If Elected Clinton Says Some G.I.’s in Iraq Would Stay if She Took Office

[Ethelk2044]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/washington/15clinton.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin



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 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 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.

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.”

“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 the military officers who would have to carry out the strategy.

[gulfcoastliberal]

1. PNAC approved message? nt

[Tellurian]

40. Obama Said the Same Thing!.."SomeTroops Should Stay In Iraq!"

OBama said the same thing.. "some Troops will remain in Iraq."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/washington/15clinton....

[Tellurian]

41. So Why haven't you posted what Obama said?

afraid are ya?

[DemKR]

42. Because Obama is God and Hillary is dirt nt

[Nihil]

49. It's often wise to ignore people who talk to themselves ...

:evilgrin:

[SOS]

63. Obama endorses ISG

RECOMMENDATION 40: The United States should not make an open-ended commitment to
keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq.
RECOMMENDATION 41: The United States must make it clear to the Iraqi government that
the United States could carry out its plans, including planned redeployments, even if Iraq does
not implement its planned changes. America’s other security needs and the future of our military
cannot be made hostage to the actions or inactions of the Iraqi government.
RECOMMENDATION 42: We should seek to complete the training and equipping mission by
the first quarter of 2008, as stated by General George Casey on October 24, 2006.

This is very different from Hillary's PNAC plan for 75,000 to stay in an open-ended commitment.
Although it's hard to tell exactly how Hillary feels about an open-ended commitment:

"I do not think it is a smart strategy for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment. Nor do I think it is a smart strategy to set a date certain" - Hillary Clinton, June 2006

In June she said it is not a smart strategy to have an open-ended commitment and today she says she wants to keep 75,000 troops in Iraq as President?

[Faryn Balyncd]

52. There is one huge difference: Hillary makes it clear that she NEVER foresees complete withdrawal....

......That her view includes a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, presumably last throughout the next one (or perhaps two) presidential term(s).

When Hillary speaks of "bringing our troops home", it might be appropriate to ponder these words from the President George W. Bush's radio address to the nation on March 19, 2003:

“We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people. I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.”

I am not a particular fan of Barack Obama, and I have not been able to follow your above link to his statements (your link appears to be non-working), but it is my impression that Obama views troops remaining in Iraq perhaps as transitional, and may not be necessarily committed, as is Hillary Clinton, to a view of a perpetual American occupying force within Iraq.

That Obama has not been as clear on this as is appropriate is scarsely reason to back Clinton's unrepentant vision of perpetual occupation.






Gore 2008

[sarcasmo]

51. I think you are correct. The more she speaks the more I hear PNAC.

[SOS]

62. Actual PNAC plan

This idea of keeping 75,000 US troops in Iraq past 2009 is the plan of PNACer Dov Zakheim:

"It (Hillary's plan) has been advocated by Dov S. Zakheim, who served as the Pentagon’s comptroller under former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Mr. Zakheim has estimated that no more than 75,000 troops would be required, compared with the approximately 160,000 troops the United States will have in Iraq when the additional brigades in Mr. Bush’s plan are deployed."

Zakheim is a PNAC signatory, Heritage Foundation associate and Rummy's former comptroller.

[Robbien]

2. I would expect this surprises no one here

She is a warmongerer. As much as she tries to hide it from the progressive section of the Democratic base, she and most of the Democratic leadership are warmongerers.

[Purveyor]

4. "she and most of the Democratic leadership are warmongerers" -AIPAC lackeys is a better description.

[BigDDem]

32. Yet she leads her nearest opponent

by double digits; guess most Democrats must be warmongers.

[Kelvin Mace]

33. Depends on the poll

Sorry. If she is nominated, I cannot in good conscience vote for her, or any other candidate who will continue this war crime.

[BigDDem]

50. Way to go!

Nader 08!!!!

[Kelvin Mace]

65. *shrug*

At some point the Republic must rise to the challenge or perish. We are now a de facto police state. The Dems took control four months ago and there has still been no real attempt to return us to democracy. Lots of posturing, but whenever push came to shove, they caved to Bush. Anybody want to bet they won't subpoena Gonzalez

As to Clinton versus Wingnut in 2008, getting out of Iraq in 10 year or 30 makes no difference to the people who die in the first ten years.

After a point, pragmatism becomes another way of saying "moral cowardice".

[jahyarain]

74. Nader, my left nut, this pc monitor...

...any of the above would make a better president than Hillary

[BigDDem]

77. and your "left nut"

has the same odds of being elected president as Nader
unfortunately, some folks cant figure that out

[bvar22]

54. No. Most Democrats simply don't know Hillary.

They remember her from Bill's Whitehouse....name reconition.
Her speeches and video ops are void of substance by design (Obama too), and this is ALL most of America sees.

[Kelvin Mace]

66. Yep!

She is very conservative on many issues, and very calculating about her public remarks. In her heart of hearts she agrees with Bush's invasion, she just would have done it differently i.e., more competently, but with the same result.

She has been derided as "liberal" by the Right for so long, even people on the Left believe it.

[Kikosexy2]

48. Well...

she lost my vote...and that goes for any "stay in Iraq"--pro-war, AIPAC sucking, Israel-ass-kissing candidate....I definitely won't vote Repiglicon...but would vote for an Anti-Iraq-war, Anti-AIPAC lackey, Pro-Palestinian-Israel Peacemaker...

[BigDDem]

53. Nader 08!!!

[Kelvin Mace]

68. Don't you love how the only

defense that some people can manage of Sen. Clinton is "Nader '08"?

[BigDDem]

80. Yes, I do love it!

Since you said "If she is nominated, I cannot in good conscience vote for her..."
Would you like to tell us who you ARE going to vote for if she is the
nominee?

I'll switch out "Nader" for whoever your candiate is.
How about "Huckabee 08!" is that better?

[TankLV]

81. Hitler '08!

Yep - stupid is as stupid does...

...but Hitler is a DEM - if we don't vote or vote for someone else, then only the Repukes will win!

Horray - Hitler -08!

[BigDDem]

85. Which Hitler are you referring too?

The only one I know of is dead.
I would ask you who you would support if Hillary is the nominee but you've already said you'll be "staying home."

You're the GOP's favorite kind of Dem, congrats!!!

[Megahurtz]

70. You Got It! n/t

[grytpype]

3. Well, at least she is being honest.

Folks, there is just no way we can totally disengage from Iraq. We are going to have soldiers in Iraq or right over the border in Kuwait for the foreseeable future. Just like the Korean War never really ended, Iraq will never really end.

So I commend her for her honesty, this remark is going to be pilloried in the blogs, but it's just the truth. We can't totally pull out.

[Bonobo]

6. Why can't we pull out totally? What can be gained by staying?

[dflprincess]

7. If we pull out all of Southeast Asia will fall to the Communists

oh wait, I'm getting confused again.

[Le Taz Hot]

45. LOL!

I had EXACTLY the same thought. De ja fucking vu. Yes, boys and girls, we CAN get out NOW. However, the predator class isn't quite finished using our young people as cannon fodder just yet.

[grytpype]

8. If we pull out...

... the Iraqi Shiites will start slaughtering the Sunnis on a scale that is worse than we've ever seen, and Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and maybe Turkey will probably have no choice but to get involved militarily.

Really, the only solution to the Iraq problem is massive escalation of coalition involvement on a scale no one -- not even the administration -- is suggesting.

I think we would need 500,000 additional troops to stabilize the country. Even that might not be enough. General Odum has said recently we couldn't do it with a million more troops.

Even the Baker Hamilton commission found we should shift to a support, training, and logistics role in Iraq, but even that mission would require a substantial force! I think going to a small number of troops in-theater is also a very bad position strategically. If the violence gets worse as we draw down troops, there will be force protection problems that will grow the more we draw down. So there will be some minimum number of troops we would need to even stay in the game in Iraq, and it might be close to current force levels (or even higher)!

[Bonobo]

10. You proved yourself wrong. Thanks.

"I think we would need 500,000 additional troops to stabilize the country. Even that might not be enough. General Odum has said recently we couldn't do it with a million more troops. "

Nuff said.

It cannot be solved by our military intervention. And let's not pretend that we need to stay to prevent a slaughter when we are perfectly content to allow a slaughter of MILLIONS to occur in Darfur. That's just not honest.

We need to leave and pay reparations. Let them take care of their own business. The US had a revoltion and a civil war and managed to come out of it as all countries do.

[LiberalFighter]

12. IMO To effectively occupy Iraq there would need to be...

535,667 to 1,339,169 troops

535,667 is based on 1 soldier for every 25 adults
1,339,169 is based on 1 soldier for every 10 adults
These would not include support personnel.

Iraq's current population estimate is 26,783,383 with a calculation of 13,391,691 as adults.

Iraq's census estimates that 1-14 year olds are 39.7%, 15-64 year olds are 57.3%, and 65 years and over are 3%

I used 50% as a rough estimate.

[Kelvin Mace]

34. Alea jacta est

We either do another Vietnam and allow mass slaughter with added possibility of plunging the whole region into war, or we pull out and allow mass slaughter with added possibility of plunging the whole region into war.

At least with option B, we do not continue Bush's policy.

[TankLV]

83. If we pull out later...

... the Iraqi Shiites will start slaughtering the Sunnis on a scale that is worse than we've ever seen, and Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and maybe Turkey will probably have no choice but to get involved militarily...

same shit no matter what WE do...

best not to lose any more of OUR lives, nor have US remain an excuse for the comming debacle...

[jamesinca]

75. Pulling out is not manly

leave it in, get the job done. Yes sexual overtones were intended. Yes I did get that from George Carlin who said that circa 1972 in reference to Vietnam. One thing all of these stay the course politicians don't get is that all the Iraqi's have to do is stay one day longer then the US. One day longer and they can implement their plans. These stay the course politicians are trying to stay one day longer than the Iraqi's, and that is just stupid if you think about it, it is their country.

[saigon68]

11. Then Maybe YOU or YOUR children better sign up

I AND MINE WON'T------------------ we will fight them in the streets, if they start a DRAFT

Amazing how she decides now, to be the "War Princess"

[PSPS]

13. Sorry, but your analogy is bogus

Iraq is no North Korea. None of the countries surrounding Iraq even felt threatened by Iraq before we invaded, and they don't feel threatened today. Iraq has no real army, no air force, no missile program, nothing. It is impossible for Iraq to be seriously belligerent toward anyone.

We are a foreign occupying power brutalizing the citizens of another country. We are little different than Nazi Germany in this regard.

We need to leave today.

[L A Woman]

15. Oh, let the Mysogynocrats have their fun...

Obviously, you are right and it should also be noted that the vast majority of male Democrats in Congress agree with Hillary. But will anyone mention it? Nope. Not here.

[Bonobo]

16. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

[Richard Steele]

18. Yes. No one ever mentions that here.

:sarcasm:

[Bonobo]

20. She's right. I only criticize warmongers with vaginas. The jig is up.

:sarcasm:

[Richard Steele]

23. She's obviously seen through my cover of criticizing male warmongers EVERY DAMN DAY.

Clearly, she's too smart for us- we're busted.

We'd better fall back to the He-Man Women-Haters clubhouse
and plan a new strategy for our Secret Mysogynist Conspiracy™!

[ButterflyBlood]

25. Right, I'm sexist

Just like I'm an anti-Semite for opposing Holy Joe Lieberman.

:sarcasm:

[rodeodance]

28. I did below (before I read your memo-----but did not mention the gender)

[Kelvin Mace]

35. Sorry, I refuse to be accused of misogyny

because I disagree with Sen. Clinton. I don't care how many Vichy and war monger Democrats agree with her, she (and they) are still wrong.

I will vote for any female Democrat who has a functioning moral compass.

Clinton is, and always has been, way too concerned about her "electability" than is doing what's right. While Iraq burned her pressing issues were flag-burning amendments and regulating violent video games. It is perfectly OK for the US government to murder real people in an illegal war, but private citizens harming imaginary people in a computer game is cause for alarm, and requires immediate action.

Get Boxer on the ticket and you have my vote.

BTW, is Cindy Sheehan a "Mysogynocrat"? She has no love for Clinton.

[Faryn Balyncd]

44. If you see no difference between permanent occupation of Iraq and "just across the border in Kuwait"

then it would appear we have a different take on reality, and a different view on the morality of our foreign policy.

[CHIMO]

5. Chalmers Johnson: “Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic"

In his new book, CIA analyst, distinguished scholar, and best-selling author Chalmers Johnson argues that US military and economic overreach may actually lead to the nation's collapse as a constitutional republic. It's the last volume in his Blowback trilogy, following the best-selling "Blowback" and "The Sorrows of Empire." In those two, Johnson argued American clandestine and military activity has led to un-intended, but direct disaster here in the United States.

Chalmers Johnson is a retired professor of international relations at the University of California, San Diego. He is also President of the Japan Policy Research Institute. Johnson has written for several publications including Los Angeles Times, the London Review of Books, Harper's Magazine, and The Nation. In 2005, he was featured prominently in the award-winning documentary film, “Why We Fight.”

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/27/1454229&mode=thread&tid=25

[regnaD kciN]

9. So, when does Hillary switch parties...?

After all, becoming a Republican would prove that she is really a "centrist," appealing to the "vast middle of the American electorate that will decide any election."

Maybe she can choose Holy Joe as her running mate, too. :eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

14. I can see it now, a "national unity ticket": Hillary/Lieberman 2008

I suppose this means that Hillary wants to keep all of our bases in Iraq as well as keep the oil.

DLC's PPI has always been the flip side of the neocon PNAC coin.

[bvar22]

56. Now THATS really scary!

"national unity ticket": Hillary/Lieberman 2008" :scared:

[leftchick]

29. she doesn't need to

most of the democrats have refused to address the permanent bases in Iraq along with the US imperial palace/embassy that halliburton has built for us. The plan all along has been to stay FOREVER. I see scant mention of these issues from anyone except DK and liberal bloggers. I think Edwards has mentioned the permanent bases but not the palace.

[Malikshah]

17. Let's see. IWR...check. Give pass to Pace...check. Beholden to AIPAC...check

dingdingdingdingding.

Looks like Joementum has a running mate!!!

[lostnotforgotten]

19. Once Gain She Gives Me And Others Reasons To NOT Vote For Her!

eom

[VegasWolf]

21. This should surprise no one except the few Hillarity supporters. nt

[BenDavid]

22. Blame HER crowd!

Damn! it seems to me that so many in here wanna blame the whole damn Iraq conflict on HER and place it all on HER shoulders more so then bush.DAMN!I believe most of HER haters in her believe that Hillary overruled the Joint Chiefs and ordered those troops to Iraq. This has nothing to do with proportion of blame - most folks just hate Hillary's guts and anybody with a hardon to hate Hillary gets the front page in today's climate.

Question: Of all the people screaming at Her today, how many gave Kerry a pass for his vote in 2004? Gee, suddenly the room got reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeal quiet.Let's have a show of hands - who forgave Kerry in 2004 for his Iraq vote, but now hates Hillary's f-ing guts for voting exactly the same way he did?

Explain why Kerry got a pass on the Iraq war vote - but she doesn't.And when asked the question: If you knew then what you know now would you still send troops? Hillary answer NO! What did Kerry answered? As clear as day standing at the grand canyon and Kerry answered. YES!

Damn folks most of you are not even consistant with your hatred for HER...

[Kelvin Mace]

36. To answer your question:

Of all the people screaming at Her today, how many gave Kerry a pass for his vote in 2004? Gee, suddenly the room got reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeal quiet.Let's have a show of hands - who forgave Kerry in 2004 for his Iraq vote, but now hates Hillary's f-ing guts for voting exactly the same way he did?

Who says I forgave Kerry. I did hold my nose and vote for him because it was imperative to get Bush out of the White House. Kerry then further disgraced himself in my eyes by refusing to fight for Ohio, despite promising he would make sure "every vote was counted."

Now, older and wiser, I will not vote for someone who has appeased Bush and stood idly by while he committed war crimes, and now says she will continue his war crimes if elected. Again, sex has NOTHING to do with this issue. I will NOT vote for ANY candidate who plans to keep troops in Iraq, PERIOD! I will not have the blood of innocents on my hands, not matter how indirectly.

This is, of course, simply my views, my decision, and my conscience.

[bvar22]

55. You REALLY need to spend some time in the archives...

...because it is CLEAR you don't know what you are talking about.

and the "Hillary Haters thing?.....Lose it.
ALL of us here are bright enough to know it is a right wing slime diversion to avoid talking about the issues. Unless you are still in pre-school, you know it too.


Are you a member of the Likud Party?
just asking.

[Dr Fate]

59. That's easy. Kerry and his supporters made it clear to me that they are now on my side.

Hillary and her "Far left"/anti-war bashing DLC and supporters has done no such thing.

To this day they still insult my intellignece by trying to tell me that Hillary was never for this war.

In fact, I dont believe a word they say.

Besides, Kerry aint running- and maybe that is good thing after all.

[TankLV]

84. I've got two words for you: "RED HERRING"...

nice try tho, old, but nice to see it hasn't gone away yet.

In case you haven't been paying attention, we DO hold all the others you try to bring up to the same standards...many DU'rs don't agree with us on that too, but we are consistant...

but this proves YOU haven't been paying attention at all or know what you are talking about with this newest disctraction...

and, in case you haven't noticed, this thread is about HILLARY'S latest lame triangulating stance, not anybody else...

I'm sure if you bothered to take the time to search, you'd find equal venom for any other person you try to dictract us with who holds similar views as Hillary is spouting...

and, if you were REALLY sincere, you'd find many recent posts where I was SUPPORTING Hillary, too...

but it is readily aparent, that you and too many others here like you who are trying to distract us with unjustfied claimes of sexism or other crap, don't know what the fuck you are talking about...

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VegasWolf]

Exactly! Hillarity's DLC group is as bad as PNAC, deep in the Corporate pockets. nt

[ElizabethDC]

26. Evidently Obama has said the same thing

see post here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3162707#3162917

[leftchick]

30. besides DK

name me another that has not said it.

[Kelvin Mace]

38. Al Gore

but sadly, he is not running. If I ever meet him, I will get on my knees and beg him to run. If he doesn't, the Republic is doomed.

[Kelvin Mace]

37. And I won't be voting for him either

I now await accusations of racism.

[DemKR]

43. he has, but he won't get criticism for it, of course nt

[Dr Fate]

60. I guess people just trust him more. n/t

n/t

[rodeodance]

27. most say to stay to fight al-quida types.

[Ethelk2044]

31. We should not do the Fighting

The Iraqi Military should be doing the fighting by then. We should only do there in a training capacity. They need to learn to stand alone. If we continue to fight, they will never learn how to do it themselves.

[Javaman]

39. Why all the screaming and yelling?

Simply put, she lost my vote.

[Faryn Balyncd]

46. Dear Hillary: And what's your position on those . . . . . fourteen . . . . ."enduring bases" ?

[ProfessorPlum]

47. Of course. After all, we can't leave those MEGABASES

built by Halliburton just stand empty, can we? We have bases in so many countries around the world - Japan, Germany, South Korea, the list is huge. Iraq will just be one more. /sarcasm

[Dr Fate]

57. But in her Iraq War Vote Speech she said she was against the war!!!!

She has always been against the war- she was never behind it- read her Iraq War Vote Speech if you dont believe me!!!

Havent you guys read all the DLC posts here at DU that clear all this up? She is AGAINST the war and always has been. She hates it.

You have read "the speech" where she said "no" to Bush's war right?

Maybe this is just to keep the inspectors there or something?

The SPEECH- stop looking at this and read THE SPEECH where she said she opposes all of this!!!!

[DemCam]

58. We have removed the dictator...

and there is no new dictator to take his place in the vacuum. Based on the history of Iraq, there is no way, yet, for these ethnic groups to live together. We are responsible for creating a volatile situation by sponsoring "democratic" elections and allowing a Shiite majority to come to "power". If our force is not present...there is no way that government holds. (I'm not sure it will hold or even should...but that's another story) What I think will happen is the emergence of a new dictator.

For this reason, I was opposed to this war. Iraq requires a stong man at this stage in its history. Unfortunately, it is us for now.

BUT

We are in a big bind and will clearly never be able to leave soon or totally....if we don't want to sit around and watch another round of slaughter even greater than exists now.

I truly think, in reading about power vacuums...the strong man always arises in order to suppress the factions. The Chinese Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, to name the most obvious big ones.

Hillary is right...Obama is right...Wes Clark is right...and whoever else is honest enough to say we cannot leave 100%.

Dennis Kucinich, as well-intentioned as I am sure he is...is wrong.

[diamidue]

61. hmmm..

>>>"We are in a big bind and will clearly never be able to leave soon or totally....if we don't want to sit around and watch another round of slaughter even greater than exists now.<<

At this late date in the game, after all the revelations that have come to light, I can't believe that anyone STILL believes that the Bush admin. actually CARES about the well-being of the Iraqi people.

[DemCam]

69. Nothing to do with Bush at all....

I mean all of us...the ones who do care. I know we have Americans who, like in Vietnam, want "to bomb them back to the Stone Age"...(btw...just read that phrase in Kurt Vonnegut's novel, Slaughterhouse Five, but it was said of Vietnam, not Iraq...which was news to me.), BUT I like to think that the majority of the folks in this country don't want to be responsible for more chaos than we already have and the rise of a new dictator...which we may not be able to prevent.)

Abandonment assures the rise of a strong manit...in my view..while keeping troops there at least buys time and may even help prevent it.

[bvar22]

73. Agree!!!!

All we have to do is stay the course and keep killing & maiming Iraqis (especially the children) until they suddenly realize that the USA is RIGHT!!!
THEN, they will submissively submit to our forced democratization (privatization) and gleefully let the US Corporations loot Iraq of their resources. The key here is that we NEED to keep murdering and maiming.....anything less will let them off the hook.
Anyone from the reality based crowd can clearly see this!


After all, this forced occupation plan has worked so well in the 20th Century.

It worked for the French in Algeria......OH, No it didn't.
It worked for the Russians in Afghanistan......OH, thats wrong too.
It worked for the US in Viet-Nam....My bad....another failure.
WOW, forced occupation really never works at all.

Where DO you "stay the course" people come from????
And THEN to claim to be "Reality Based"???

As long as the USA is KILLING Muslims, NO success is possible in the Middle East!!
We can't FIX Iraq as long as we are still BREAKING it!

DK is RIGHT, and so are the "Leave Now" people.
/rant

[EndElectoral]

64. I cannot support any candidate who advocates maintaining troops in Iraq.....how many is some?

[ShortnFiery]

67. It's only a matter of time before the LAST soldier will be helicoptered out

of Iraq. They need to resolve THEIR, I say again, *THEIR* civil war.

We need to get our imperial asses out of the entire Middle Eastern Neighborhood. It's not our territory. :thumbsdown:

I can hear it now: "We decided to leave Iraq when we were KICKED OUT." :eyes:

[Megahurtz]

72. "We need to get our imperial asses out of the entire Middle Eastern Neighborhood."

Now that's well put and to the point.
Now if only these Candidates running for Office would just get it through their ass-kissing skulls.

[camero]

71. Flip-flop already?

The campaign is just getting started and the last I haerd from her on this subject was that if elected she would end this war. Another one that fears being labeled "wimpy on defense". :dilemma:

Earth to Hillary: Real strength is in doing the right thing. But then again she's just like all the rest of the wealthy US elite. She basically admitted that it's an oil grab and for the US to completely pull out would be to compromise that grab.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, all wealth involves some form of theft, directly or indirectly.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BigDDem]

78. Is that the same Hillary that

endorsed Ned Lamont?

Just checkin'

[TankLV]

79. Stick a fork in her - she's done by my book.

I will stay home rather than vote for her on election day...

Some things are too important...

I would rather fight the good fight and be willing to LOSE rather than settle on something that is diametrically opposed to what is good and just and what I believe in.

Period.

But, I doubt she will be the nominee, so all you all set to pounce on me for not doing what's best "for the good of the party" can all take a deep breath...

[BigDDem]

82. "I will stay home rather than vote for her on election day..."

Ok, so if she is the nominee, you'll just stay home.
Way to support the Democratic candiates in Nevada, good job!!

Republicans will love you!

[DiverDave]

86. Why?, and why the repuke talk of her for the last 2 years?

because SHE'S ONE OF THEM!!

Nope, wont vote for her...she isn't "leading in the polls", she is wayy behind edwards in iowa, he would get my vote as he speaks for ME, not some DLC asshole.