You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Clinton Says Some G.I.Â’s in Iraq Would Stay
2007-03-15
WASHINGTON, March 14 — 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.
Tap dancing back toward the center...
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.

In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”
Yeah, nuanced. That's one word for it..
She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.
Nut-roots to explode in 5 .. 4 .. 3 ..
The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”
"I'm part Jewish, you know.."
“So it will be up to me to try to figure out how to protect those national security interests and continue to take our troops out of this urban warfare, which I think is a loser,” Mrs. Clinton added. She declined to estimate the number of American troops she would keep in Iraq, saying she would draw on the advice of military officers.

Mrs. ClintonÂ’s plans carry some political risk. Although she has been extremely critical of the Bush administrationÂ’s handling of the war, some liberal Democrats are deeply suspicious of her intentions on Iraq, given that she voted in 2002 to authorize the use of force there and, unlike some of her rivals for the Democratic nomination, has not apologized for having done so.
They think she's a right-wing warmonger
Compared to them she is ...
Posted by:Steve

#20  So HILLARY, still the No.1 contender for the Dems for 3008 despite Obama, has just destroyed or demolished the Dems PR "talking point" of stopping Dubya-WOT in ME by pulling out = redeploying the troops. The Ultra/Far Left will now have 'justified" fodder agz DemLeft
"centrists", while many Leftist-Alternatists will flock to the GOP-Right for 2008. BUT THEN THE DEMS ALREADY KNOW THIS > i.e. turning the GOP-Right into Leftist Lite..
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-03-15 22:08  

#19  2. She is really a woman of her convictions, and she doesnt care that this will hurt her politically, shes a patriot, she is who she is and will win on her terms or not at all

Is it too late to vote for Understated Snark of the Week?
Posted by: SteveS   2007-03-15 20:34  

#18  Hillary is just the first of the Dem prez wannabes to perform the furious backpedalling / hedging necessary in order to innoculate themselves against the possibility of American SUCCESS in Iraq.
Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723   2007-03-15 14:11  

#17  RE: #9 LH - I guess I should have been more clear. The "Kerry plan" I was alluding to was the constant reference to a plan to do it better than Bush, without the risk of exposing what were the contents of the plan.

I will give you that Hilly has taken a brave step away from the far-left in her party, sort of saying that retreat is not a plan.

I have ordered a case of microwave popcorn for the upcoming fallout over the next several months!
Posted by: Bobby   2007-03-15 12:47  

#16  would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing

*cough* Rwanda *cough*

she learned from the master...
Posted by: Frank G   2007-03-15 12:06  

#15  nut roots exploding alright.

Why this, why now? It looks so politically foolish no?

Possibilities
1. It IS a political gambit. Hilary can count. While not too many Dem voters actively support the war anymore, the ones who are really motivated in their antiwar views, are what, 40% of the Dem voters? Say theyre 50%? Theyre going to divide up among St Obama, Edwards, Clark, Richardson, maybe Kucinich or Sharpton, and Gore if he runs. (And they wouldnt vote for her anyway) That leaves enough votes for her to win against a divided left (assuming Biden doesnt split the centrists with her - a pretty good assumption, (sorry Joe)) By mid-primary season the pack should consolidate, but by that time she probably hopes to have an insurmountable lead. Then having been hawkish early on, shes in a better position for the general election

2. She is really a woman of her convictions, and she doesnt care that this will hurt her politically, shes a patriot, she is who she is and will win on her terms or not at all - shes the John McCain of the Democratic party

3. Having been over to Iraq a few times, and, more importantly having contacts with Generals and intell types who were friendly to her husbands admin, she knows stuff that other Dems dont. She may have info that the surge has a good chance of working, and shes placing her bets on that, and the likely change in public opinion when that happens (IE shes the Democrats' John McCain)

Posted by: liberalhawk   2007-03-15 12:02  

#14  I suspect the need for US troops in Iraq will extend far beyond 2008, as Iraqi oil reserves are developed & as oil production in the rest of the middle East collapses. Iraq will be vulnerable to pressure, not only from jihadis, but from Russia & Red China, until Iraq's oil resources no longer matter to the rest of the world. If this is true, then the US interest in a stable & free Iraq is far more compelling than whatever outmoded rationale keeps our ground forces in western Europe & in South Korea. Curious that the MSM and the US political establishment can't bear to discuss this, must be something to do with the slogan "no blood for oil."
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2007-03-15 11:47  

#13  She'll start arming the insurgents, then disarm the soldiers left behind, then order them to pass through ambush zones, so more and more get killed.

If that starts to happen, I wouldn't give her very long odds on completing her first term. That is just the sort of thing that could kick off the internal revolt against the Socialist A-Holes.
Posted by: Chiper Threreger8956   2007-03-15 11:39  

#12  From the Huffpost:
Senator Clinton, changing which parts of Iraq we focus our military's attention is not the same as ending the war. It's not even part of the same conversation.

Clinton told Healy and Gordon: "Trying to withdraw is not something you snap your fingers and tell people, do it tomorrow." Maybe, but that's what you said you would do if elected president. You said, "If we in Congress don't end this war before January of 2009, as president I will."

Clinton's is not a liberal, Democratic vision for ending the war in Iraq nor is it a plausible flushing out of the same ideas that Clinton presented at the DNC winter meeting. Matt Stoller described Clinton's position well, "It's a genuinely and deeply conservative foreign policy strategy, involving indefinitely keeping US troops in Iraq for unspecified national security interests while calling the war over." What goes unstated is how monumentally unacceptable Clinton's Iraq plan is for the Democratic Party and America.

Clinton came to the DNC and spoke with the Democratic base. She twice asserted that a Hillary Clinton presidency would mean no more war in Iraq. Yet this is clearly not the position that she holds; her real position is to continue America's presence in Iraq for the indefinite future that starts in January 2009. Clinton's lies at the DNC stem directly from her inability to wrap her mind around the idea of implementing the only sound course for Iraq: ending the war now and bringing our troops home.

That was part of the post, now the comments:

"The Goldwater girle is a lair. She told us in Selma Ala she was DR. MLK's admire in 7963, then she was the Goldwater campaign supporter to block civil right voting in 1964. I never seen before who says anything from a presidential candidate before. I am a democrat but I will vote Rep instead of Hillary"

If elected she would do just as Bush has; whatever Israel tells her to do.

Democratic Leadership Council = part of the plutocratic branch of the "Democratic party"

The DLC are war cartelists

KERRY
CLINTON
LIEBERMAN
EDWARDS

are all DLC members who voted for the war

Other "Democratic" Presidential candidates who voted for the war:

BIDEN
DODD

We're sick of DLC candidates for President
Posted by: Steve   2007-03-15 11:38  

#11  She's tap dancing on a tight rope.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2007-03-15 11:32  

#10  the Dems the struggle will be between "we can do it better" and "it cant be done"

Bingo.
Posted by: DarthVader   2007-03-15 11:00  

#9  well youre hardly gonna get a Dem to say "i cant do it better than Bush" now are you? Even Bush can do it better than Bush - Bush-Gates-Petraeus apparently doing it better than Bush-Rummy-Casey.

Among the Dems the struggle will be between "we can do it better" and "it cant be done"
Posted by: liberalhawk   2007-03-15 10:43  

#8  Hilly's taking a plan from the Kerry playbook - "I'll do it better than Bush"
Posted by: Bobby   2007-03-15 10:36  

#7  Iraq is too much of a victory. She wants to leave Americans there so there will be someone to defeat.

She'll start arming the insurgents, then disarm the soldiers left behind, then order them to pass through ambush zones, so more and more get killed.

Maybe she'll send the soldiers heroin and other drugs, so they will all be junkies, like the left thinks all Vietnam veterans were.

No more fresh uniforms. They have to wear filthy t-shirts. And lots of "no-fire zones" for the insurgents to hide in.

But the US must lose, and be humiliated, and badly. That is her mission, and that is her mandate, because the people want her to lose, so that evil America will be taken down a whole bunch of pegs and the world will be returned to balance, where evil again holds sway with the good.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2007-03-15 10:35  

#6  LH, they've lowered standards modestly -- still need a high school diploma, but some young men with past scrapes with the law are being allowed in, as opposed to a few years ago. As I recall, a felony conviction still makes you ineligible to join the military.

As to the surge, that's the plan, and I don't think we'll have 130,000 troops in Iraq in 2010 -- either our plan has worked or it's become evident that the Iraqis have thrown their opportunity away, and we're on to other things.
Posted by: Steve White   2007-03-15 10:21  

#5  Â“So it will be up to me to try to figure out how to protect those national security interests and continue to take our troops out of this urban warfare, which I think is a loser.”

C’mon…vote Sen. Clinton for President. She says she’s gonna “figure” out a way to convince terrorist organizations and insurgents to abandon asymmetric warfare. And, boy-howdy, if anybody can do it…it’s her. Think about it. They don’t stand a chance on the open battlefields. What a visionary.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2007-03-15 09:42  

#4  Odd timing, no? Before Iowa caucuses and NH primaries, where the Dem electorates are pretty leftwing (and in Iowa a tradition of pacifist isolationism, to boot) The usual lefty pundits were rip her apart for this.

Shes right, we do have interestst there, and we probably will still need troops there past 2008. Only Dem Prez candidate to say that, AFAIK.

How will they do it better than the current surge? Well (Hilarys not saying this aloud, but I am) the surge itself, IF it works will lead to things being easier. Surely thats the Petraeus-Gates strategy? No one thinks we can keep the surged troop level in place through, say, 2010? We ARE having recruiting issues with the military (yeah, theyve filled their quotas, but have lowered standards to do it)
Posted by: liberalhawk   2007-03-15 09:36  

#3  "...she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military."

A "reduced military force" will do those things better than the current, higher level military force? What an idjit. A reduced military force simply makes for easier and increased killings and kidnappings of American soldiers.

"...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."

I can just here the Beeb and CNN now-"Hidden American occupying forces are allowing Iraqi Sect A to commit genocide on Iraqi Sect B. Americans are guilty of abetting genocide." She's a lawyer-it's astounding she hasn't thought this through. Or maybe she has and WANTS America to be tried and convicted in International Court so she can implement some kind of guilt-based, anti-American, crime compensation/wealth redistribution scheme.

“It is right in the heart of the oil region..."

I thought that was the concern of that evil right-wing conspiracy; I didn't know Democrats were concerned about access to oil. Somebody better tell Cindy.
Posted by: Jules   2007-03-15 08:40  

#2  Quagmire!!!
Posted by: ed   2007-03-15 08:27  

#1  would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence --- even if it descended into ethnic cleansing

No way she said that. Not in these precise words.

Posted by: gromgoru   2007-03-15 08:17  

00:00