She won’t do what I want done if she’s elected President. I hope that this “nuanced” position on Iraq isn’t what you want from a Presidential candidate either:
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 but significant 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 in Iraq after taking office 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.”
She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.
She wants to keep a significant military force in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda and “prevent sectarian violence?” How does this differ significantly from Bush’s position, or the likely default position of the Republican nominee in 2008, whoever he might be? Here’s a hint: it doesn’t. It’s also dead wrong.
There was no “Al Qaeda” in Iraq until we deposed Saddam. Al Qaeda, the Al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11, is in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and getting stronger by the minute while we waste precious human and financial resources fighting “them” in Iraq. As for preventing sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing from breaking out, what planet has Hillary been living on? We can’t even do that now with the 160,000 troops Bush has over placed “in harm’s way.” What can possibly lead her to believe keeping any American troops in Iraq after 2008 will deter such violence, other than wishful thinking?
And what exactly have all those American troops in Iraq done for America’s or Israel’s security since Bush “decided” to invade? Nothing of any benefit to either country. It’s a policy that’s has sapped American power by weakening our military, increased our national debt astronomically, and destroyed our credibility and influence around the world. The same counterproductive policy she plans to continue if elected.
Frankly, this “nuanced” position of hers is rank hypocrisy. It stinks of appeasement: appeasement of the hard right Israeli/American lobbyists and defense contractors who might send a few campaign contributions her way, that is.
She’s turned to the Dark Side. If it wasn’t apparent before when she pandered to AIPAC last month, it should be obvious now. Keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely is not the majority position of the American people, much less of the Democratic Party. Do not send her your money. Do not work for her campaign. And most of all, in any primary next year, do not vote for her.
She’s not the face of the Democratic party as far as I’m concerned. If she’s the Dem’s nominee in 2008, I won’t vote for her. Period.
