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?