Newspeak emerging from Clinton camp

Poor Hillary got caught with her ideological pants down. Yesterday, the AP reported that Hillary stated explicitly that:

Clinton said new tactics have brought some success against insurgents, particularly in Iraq’s Anbar province.

“It’s working. We’re just years too late in changing our tactics,” she said. “We can’t ever let that happen again. We can’t be fighting the last war. We have to keep preparing to fight the new war.”

I don’t know about you, but when I read Hillary speaking about recent military engagement in Iraq and using the phrase “it’s working,” I would translate that to mean “the military’s recent tactics in Iraq are working.” And since the media’s recent tactic in Iraq has been given the shorthand name “the surge,” I would even go so far as to say that Hillary said “the Surge is working.” Certainly that’s what Matt Drudge did in an August 21st headline he titled “Hillary on Surge? ‘It’s Working’…”

Hillary must have gotten spat upon in the street for that one, because she’s gone on the attack.  She can’t deny the words, so she’s denying their manifest meaning:

Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) comment that some new US “tactics” in Iraq are “working” should not be taken as an endorsement of President Bush’s troop surge strategy, her campaign said Tuesday.

“She has said this before and was specifically referring to reports of increased cooperation from Sunnis leading to greater success against Al Qaeda in Al Anbar,” campaign spokesman Phil Singer said in an e-mail to RAW STORY.

A headline that appeared on the Drudge Report early Tuesday said, “Hillary on Surge? ‘It’s Working’…”. It linked to an Associated Press report on Clinton’s comments Monday at the Veterans of Foreign Wars annual convention.

Clinton cited successes in Iraq’s Al Anbar Province as an example of how changed tactics are “working,” but her comments were not meant as an endorsement of President Bush’s surge strategy as a whole, her campaign said.

I don’t know about you, but this sounds like double talk to me, or maybe newspeak.  As I understand it, even though she said new tactics are working, she wasn’t really praising the new tactics that were working, she was just praising the outcome of the new tactics that are working, which is not the same thing as praising the tactics themselves, because she totally disagrees with the tactics even though the outcome is praise worthy, springing as it does from the tactics she’s not praising.  Did I get that right?  Does anyone really know what she’s saying, having been embarrassed by a burst of decent honesty?

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Marguerite

    First, I think Hillary’s remarks are mostly dishonest, but always deliberate, with ample room to wiggle out when she – or some toady – clarifies for the unwashed. So I try to account for them within that paradigm. Here, she wants to appear tough to appeal to people who think Al Quida et all want to kill us (‘the surge tactics are working’) but far enough left to still get the Daily Kos endorsement ( ‘but she disagrees w/the tactics’). But you go far to make a good case that she may have slipped this time and made an honest mistake instead of a dishonest one.

  • Pingback: Webloggin - Blog Archive » Hillary Clinton: The Surge Is Working, But Don't Take Me Literally()

  • Trimegistus

    Of course Hillary is lying. With any of her public statements the question is not _if_ she is lying, but _who_ she is lying to. In this case, she’s either lying to her core antiwar supporters, or to the larger general public. I actually think in this case she’s lying to her base, because once she gets the nomination they will be of no value to her at all.

  • Al

    Hilary’s behavior is of course designed to gain her the White House. She has realized the majority of the body politic has a very short term memory, and that same majority responds favorably when it hears what it wants to hear. The personal danger to her is that her all consuming desire to be President may destroy her ability to think rationally. Her own memory of previous positions may make acceptance of new positions problematic for her thought process, and may even degrade her thought process.
    Those whom the Gods would destroy…..
    Al

  • Pingback: The Gospel according to the New York Times « Bookworm Room()

  • Pingback: Webloggin - Blog Archive » The Gospel According to the New York Times()