony allowed Clinton, Obama and McCain to push their competing positions on the Iraq war, which remains unpopular with U.S. voters. The Democrats say it is time to end the war while Arizona Sen. McCain said the current strategy is working.

Speaking at a town hall meeting, Clinton questioned whether Obama was committed to pulling out U.S. troops as he says he would do. She also said McCain has no interest in ending the war.

"That's the choice. One candidate will continue the war and keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, one candidate only says he'll end the war," Clinton said at a high school in a Pittsburgh suburb.

"And one candidate is ready, willing and able to end the war and to rebuild our military while honoring our soldiers and our veterans," Clinton said of herself.

Clinton and Obama both say they would begin working to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq shortly after taking office in January 2009, a position McCain calls "a failure of leadership."

The Republican National Committee returned fire on Clinton, saying her vow to pull U.S. troops from Iraq "would leave Iraq to the terrorists, and lead the U.S. into a wider and more difficult war in the future."

At a town hall meeting in Malvern, Penn., outside of Philadelphia, Obama bashed both Clinton and McCain for voting to authorize the 5-year-old war in Iraq.

Obama was asked what he thought about Clinton's television advertisement in which she suggested she was more qualified than Obama to answer a 3 a.m. call on a national security crisis -- an ad that helped her win Texas and Ohio.

"The person you want answering the phone at 3 a.m. is the person who has read the intelligence reports, who is asking the tough questions about why we want to invade a country like Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11. That's somebody who has good judgment. And there's only one out of the remaining candidates who qualifies on that front," Obama said.

Many senators, both Democrats and Republicans, raised concerns about what they called the absence of a U.S. pathway out of Iraq after five years of war, 4,000 American dead and billions of dollars spent.

McCain defended the lack of a clear exit plan.

"The exit strategy is success of the surge, continued Iraqi ability to take over their security, requirements to have the democratic process go forward. It's the classic counterinsurgency strategy," McCain told the Fox News Channel.

Clinton called on Bush to propose a strategy for ending U.S. involvement in Iraq, and said he should not set up a long-term security agreement with the Iraqi government without approval from Congress.

"President Bush must not saddle the next president with an agreement that extends our involvement in Iraq beyond his presidency," said Clinton, who was flanked by retired military officials.

Clinton said U.S. troops should be guaranteed one month at home for every month they spend overseas, and should be allowed to leave the military when their contractual time is up. (Additional reporting by Caren Bohan; Writing by Steve Holland, editing by David Wiessler) (To read more about the U.S. political campaign, visit Reuters "Tales from the Trail: 2008" online here)

The Leftises are really ridiculous with this:

Now The Left Complains About The Number Of Medals Worn By Our Military Leaders

**********************EXCERPT***********************

Posted by: Curt @ 11:33 am in Military, MoonbatsVisited 175 times, 175 so far today

This is what the lefts arguments have come to….the amount of medals on the chest of a General:

Gen. David H. Petraeus may be as impressive a military professional as the United States has developed in recent years, but he could use some strategic advice on how to manage his sartorial PR. Witness his congressional testimony on the state of the war in Iraq. There he sits in elaborate Army regalia, four stars glistening on each shoulder, nine rows of colorful ribbons on his left breast, and various other medallions, brooches and patches scattered across the rest of the available real estate on his uniform. He even wears his name tag, a lone and incongruous hunk of cheap plastic in a region of pristine gilt, just in case the politicians aren’t sure who he is.
That’s a lot of martial bling, especially for an officer who hadn’t seen combat until five years ago. Unfortunately, brazen preening and “ribbon creep” among the Army’s modern-day upper crust have trumped the time-honored military virtues of humility, duty and personal reserve.

Unbelievably ignorant argument. Any officer called to testify to Congress would wear his dress uniform which requires the wearing of his ribbons. The author then makes some sly insults by insinuating that those medals were no big deal because he hadn’t seen combat until five years ago. But his main complaint is that he is wearing the uniform in the first place. Why o’ why cant he just wear a dishelved uniform like Grant?

Ulysses S. Grant accepted Robert E. Lee’s sword while outfitted in disheveled Union blue and muddy boots. Douglas MacArthur presided over the signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender on the deck of the battleship Missouri without donning so much as a necktie with his khakis. George Patton wasflamboyant, in his jodhpurs and riding boots, but he backed it up in battle after battle. His legend derived equally from brilliant tactics and an outrageous wardrobe.
Perhaps the best example, however — and one that Petraeus and his cadre should look to for inspiration — was set by two of the most politically savvy generals America has produced: Dwight Eisenhower and George Marshall. In photographs following World War II, with Ike fresh from rescuing Western civilization while Marshall was working to rebuild it, both men appear victorious, yet somber, cognizant of the challenges met and the challenges ahead. Eisenhower wears a single row of ribbons, Marshall three.

Memo to Petraeus: When you’re making the case for more patriotic gore, go easy on the glitter.

Yeah General….just wear a few less ribbons and then the left will all jump on the bandwagon.

One more reason why the MSM is going down the tubes, they employ ignorant writers like Matthew DeBord.

It's the LA Times...crapola:

Petraeus' 'ribbon creep'

*****************EXCERPT********************

A uniform full of medals and decorations clashes with his message.

By Matthew DeBord
April 9, 2008

Gen. David H. Petraeus may be as impressive a military professional as the United States has developed in recent years, but he could use some strategic advice on how to manage his sartorial PR. Witness his congressional testimony on the state of the war in Iraq. There he sits in elaborate Army regalia, four stars glistening on each shoulder, nine rows of colorful ribbons on his left breast, and various other medallions, brooches and patches scattered across the rest of the available real estate on his uniform. He even wears his name tag, a lone and incongruous hunk of cheap plastic in a region of pristine gilt, just in case the politicians aren't sure who he is.

That's a lot of martial bling, especially for an officer who hadn't seen combat until five years ago. Unfortunately, brazen preening and "ribbon creep" among the Army's modern-day upper crust have trumped the time-honored military virtues of humility, duty and personal reserve.

Think about any of the generals you've seen in recent years -- Norman Schwarzkopf, Barry McCaffrey, Wesley Clark (all now retired) and others -- and the image you'll conjure no doubt includes a chest full of shimmering decorations.

Ernest, I canceled my subscription to the LAT after 25 yrs. when they “doctored” a photo on the front page of an American soldier standing over some Iraqi people.(they moved the M-16 the soldier was carrying to show the soldier pointing the weapon at the people)

And after they let Michael Ramirez go, I have no reason to even check out the op-ed page on the Internet.

We all know that the LAT has about as much credibility as a screen door on a submarine.

Say, Ernest, did you check out those articles I pinged you about the government officials who have been getting a pass on their moving violations with those special license plates...Now that's a plate I'd like to have on my vehicle! LOL

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.