Article

2007-01-24 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ryuge 2007-01-24 07:13|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 New Yorkers don't need to be told "that we are in a war against terrorists who seek to do us harm," Clinton says.

Apparently they do. Even the Biblical kick in the teeth of 9/11 was not enough to make these bastards pull their heads out of their asses.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-01-24 09:28|| 2007-01-24 09:28|| Front Page Top

#2 from Clinton's monday night webcast

Well, they're very important to me as well. There's nothing more important, and you know, ever since I became a Senator from New York, your state and mine, I have worried about 9/11 and terrorism and Afghanistan and Iraq. I have said many times that, if we had known then, when the president came to the Congress to ask for authority to pursue what he said would be an effort to contain Saddam Hussein and put inspectors in to make sure that he didn't have weapons of mass destruction, if we had known everything that we now know, the president would never have asked for such authority, and the Congress would never have voted to give it to him. And I certainly would not have voted to do so.

But all these years later, we are faced with a very dangerous situation, and what I've tried to focus on, starting, you know, shortly after the invasion, when I began pointing out the problem saw and raising questions about the policy that was being pursued from my position on the armed Armed Services Committee, we have to make better decisions now than this President was made in the past. That's why I went again, my third trip to Afghanistan and Iraq last weekend, and I tried to make my own assessment. And when I returned, I reaffirmed my opposition to the President's strategy of escalation, putting March American troops into Baghdad, into Iraq.

Instead, I think we should cap the number of troops, and we should begin to put real conditions on the Iraqi government. I've said, look, I don't want to cut money for American troops. I've been to too many events and places like our military hospital in Germany, where I stopped on the way back, where I met with our wounded servicemen and women. I don't want to do anything that in any way undercuts their ability to protect themselves and to do what they need to do in the combat arenas where they are being placed.

But I do think we should threaten to cut the funding for the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi police force and the security for the Iraqi leaders, which we pay for, unless they make some of the decisions that we've been expecting them to make for a number of years. I don't understand why this president has given them such a blank check, and I think we need to make clear there is no open-ended commitment.

We need a phased redeployment of our troops. We need to try to bring them home as safely and as soon as it is possible. But let me add that America does have some remaining very vital security interests. The Al Qaeda in Iraq, they weren't there before, they are there now. They pose a threat not only to our troops in Iraq but to our friends in the region and even to us here at home. We have to make sure we do everything we can to try to prevent them from using their horrendous terrorist tactics against Americans and against other innocent people.

We also need to try to prevent Iran from expanding its influence in Iraq and in the region. And prevent its continuing effort to obtain a nuclear weapon which would be so dangerous not only to the region but also to Israel and our country and really to the stability of the world. So, yes, I would certainly, you know, wish that we didn't have the situation we face now, but I'm going to continue to do what I can to try to be as responsible as possible to get our troops home but also to deal with the dangers that have been unleashed there.

LH note - I personally think its worth giving Maliki a last chance, and so I support the surge. However her reasons for opposing it are not irrational, not indicative that she doesnt care about winning the WOT. Her position on Iran is right on, and indicates a better understanding of the conflict she will like face as President than many have.

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-01-24 09:49|| 2007-01-24 09:49|| Front Page Top

#3 Clinton/liberalhawk 2008
*giggle* :-)

Posted by wxjames 2007-01-24 10:39|| 2007-01-24 10:39|| Front Page Top

#4 liberalhawk would hold the honourable Senator's feet to the fire on all aspects of the war on terror, which would prove very interesting. A pity he's a mere working slob like the rest of us. Unfortunately, I don't see any possibility that Senator Clinton can hold on to both the left wing of her party and win the center in the general election. Hopefully this is the election in which the Democrats finally choose between their rabid Progressives and their more reality-based center-left constituencies that the rest of us can live with.... and finally jettison the frothing ones.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-01-24 13:52|| 2007-01-24 13:52|| Front Page Top

#5 hold on to the center while winning the left? Geez, thats where you guys come in. Hillary runs to the center (thats shes not moving further left than she is even know confirms that) All you hard right folks are gonna go on and on about Hitlery, Socialized Medicine, Whitewater, etc. Rush Limbaugh starts shouting. The left, as much as they dont like Hilary, cant control themselves when y'all start going on like that. They wont be able to sit home. It will hurt too much.

At least thats my hope.

I also think rank and file liberal voters simply dont relate to things the same way leftie bloggers and so forth do. Most of them dont know what the hell the DLC is, or keep track of every subtle twist of foreign policy.

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-01-24 15:39|| 2007-01-24 15:39|| Front Page Top

#6 Good discussion going on here.

'Hawk, echoing some comments I made over in the ~~Weasel~~ Wesley Clark thread, I think there's a lot more of you in the rank and file of your party than there are irrational antiwar types. The problem with your party is that there are more irrational antiwar types in positions of power than there are (ahem) liberal hawks such as yourself. The Dems are a much more hierarchical organization than a lot of folks realize--a third of national convention delegates are unelected!--and the people with their hands on the levers of power in the party do not think we're at war, or don't want us to win, or don't mind losing a war if they can win an election.

If I could believe Hillary means what she says, I probably still wouldn't vote for her, but I wouldn't consider the prospect of a Hillary presidency too disturbing. The key word in that previous sentence is "if"--given the history of the Clinton administration, I don't think I can trust her. I think she says what she thinks she needs to say to get and keep power. She may well have convictions and principles beyond naked self-interest, but I don't know what they are and neither do you. If something truly awful happens on her watch--say, a mushroom cloud over Dearborn or Tel Aviv--I can't be confident she'd respond in a proper fashion because I don't know what would be guiding her thinking. She may not even know what she'd do.

Posted by Mike 2007-01-24 16:32|| 2007-01-24 16:32|| Front Page Top

#7 "I think she says what she thinks she needs to say to get and keep power. She may well have convictions and principles beyond naked self-interest, but I don't know what they are and neither do you."

I find that notion that anyone could take anything Hillary Clinton says at face value, to be utterly bogglesome. I simply can't comprehend naivete of that magnitude. Hillary will say whatever her calculations tell her she needs to say to get the reaction she wants.

"If something truly awful happens on her watch--say, a mushroom cloud over Dearborn or Tel Aviv--I can't be confident she'd respond in a proper fashion because I don't know what would be guiding her thinking. She may not even know what she'd do."

Best indication of what she'd do would be what her husband did following the 1993 WTC bombing: treat the attack as a criminal act-- and ONLY a criminal act-- and sic the FBI on the perpetrators.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-01-24 17:57|| 2007-01-24 17:57|| Front Page Top

#8 what Dave D said.

Posted by RD 2007-01-24 18:20|| 2007-01-24 18:20|| Front Page Top

#9 I think the Global War on Terror is important, I say, let's have a discussion.

Posted by Hillary Clinton 2007-01-24 19:09|| 2007-01-24 19:09|| Front Page Top

#10 Yeah, and BTW, Mike, who'd miss Dearborn?

Actually, I think that (some) of the nominees would react to Mike's hypothetical in the appropriate manner. If we got nuked, I don't think even Hillary could contain the "American Street."

But, shortly thereafter, all would be forgotten, and she'd work hard to turn it back into a law enforcement issue.

Posted by BA 2007-01-24 20:16|| 2007-01-24 20:16|| Front Page Top

23:59 Joe of the Jungle
23:33 USN, ret.
23:32 JosephMendiola
23:23 OldSpook
23:22 OldSpook
23:21 JosephMendiola
23:17 USN, ret.
23:15 JosephMendiola
23:10 Anonymoose
23:05 trailing wife
23:02 Anonymoose
23:01 Jackal
23:00 trailing wife
22:58 Jackal
22:58 USN, ret.
22:58 trailing wife
22:54 Old Patriot
22:54 3dc
22:51 USN, ret.
22:43 Kos
22:43 Pappy
22:39 Pappy
22:35 Rob Crawford
22:27 Mike N.