Hillary flip-flops on Iraq in the same interview

[ProfJohn]

This interview shows some brilliant political double speak.

In one sentence Hillary (speaking of withdrawal) says
"I hope it happens in the next 15 months -- but if it doesn't, it will happen immediately upon my becoming president,"

Implying that she will immediately begin a withdrawal of American troops.

But two paragraphs later out comes this bit
?but we have said that there will be a likely continuing mission against al Qaeda in Iraq. ... So I think that there are some limited missions, but the numbers we're talking about are very much smaller than what we have there, and ? the missions would be better defined."

She is trying to fool the anti-war crowd into thinking she is for a withdrawal, but at the same time admitting that we will have to have troops in Iraq for some time yet.

I am very much of the belief that this type of double speak may be enough to encourage an outright anti-war third party candidate to run for the Presidency. Nader would be a perfect candidate for this.
link
Also note how ABC calls her out on her excuse for voting for the war resolution, watch for the other Democrats to use this against her as well.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said this morning that she will not make any pledges regarding a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

"We don't know what we're going to inherit," she said on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." "None of us do. We don't know what's going to be done in the last 15 months of the Bush-Cheney administration."

But Clinton reiterated her desire for an immediate troop withdrawal.

"I hope it happens in the next 15 months -- but if it doesn't, it will happen immediately upon my becoming president," she said.

The senator called for limited missions to remain in place but declined to estimate remaining troop levels.

"Clearly, withdrawing is dangerous," she said. "It has to be done responsibly, prudently, carefully, but we have said that there will be a likely continuing mission against al Qaeda in Iraq. ... So I think that there are some limited missions, but the numbers we're talking about are very much smaller than what we have there, and ? the missions would be better defined."

Despite her determination to bring American troops home, Clinton said it was inappropriate to speculate as to how many troops would remain in Iraq, but said that previous estimates of 40,000 to 75,000 troops were inaccurate. "The problems we're going to face because of the failed policies and the poor decision-making of this administration are rather extraordinary and difficult and I don't want to speculate about how we're going to be approaching it until I actually have the facts in my hand and the authority to be able to make some decisions," Clinton said.

In looking forward to resolving the war, Clinton called for a restoration of America's diplomatic relationships.

"We've got to get back to doing what America historically has done very well -- leading with our values, as well as our strength," she said. "I think we can be both strong and smart, and I know we've got a lot of repair work to do around the world. We have, unfortunately, set so many people against us that we need now to be working with us."

When asked whether she would adopt the "Bush doctrine" espousing that "you're either with us or against us," Clinton said, "It's hard to separate an alleged doctrine from its implementation. Unfortunately, in my view, the president has alienated both our friends and emboldened our enemies."

The senator also fielded questions on her vote for the Iraq war resolution, which she insists was not intended as a vote for war. While she has said her vote was intended to show support for the United Nations, Clinton did not support an alternative resolution put forth by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., which would have required the president to turn first to the United Nations.

"I think that there has to be a delicate balance here," Clinton said. "I don't believe we should give veto power to the United Nations or any international group, although I certainly favor being involved in and working with and building up international forces and groups. Well, that is how I assessed it at the time and, you know, we had a disagreement at the time. I've said on many occasions I made a sincere decision based on my best assessment of the evidence at the time."

If we get a strong anti-war third party candidate next year then the Democrats are sunk.

 

[Genx87]

Isnt a funding bill coming up soon for Iraq? Guess Hillary can put her money where her mouth is and vote no for new funding for the troops.

 

[theeedude]

You don't get it? Too bad.
She is saying we don't need an occupation force in Iraq, but we can continue to conduct anti-terrorism operations there. You know, the kind that we should be conducting in Pakistan to finally get OBL instead of being bogged down as occupiers in Iraq. It will take time for anyone to clean up the mess that Bush created, but first you need to get the people making the mess out of power.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Isnt a funding bill coming up soon for Iraq? Guess Hillary can put her money where her mouth is and vote no for new funding for the troops.

It's not funding for the troops, it's funding for the war.

 

[First]

This isn't news, she said this same thing months ago. Besides, I think we've known for a while that most Dem candidate will keep some troops in Iraq for some prolonged period of time. Just no where near the 200,000+ (including mercs) that are there now. Closer to sub-30,000 within 2 years.

Unfortunately that's how long it's going to take because that is Bush's policy, not anyone else's. And Americans will die for his policy, one that has (at best) simply failed to accomplish much of anything for 4.5 years.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: senseamp
You don't get it? Too bad.
She is saying we don't need an occupation force in Iraq, but we can continue to conduct anti-terrorism operations there. You know, the kind that we should be conducting in Pakistan to finally get OBL instead of being bogged down as occupiers in Iraq. It will take time for anyone to clean up the mess that Bush created, but first you need to get the people making the mess out of power.

:thumbsup:

That said, I hope *any*one gets nominated before Hillary for the Democratic candidate. Well, maybe not John Kerry, but pretty much anyone else.

I don't agree with the OP at all. There's a huge difference between rotating 120k-160k troops, and something like just keeping a forward base with 15k or so, along with SpecOps and intelligence types.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87
Isnt a funding bill coming up soon for Iraq? Guess Hillary can put her money where her mouth is and vote no for new funding for the troops.

It's not funding for the troops, it's funding for the war.

Whatever you want to call it, she should vote no and send the msg she is a true anti-war candidate.

 

[StageLeft]

She is a bit of a panderer, certainly. If she got off this healthcare kick, I'd really like to see her become president, nonetheless.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: senseamp
You don't get it? Too bad.
She is saying we don't need an occupation force in Iraq, but we can continue to conduct anti-terrorism operations there. You know, the kind that we should be conducting in Pakistan to finally get OBL instead of being bogged down as occupiers in Iraq. It will take time for anyone to clean up the mess that Bush created, but first you need to get the people making the mess out of power.

I don't agree with the OP at all. There's a huge difference between rotating 120k-160k troops, and something like just keeping a forward base with 15k or so, along with SpecOps and intelligence types.

Indeed. Don't see any flip-flopping going on here. But is not surprising the OP would try and paint it as such. :roll:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: senseamp
You don't get it? Too bad.
She is saying we don't need an occupation force in Iraq, but we can continue to conduct anti-terrorism operations there. You know, the kind that we should be conducting in Pakistan to finally get OBL instead of being bogged down as occupiers in Iraq. It will take time for anyone to clean up the mess that Bush created, but first you need to get the people making the mess out of power.

I don't agree with the OP at all. There's a huge difference between rotating 120k-160k troops, and something like just keeping a forward base with 15k or so, along with SpecOps and intelligence types.

Indeed. Don't see any flip-flopping going on here.

But is not surprising the OP would try and paint it as such. :roll:

Actually the more flip-flopping the better.

The only question here is do we continue to protect the oil and the oil convoys for Haliburton and the Oil Companies or do we abandon the oil on Iraqi soil and the whole reason we went to war in Iraq to begin with?

5-1-2007 U.S., U.K. Waged War on Iraq Because of Oil, Blair Adviser Says

The U.S. and U.K. went to war against Iraq because of the Middle East country's oil reserves, an adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair said.

Sir Jonathan Porritt, head of the Sustainable Development Commission, which advises Blair's government on ecological issues, said the prospect of winning access to Iraqi oil was ''a very large factor'' in the allies' decision to attack Iraq in March.

"I don't think the war would have happened if Iraq didn't have the second-largest oil reserves in the world,'' Porritt said in a Sky News television interview.

 

[Fern]

Despite her determination to bring American troops home, Clinton said it was inappropriate to speculate as to how many troops would remain in Iraq, but said that previous estimates of 40,000 to 75,000 troops were inaccurate

"The problems we're going to face because of the failed policies and the poor decision-making of this administration are rather extraordinary and difficult and I don't want to speculate about how we're going to be approaching it until I actually have the facts in my hand and the authority to be able to make some decisions," Clinton said.

The above statement reads like a giant loopehole to me.

She doesn't yet have the facts in hand?

(The only facts she could reasonably claim to not have in hand, are those of the future. If she is elected President what will the situation be in early 2009, that's an unknown now.)

If she doesn't have the facts in hand, how can one trust her plans for Iraq. Are they emotionally driven (or really poll driven & just pandering), or something driven by intellgent and rational planning based on facts and objectives? Clearly doesn't sound like the latter.

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87
Isnt a funding bill coming up soon for Iraq? Guess Hillary can put her money where her mouth is and vote no for new funding for the troops.

It's not funding for the troops, it's funding for the war.

Whatever you want to call it, she should vote no and send the msg she is a true anti-war candidate.

On Meet the Press on Sunday she said she has voted against further funding and will continue to do so. Let's see.

 

[NeoV]

do you really have to have a working brain to see past the 'talking points' bs of "OMG she flip-flopped".

Starting a troop withdrawal, but still having some troops there - it's not that complicated.

 

[Lemon law]

One thing for sure, A President Hillary or a democratic President is likely to work on Iraq from a diplomatic and not military emphasis. Then progress might be possible.

WITH GWB IN CHARGE NO PROGRESS IN IRAQ IS POSSIBLE. What part of a 4.5 year track record is not hard to understand.

Congress needs to decide to tell the decider to go sulk in the corner. The sooner that is done, the more clear options will be come 11/08. The GOP blocks that at its own peril.

Congress will start a new phase of wresting control from GWB this week. It may not get over the hill this week, but its getting closer every day. In MHO, GWB
as THE DECIDER is living on very borrowed time. The GOP can't be stupid and suicidal enough to keep backing GWB&co. much longer.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
She is a bit of a panderer, certainly.

QFT, and understatement of the year.

On a side note, did anyone hear her laugh (sounded like a witch's cackle to me) when Chris Wallace asked her Sunday about why she and Pres. Bush are "so partisan"?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Well here is the problem for Hillary...the far left desires an anti-war candidate who will promise immediate withdrawal, regardless of the strategic impact for the future...even if she wins the nomination, what are the implications for her in terms of Democrat turnout if she comes across too moderate on Iraq?

A practical politician, and most in this forum, recognize that our withdrawal from Iraq will require a multi-tiered approach, consisting of increased foreign policy political engagements, phased troop withdrawals, and contingency plans for maintaining a small presence on the ground to keep Al Quaida in check.

Just as the far right is cheerleading for surges and a pure military solution, some in the anti-war crowd expect an immediate and complete withdrawal from the region, which simply will not work.

Hillary, and the other Democrat contenders, are caught in the middle...do they appeal to their base and take on the anti-war mantra, or do they pursue the more logical and strategically sound moderate approach? The problem is that the far left has a tendency to eat its own...Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, MoveOn.org...they would not hesitate to target a Democrat candidate they perceive as too "soft" on Iraq.

Next year is going to get interesting very quick.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: senseamp
You don't get it? Too bad.
She is saying we don't need an occupation force in Iraq, but we can continue to conduct anti-terrorism operations there. You know, the kind that we should be conducting in Pakistan to finally get OBL instead of being bogged down as occupiers in Iraq. It will take time for anyone to clean up the mess that Bush created, but first you need to get the people making the mess out of power.

Having the Democrats pull out of Iraq is a Republican wet dream.


She knows if they are not out when she takes over they won't come out in her first 4 years. Guaranteed. She won't do much to downsize the troop levels until she is safe in her second term. Any other choice is political suicide.

She might restrict their operations but I doubt she would pull a majority out. Iraq going instable isn't anything a President wants... taking troops out wholesale will guarantee it

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: senseamp
You don't get it? Too bad.
She is saying we don't need an occupation force in Iraq, but we can continue to conduct anti-terrorism operations there. You know, the kind that we should be conducting in Pakistan to finally get OBL instead of being bogged down as occupiers in Iraq. It will take time for anyone to clean up the mess that Bush created, but first you need to get the people making the mess out of power.

Having the Democrats pull out of Iraq is a Republican wet dream.


She knows if they are not out when she takes over they won't come out in her first 4 years. Guaranteed. She won't do much to downsize the troop levels until she is safe in her second term. Any other choice is political suicide.

She might restrict their operations but I doubt she would pull a majority out. Iraq going instable isn't anything a President wants... taking troops out wholesale will guarantee it

Pulling all troops out of Iraq immediately is any rational persons worst nightmare. Thank the idiot named GWB for making that nightmare possible.

The only question is how long we must wait before we can start to move to having safer alternatives. The Patraeus plan is the same as waiting forever.

Crossword clue---nine letters for progress---try Diplomacy.

Guess what---now Maliki is no longer even on speaking terms with Rice.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: senseamp
You don't get it? Too bad.
She is saying we don't need an occupation force in Iraq, but we can continue to conduct anti-terrorism operations there. You know, the kind that we should be conducting in Pakistan to finally get OBL instead of being bogged down as occupiers in Iraq. It will take time for anyone to clean up the mess that Bush created, but first you need to get the people making the mess out of power.

Exactly. The "war on terror" should be police or special forces action. Not a full scale occupation.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: senseamp
You don't get it? Too bad.
She is saying we don't need an occupation force in Iraq, but we can continue to conduct anti-terrorism operations there. You know, the kind that we should be conducting in Pakistan to finally get OBL instead of being bogged down as occupiers in Iraq. It will take time for anyone to clean up the mess that Bush created, but first you need to get the people making the mess out of power.

Having the Democrats pull out of Iraq is a Republican wet dream.


She knows if they are not out when she takes over they won't come out in her first 4 years. Guaranteed. She won't do much to downsize the troop levels until she is safe in her second term. Any other choice is political suicide.

She might restrict their operations but I doubt she would pull a majority out. Iraq going instable isn't anything a President wants... taking troops out wholesale will guarantee it

What you're saying makes zero sense.

If she didn't downsize the troop levels for 4 years, she wouldn't get a second term. Most americans want this war to end. The only political suicide would be in ignoring what the people want. I can just imagine the soundbites of "i will begin withdrawing troops immediatedly" put up against a graphic that shows the troop level didn't decline for her entire stay in office.

 

[Lemon law]

What I heard Hillary say unequivocally say yesterday is that she will oppose continuing funding for Iraq. That may force GWB to get real and offer a compromise. And hence budge gridlock.

We can only await and see what happens to the debate in congress.

So far the American people are missing in action. Each side might be forced to reach out to that thus far silent majority and gage the real depth of feeling.

By this comparable stage in the Vietnam war, the American people were taking to the streets
in numbers.

 

[yowolabi]

Clearly it's possible for Hillary to immediately began withdrawing troops until we only have enough for limited defined missions. It also appears to be exactly what she's saying and is not a flip-flop since the two statements aren't mutually exclusive. Either ProfJohn has comprehension issues, or he's deliberately creating lies. I really don't think he's the correct person to challenge anyone's credibility.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: yowolabi
Clearly it's possible for Hillary to immediately began withdrawing troops until we only have enough for limited defined missions.

It also appears to be exactly what she's saying and is not a flip-flop since the two statements aren't mutually exclusive.

Either ProfJohn has comprehension issues, or he's deliberately creating lies.

I really don't think he's the correct person to challenge anyone's credibility.

Yet I continously get hammered and censored.

Very interesting times.

How long till we see GOP only banner ads at the top?

This is a question. Do I need to run this by the Mods first?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
Exactly. The "war on terror" should be police or special forces action. Not a full scale occupation.

And who's going to do the "policing"?

Special Forces aren't designed for that.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
Exactly. The "war on terror" should be police or special forces action. Not a full scale occupation.

And who's going to do the "policing"?

Special Forces aren't designed for that.

And lets add the fact that special forces units do a lousy job of combating terrorism. The one shining example cited for the surge, and the biggest defeat to Al-Quida which is about 15% of the insurgencies problem in Iraq, is Anbar, and that was a political deal that had nothing to do with the surge.

The notion that terrorism can be fought is a myth, we can only reduce the root causes of terrorism and now we have created feudalism in Iraq instead.