Posted on 02/19/2005 11:03:06 AM PST by neverdem
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:01 p.m. ET
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday a string of attacks killing more than 50 Iraqis in two days were failed attempts to sow sectarian strife and destabilize the country.
Clinton, a New York Democrat, and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., were part of a five-member congressional delegation that met with U.S. officials and members of Iraq's interim government.
Both Clinton and McCain have been strident critics of the Pentagon's planning and management of the war in Iraq. But Clinton said Saturday that Sunni Muslim insurgents were failing in their efforts to destabilize Iraq through sectarian violence.
Her comments came as numerous suicide bombings and other insurgent attacks across Iraq killed dozens of people, Iraqi officials said, as Shiite Muslim worshippers celebrated their holiest day of the year. A U.S. soldier was among those killed in the attacks, the military said.
On Friday, insurgents staged five attacks killing at least 36 people and Shiites blamed radical Sunni Muslim insurgents for attacking them in a string of bombings, shootings and kidnappings.
Authorities had hoped to prevent a repeat of last year's attacks during the Ashoura festival when insurgent blasts killed at least 181 people in Karbala and Baghdad.
Clinton said insurgents had also failed to disrupt Iraq's landmark Jan. 30 elections, won by the Shiite clergy-backed ticket. The United Iraqi Alliance won 140 seats in the 275-seat National Assembly.
``Not one polling place was shut down or overrun and the fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure,'' she said.
``The results of the election are a strong rebuke to those who did not believe that the Iraqi people would take this opportunity to demonstrate their own commitment to their own future.''
But Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, said he did not believe the U.S. military would leave Iraq anytime soon.
``How long I don't know, but to leave too soon would be devastating to stay too long is unnecessary,'' Graham said. ``I ask the American people to be patient, because what happens here will affect our security back home.''
McCain said the U.S. military presence was tied to the numbers of casualties taken by American forces, but he was heartened by the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.
``We have a long hard difficult struggle ahead of us and I'm far more optimistic now,'' McCain said.
In December, McCain said he had ``no confidence'' in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, but he added that keeping Rumsfeld in the position was President Bush's choice, not his.
The delegation also was briefed by U.S. Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who is leading the effort to create an independent Iraqi security force, McCain said.
The group had not left the Green Zone, home to Iraqi government institutions and the American and British embassies, because of the security situation, McCain said. They were expected to meet with U.S. troops stationed elsewhere in Iraq on Sunday.
At least 1,476 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
The five senators that flew into Iraq included Clinton, McCain, Graham, Maine Republican Susan Collins and Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold.
McCain: "The key to our continued presence here is not how long we stay, it is the U.S. casualties. "
Thanks for getting the transcript. This is terrible for a US Senator to stay.
And actually in the two wars, we lost fewer troops, than the number of civilians who died on 9-11-01 in the terrorist attack. THAT is what it's all about.
Today is the 60 year anniversary of Iwo Jima, on TV they said, that there 150 troops were left out of the 1000 in a matter of a few hours, and 6,800 American soldiers died in less than a month. What would have happened then, if we had the same mentality, that if we suffer casualties, we should just surrender?
http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/4214112/detail.html
I think that she wants to preside over an American make-over in which we become a Utopian collective.
"It Takes a [250 million people] Village?"
I hope and pray we do not get the opportunity to see that "hidden core" (or anything else she is concealing) in action.
you must mean you are 20% sure....since that is the percentage he votes against the party.......I am not a McCain voter, but I see the media shows only when he disagrees with us cause he is their poster boy Repub cause he is a moderate.....I am just not one to want to throw out people we may disagree with on some issues......just like Graham......now people call him a RINO cause he has worked with Hillary on this one issue but his record shows he is a solid Repub and conservative.........just think the RINO term is thrown our too easily.......Chaffee, Snow, Collins and Spector are RINO's and their record shows it....McCain is closely following.........
The devious, ambitious one is supposed to be representing my crazy state.
you can think how you wish of course but the term "traitor" is hardly what I see when he expresses his opinion. You can disagree with him all you like but calling him a traitor is overreacting and not how legitimate conservative blogs and pundits view him.......not at all....calling him a traitor is a DU or Daily Kos type of slander
I agree. I could easily ignore the guy, but the leftist media can't stand to pass up as willing a malcontent (seemingly) from the right, as John McCain on just about every issue.
What this a.h. did with regard to campaign finance reform would have ended the career of a conservative. It worse than it ever was, and butthead wants a second shot at it.
What baffles me, is Bush actually makes appearances with the guy. Thus McCain embelishes his credentials for the next attack.
Bingo.
Sen. Graham did give the right answer - as we discussed before, the only right answer:
"QUESTION: Senator Graham, two questions. One is you said that you feel that the troops are going to have to be here for a while, do you feel like that is five years, 10 years, if you can give a timetable.
GRAHAM: As to how long? The answer is, until the job's done. Not one minute longer, not one minute less. And what is the job? The ability of this country to have the capacity to maintain its freedom. That just doesn't mean numbers with guns, that means institutions that work; judges and courtrooms that work for all Iraqis, regardless of your ethnic background or your religious differences. A finance ministry that can collect taxes and pay the bills. When you look at what is ahead for this country, there is reason to be very hopeful it could change the whole region. But as John said, to underestimate what lies ahead is a mistake.
How long? I don't know, but to leave too soon would be devastating. To stay too long would be unnecessary. The Iraqi people have their fate in their hands but we're essential partners in that process. And I ask the American people to have patience because what happens here directly affects our security at home. "
He can still vote with the Repubs when he becomes a Dem, can't he?
I heard Richard Perle say somewhat the same thing....what he means is that we could stay forever like South Korea or Germany since there are no casualties there...but if we continued to sustain casualties for "years", then of course that would weigh on the public's minds.........I kind of agree......so in essence if it were peaceful for the most part, we would support staying longer.....I mean in the upcoming years, not the immediate future
"Positioning herself to the right of everyone else in the Democrat party with Presidential aspirations."
I believe that you have hit the nail squarely on the head with your analysis here.
Oh, Hillary has convictions, all right. But she is perfectly capable of going undercover to get elected.
Notice, she has been relatively quiet about the whole Iraq battle. She had nothing to gain by going out on a limb, so she just shut up and kept her powder dry.
Now, she has decided that Iraq is going to work out well enough not to be an issue in 2008, so she has simply postured herself on the winning side. That's all this is.
sure......if he supported the Dem party which he doesn't.. being a moderate is tough cause actually the majority of the country is like that, but when it comes to the media and blogs and forums like this, you usually get it from both sides cause most here are not centrists as far as I know
Second most junior, then? And Lindsey Graham had several terms in congress before he moved to the Senate. Hillary has hardly held a job in her life, except for that crooked stint at an Arkansas law firm which she prefers not to talk about, since it relates to the Whitewater scandal.
Opportunistic bitch is the best description yet I've heard regarding her. She's a fraud and we must continue to expose her. She'll change her tune as she sees fit to be elected. DONT BE FOOLED , she's a hard core Socialist/Liberal to the MAX> She's lying through her teeth and will continue to do that ..Whichever way the wind blows. She would be THE most horrible thing that ever happened to the US in 100 years if she ever gets elected..DONT BE FOOLED
Yeah, without checking their bios, I'm pretty sure Collins and Feingold have been re-elected. IIRC, Feingold was re-elected last November. Either Collins or Snowe replaced Cohen when he took the job with the other Clinton at the Pentagon.
A million thanks, demkicker. McCain is not presidential material, to say the least.
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.