March 15, 2007
Don't Go Bonkers About The Times's Clinton Story
Before everyone goes nuts about the New York Times's write-up of its interview with Sen. Hillary Clinton, keep this in mind:
The Senate resolution set for debate today endorses the concept of a residual force in Iraq for counterrorism purposes. Said resolution is supported by Sen. Russ Feingold, Sen. Bernie Sanders and other non-Liebermans. Most every Iraq plan propounded by Democrats since the end of "major combat operations" would keep a limited amount of troops in the country or on high alert nearby.
On 1/30, Sen. Barack Obama's office released a fact sheet about his Iraq plan. It included this sentence: "The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces."
Here's what the Times writes of Clinton: "Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military. In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing."
This is NOT a Note-esque criticism of the Times's Gordon and Healy, who dutifully led with the lede. It's just a caution to those who want to cast the substance of Sen. Clinton's remarks in the worst possible light. [MARC AMBINDER]
Posted at 09:19 AM
Comments
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
