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.
Also posted in orange.
Where it’s being suggested I’m too pure of heart (meant in a bad way, apparently).
Wow, the collective IQ there has REALLY plummeted lately…
More like a dedicated cadre of conservative/centrist Dems who pillory anyone for speaking ill of any candidate. Ideologues without an ideology. Only a “party.”
Yeah, because gawd forbid people actually think about and discuss who they’re voting for before the primary. Nope, better to just have nothing but low-information voters.
Not.
LOL That is only certain people there but they doi have small minds and seem to love to gang up on any dairy that isn’t about there candidate. I posted a comment and recommended at dkos.
Be careful Steven. I see that Hillary is a big advertiser over there.
and here too. Doesn’t seem to have much effect on our editorial policy though, does it?
shocking…
The Dem presidential contender in 2008 will be Al Gore, as it should be. He won in 2000 and desires justice now more than ever!
I have many conservative acquaintances that I talk some politics with. Mention Hillary for president, and they laugh with joy. Why?? Mention Al Gore, and real fear and argumentative zeal immediately show up. You see in their subconscious, they fear Gore, as they should! That is good because they know that the time is right in America for Gore to run, win overwhelmingly, and do good things!
Note, I am not associated with Gore in anyway, but am just trying to be truly objective in this!
she is a sellout and hasn’t been a democrat in a long time.
If that’s the plan we’ll need to be using mercenaries.
How do you convince the boys that they’re ‘protecting my freedom’ while guarding oil fields. No glory there.
Hillary is so arrogant, she’s already making promises for her second term.
We will have a lot of work to defeat her. The Empire is very strong.
I am getting a surprising amount of mail from her campaign — this early in the cycle, too. She’s got a lot of money to burn on marketing herself and greasing the wheels of the Machine.
But I’m with Steven — not my candidate, not my president, ever.
But that money and marketing campaign will be hard to overcome — especially if the strength of the “netroots” is split among several other candidates. She doesn’t need the people-powered activist base–she can use the same commercial avenues basically that the Republicans do. The corporate backers will pay for it; she’s an investment in what they see as their future profit margins. Especially since there is no really strong Republican candidate.
A lot of states are moving their primary dates earlier — Maryland used to be part of the big Super Tuesday pack, now it’s looking to put its primary on the same day as Virginia and DC (which locally makes a lot of sense). I think a lot of states are tired of Iowa and New Hampshire dominating the primary season, just because they’re first. They get all the campaigning and the attention. Part of me would like to see a national primary day for the whole country… which would refocus the candidates’ attention on the states with the most delegates, voters and electoral votes. But that would be harder on the candidates who do not have the big corporate sponsors–right now, at least, their limited budgets can be more focused on the primaries in the order they occur.
But if we want to change the direction of this country, we have to defeat Hillary, and unless a clear favorite emerges who can pull the netroots together (Mr. Gore, are you listening?), this will not be easy.
Same here. I won’t go as far as to vote for a Republican, but I will decline to cast a vote for Clinton if she is nominated. And you can bet your sweet arse I’ll be voting against her at the primaries.
I want a candidate who will change course, not one who just wants to change the color of the signage.
I’ll assume that she’s speaking of ExxonMobil, etc. Their bottom line is a vital national interest only if one worships at the altar of corporate profits. Or if one receives/expects to receive campaign contributions from these entities.
She’s just telling the truth about future US plans while all other candidates are avoiding the issue.
The US has built four huge and 12-14 smaller bases in Iraq at a cost of several billions. The larger ones ave huge airstrips, western-style housing and even US fast food restaurants. They were always intended to be permanent installations to replace those lost in Saudi Arabia.
This was one of the primary goals of the invasion. There is no way the US will give this up. Clinton is just admitting that we will continue to occupy these bases while everyone else fudges their position. What do you think Murtha means when he says we need to “re-deploy” our troops? If he meant bring them home he would have said so.
For the record the goals were:
Here’s the score card:
When a politician accidentally tells the truth during a campaign its called a “gaff”. That’s what Clinton did. If you don’t like the plans then you need to work to change our dependence of oil.
rdf,
Yes, you’re of course right about the bases. The U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia must have been quite substantial and pricey. They’ve been abandoned, those in Iraq can also be left behind. There is so much throw-away cash in the U.S. government for such projects no one can expect the people in power to worry their little heads about a couple of billion dollars which have gone to the rich. Isn’t that the purpose of the whole excersie. Does anyone know what has happened to the bases in Saudi Arabia? It would be interesting to know.
It’s not that we can’t abandon the projects because of the cost, it’s that we won’t abandon the bases because we built them for strategic reasons which are still valid.
We had a hell of a time getting into Afghanistan because of the lack of cooperation from nearby states and we don’t want to be in that position again.
That’s why we are making deals for bases in many of the former Soviet Republics as well as places like the Czech Republic.
We only know how to fight with a huge supply chain these days and that means many depots on the way to the battle. Who ever heard of an occupying army setting up McDonald’s in a war zone as we have done in Iraq?
A few years ago, I read “Rise of the Vulcans” by James Mann. He notes that Wolfowitz was arguing for permanent military bases way back in the 80’s. When I read this I finally felt like I had some understanding of why they were so hell bent on the invasion.
So yes, I believe this to be something that most of our establishment politicians understand and have long supported without every feeling the need to give the rest of us a clue about. They long ago sold out any semblance of democracy to the military industrial complex and their commitment to US imperialism.
Oops, I meant to say that Wolfowitz was agruing for permanent military bases in Iraq way back in the 80’s.
About McDonalds. All through history big and small merchants have followed armies over great distances to sell their wares. Now we have a corporate government and it gives the big corporations access to the consumer and financial wishes and transactions of their military employees. Something like the company store of the past. For a price, of course, as the government is corporate.
I’m glad you’ve mentioned this: I was going to.
Even Senate Joint Resolution 9, the one about leaving Iraq that is currently being debated, makes provisions for these bases. It states that the U.S. should begin “phased redeployment” of “combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number that are essential for the following purposes: (1) Protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure…” I should think that the four mega bases count as infrastructure.
Don’t give Hillary credit for “telling the truth”: if the mega bases are the reason she would keep troops in Iraq, she should say so.
I remember by the way that in the presidential debates in 2004, Kerry said once that he was against keeping troops in the Iraq mega bases once the fighting was over. Which means that Hillary is more of a militarist than Kerry, which is saying a lot.
deployed beyond capacity and that it may take a generation to rebuild?
Where does she plan on getting the troops?
(Not that I agree with the policy, but it defies logic even if you agree with it!)
She’ll get the troops by declaring that homosexuality is not immoral and conniving her daughter and her friends to enlist. Oh man, this lady has a rabid shtick. She decides (like the man now squatting the white house) that she will keep substantial numbers of troops in Iraq, without considering what the U.S. people or Congress might want. Of course, commenters are right that she is only stating current U.S. policy, which she obviously agrees with. The ex-Goldwater Girl is moving to the right at breakneck speed and, with her money and connections, is capable of pulling the rug out from under the entire Democratic Party. She and her husband have become so used to privilege and success that they will be very reluctant to take no for an answer. If she is the Democratic candidate, the next president will be another repugnant. Ha!, as if you need to be psychic to call that one.
I will never vote for her. I found in my way of thinking that when her husband started to hob nob with the bushes, I became very leery of them both. I think they both stabbed Al Gore int he back back in 2000 and he knows it too. I have never trusted her and as far as mr clinton, I trust him less ever day. The dlc is a bunch of whacker men and women who lie as bad as the republican party members. …which makes it even worse..they are a part of the democratic party and they betray the democrats always……
Keeping something like 75K troops in Iraq is insane. Such a deployment would represent the equivalent of three full American divisions stationed in a combat zone, plus support and logistics assets. Given anything approaching a rational rotation policy, we’d have to have three divisions located in the continental US being retrained, rested and reequipped to support the three divisions active in the field. Even after Dubya’s belated request to increase the US Army by two divisions (thanks, Dubya, for ignoring Kerry’s call to do this three years ago), that means we’ll have 50% of our active US Army combat assets deployed in Iraq. Does any rational politician believe that can be done?
Some troops might ultimately need to be kept there, but the type needed would be very different. Anything more than something like 5K Special Forces based among the population to keep on top of any Al Qaeda resurgence would just be adding targets for the insurgents. Increasing our target density would be the stupidest thing imaginable.
Her position is the same as all of the other Democratic candidates. No candidate including Kucinich has advocated a withdrawal without leaving some type of military or peacekeeping presence in Iraq.
it is very simple folks. Hillary is showing her undying allegiance to the DLC. And now i think it is perfectly clear what the dlc really is. just consider the following. Good ole Harold ford is now the latest head of this bunch of pieces of shit. harold ford has just signed on as a fox news commentator.
Need anything else be said.