Hillary now an official Iraq neocon: Calls for long-term occupation

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

Read and grit your teeth at leisure:

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P1831
http://tinyurl.com/4fkry

So now Hillary Clinton has totally defected to the War Party on the Sunday morning talk shows, calling not just for an escalation of this disastrous, bankruptcy-inducing war in Iraq but the establishment of the permanent American bases in Iraq-- precisely the factor that's been inducing so much anti-American rage in the region.

I was a big booster for Hillary back during the 2000 Senate campaign, but now her betrayal is total. I cannot believe that she has espoused this lunacy on a public forum, and extends this Iraq madness more with every statement. Bayh, Boxer, Clark, Gore, Kerry-- anybody, we have to look to someone else in 2008 b/c Hillary has become a traitor to our most basic cause.

[barbaraann]

1. I am feeling very betrayed by the Clintons today.

Every day since Nov. 2000 I have felt more and more betrayed by many Dem leaders.

[springhill]

3. I think people need to begin to realize......

that there are many Democrats our there who want Empire just like the Republicans. They know what this is really about; they are not that naive.

[FloridaPat]

19. I think a lot of them realize that life as we know it will disappear

without oil. They are all cowards too afraid to tell the public what is really going on. So they think if we invade all these countries and steal all this oil our country will be safe for 100 years or so while the rest of the world sinks into poverty.

[barbaraann]

28. Good point.

Everyone is afraid to tell the American people that the consumerist paradise is over.

[autorank]

102. Well, if this is the prototype, we might as well all buy horses.

This war has accomplished three things: (1) the rest of the world thinks we're assholes; (2) the Iraqi people hate us; and (3) an Iranian friendly regime will arise and screw us to the wall for oil.

Seeking alternative fuels is the only choice. Moran "experts" say that's futile. They do not know the history of science or how new discoveries are made. They are idiots. Hillary Clinton is an idiot and her husband is making a "buddy" documentary with W's father.

We need new leaders. Leave the Clinton's behind, way behind.

She's now a Lieberman Democrat. Way to go Clinton's. Thanks for the sell out.

We are better off without them.

On edit: BTW, she's NOT doing this to get elected to anything, certainly not re-elected in NY State. Opposition to the war is wide-spread in NY and this actually hurts. There is another reason. She may think can get re-elected despite this and then use it to her advantage in 2008 or she may just be looking at the big pay day.

[spooked911]

5. Yep.

I have lost almost all my good impressions of Bill and Hillary. At this point, they are barely distinguishable from the republicans.

[LinuxInsurgent]

79. i don't...

i knew she was a sleazy, DLC-centrist establishment, opportunistic, socialite of the upper-class Democrat elite ALL THE TIME.

Only those who were deluded into thinking she was the messiah of the left feel betrayed.

Cheers! :)

[spooked911]

2. Agree-- it is nauseating.

I saw this on JunaCole's site: "Contrary to what Hilary Clinton said in Baghdad on Saturday, this series of huge explosions does not demonstrate that the guerrilla insurgency has failed or is weakening. Rather, the attacks demonstrate that the guerrilla war is still being waged fiercely."

So Hillary is now spouting that disgraceful Bush admin. propaganda line that the insurgency is desperate whenever they attack?

No way I am EVER voting for this woman now.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

4. I've known that since she voted to give * authorization to go to war.

I swore then that I would never vote for her again.

[acmavm]

6. Hillary is like her husband, she thinks about her political career first,

what's good for the Democatic party second. Believe me, if people were screaming about how devastating the occupation is for the people of Iraq and how much it's costing us here (i.e. soldiers lives, money, etc.) she'd go the other way.

Maybe since her hubby's become such a good friend of Poppy's (thank's to Junior) she'd decided to side with their new friends. I don't know, but I do know one thing for sure, Bill Clinton did us no big favors during the election campaign, and he sure as hell hasn't done us any since then either.

[Robert Oak]

7. who believes corporations pulling the strings

have some incredible way to get to people.

Hilary voted FOR allowing credit card debt to never been discharged in bankruptcy...

that one is clearly a vote to please credit card companies and has
nothing to do with representation or fairness.

Let us not forget her involvement with the Indian caucus (India
Indians) and how she helped Tata get a strong foothold in the US
to further fire Americans and ship our jobs overseas.

Now this.

Frankly I won't vote for Republican lite otherwise known as corporate
purchased..

[Demit]

8. Gaaack! I think we have a budding Margaret Thatcher mini-me.

I want to like her, I really do, but this is more than posturing to look tough on national security. This, on top of hubby touring with Bush pere...Is it a glimpse of the true nature of things? Council of Foreign Relations stuff? Are all these folks in collusion after all?

[pauliedee]

99. She has no core

She and Bill cannot be trusted. They 'll kiss GOP's ass. We MUST get Kerry to run again!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. She's returning to her roots as a Goldwater Girl.

But, the apologists will soon be here to explain it all to us "unrealistic" ones who don't appreciate the need for "electability".

[Mark E. Smith]

10. You Folks Have Completely Missed The Point

Bush has created a situation where the entire region is primed to become a Shi'ite/Iranian suzerainty. Through his idiocy we are looking straight down the barrel of the greatest foreign relations disaster since Pearl Harbor.

And unless you relish the thought of a nuclear armed and terrorist friendly Greater Iran nurtured with Russian weaponry, you'll see that we have no choice.

Hillary is dealing with the situation as any responsible adult in an important leadership position would. She is making tough calls, and I for one admire her strength and guts.

[Dr.Phool]

13. In my analysis before the war

I told everyone who was listening, that the absolute best that would come out of this would be another Shiite Theocracy. It wasn't that hard to figure out. And it will probably deteriorate more into an Islamic version of Yugoslavia.

[barbaraann]

14. We need out-of-the-box thinking.

Our only choices are not to stay or not to stay. If I had all of the information that the government has I could probably come up with dozens of other possible solutions. Perhaps borders need to be redrawn. Perhaps the Muslim headcovering for women needs to be outlawed. I don't know the answer but I know there are more than two possible solutions.

[Mark E. Smith]

17. You May Be Right

But one thing is for sure, the usual morality politics are no longer an option. Bush has put the world into a truly dangerous position in South Asia, and his groveling for mercy in Europe now proves that even he understands the stakes.

It is going to take someone of incredible vision and strength to get things back to a manageable level. And right now I can only think of 2 people capable of such leadership:

1) Wesley Clark

2) Hillary Clinton

Can you think of anyone else? Anyone who might actually get elected?

If you thought 2004 was important, wait until 2008. The greatest leader of our times could very well be elected that year.

[barbaraann]

27. Al Gore?

What do you think?

[pauliedee]

101. Kerry much stronger candidate

Gore is weak. Couldn't beat Bush in debates then got fat and dissapeared after the election. Meanwhile Kerry clubbed Boy George like a baby seal three times and then demanded he unify the country after the election. He showed grit that Gore lacks.

Kerry is the strong candidate who the republicans fear most. He almost won with the deck stacked against him. He has more experience than Hillary Clinton and is more electable in every state.

[karynnj]

36. John Kerry

Kerry nearly won with the deck stacked against him. He has more experience than either Clark or Clinton - and may be more electable if he can before 2007 get people to know him better and totally defuse the Swiftboat nonsense. The Vietnam war and his protests -both of which he should be proud of were the only mud they could find. (Nixon had trouble finding dirt on him too.)

In fact, any candidate will have to find a creative way to get his/her biography out because the media is not our friend. (unless you think it was just Kerry they disliked. If so, think of all the nasty Dean comments.)

[Coastie for Truth]

54. There was plenty of mud on the Swifties

including O'Neill, Langston, and Hoffmann -- smoking guns in friendly fire deaths, smoking guns in cover-ups of friendly fire deaths, smoking guns in "buddy fxxking" of the families of friendly fire victims.

The DNC was given a detailed road map. And nobdoy hit back.

And there was no action (okay Langston made a "Noisy Departure" - mea culpa - from the Swifties - BFD).

[karynnj]

63. Hard to know how throwing truth back would work

Kerry did discredit the accusations, but the media gave that less play than the charges. I wonder if they were surprised that the media didn't take the slimers to task. I actually had thought after it was discredited that because of the Bush connections it would backfire.

I'm not sure a torrent of charges (not related to Kerry) against the slimers would have helped much and Kerry would have been hurt if even one of the charges was slightly inaccurate in any way.

ON MTP, Kerry alluded to things on their records - when he was asked about his own, are these what he's referring to? It must have been harder for you knowing these things to watch they creeps getting the coverage they did. (though the rest of us heard Brinkley's comments about Hoffman and how he toned negative things down for the book.)

[knight_of_the_star]

89. He was too slow

And when he hit he didn't hit hard enough. He waited I think at least a week or two to respond and that was a week or two too long, it let the story take root.

[TruthIsAll]

59. Kerry "nearly" won? No, Kerry WON. And he capitulated.

Unlike Gore, who fought as hard as he could for as long as he could, Kerry just gave up the ghost, knowing that he was scammed.

He let down millions who worked their asses off and contributed to the campaign.

As for the Clinton's, they make me sick.

Gore, Edwards, Dean and Clark are our only hope.

[pauliedee]

103. Gore disappeared, got fat and grew a beard

Gore is weak. He Couldn't beat Bush in debates then got fat and dissapeared after the election. Meanwhile Kerry clubbed Boy George like a baby seal three times and then demanded he unify the country after the election. He showed the grit that Gore lacks.

Kerry is the strong candidate who the republicans fear most. He almost won with the deck stacked against him. He has more experience than Hillary Clinton and is more electable in every state.

[pauliedee]

100. Kerry strikes fear in the GOP

John Kerry's near win with the deck stacked against him rattled the republicans. They had to watch helplessly while he slammed Boy George like a rag doll three times which is a lot more than we can say for Gore. Not even a hidden microphone could save Boy George.

Trust me...they do NOT want to face Kerry again. If not for wartime incumbency, John Kerry would be president.

He is a much better candidate than Clinton, Clark or any other democrat. We know he has the grit to withstand smears in a long campaign. Hillary will have fainting spells. Let's do it again!

[knight_of_the_star]

88. Wes Clark

That man would be a better choice, he never has tacked around the political winds or compromised his principals and knows how to get along with other countries and get them to do what he would like them to do.

[pauliedee]

104. Clark good for cabinet position

He would be good secretary of state or defense. But he would not be a great president like Kerry could be. Kerry can handle domestic issues that Clark can't.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

24. No, we haven't,

because the point is that our extremely unpopular garrisoning of permanent bases in the region is precisely what's exacerbating such bitter opposition to the US (including the insurgency) in the first place, fanning the flames of terrorism, and encouraging the Iranians in their nuke program. Hillary is clueless about the true root causes of all the anti-American agitation in the region: The Arabs there see our military bases as a 21st-century send-up of British and French colonialism from the early 1900s, which the locals still remember and deeply resent. As long as we station our troops there and occupy those countries, the insurgency and, regrettably, groups like al-Qaeda will continue to expand their membership.

[welshTerrier2]

30. well, someone has missed the point

let's see, we could perhaps execute the Iranian leaders and, oh, i don't know, maybe put another Shah puppet into power ... then, with support from the U.S. government, this Shah could kill millions of Iranian citizens ... maybe that would work out a little better this time ...

or perhaps we could continue to prop up the Saudi regime ... or maybe we could build permanent military bases in Iraq to serve the best interests of the Iraqi people ...

but of course, the best of all plans would be to topple Saddam, create a massive power vacuum, and help bring a pro-Iranian Party to power in Iraq ...

nuclear weapons in Iran may indeed be a serious problem that the U.S. needs to address ... but the U.S. foreign policy is so morally bankrupt that we continue to grow weaker and weaker due to a lack of international support ... the U.S. needs to regain its image in the world ... we will not do this by building permanent bases in sovereign nations ... we will not do this by insulting "Old Europe" ... we will not do this by showing continued disdain for the U.N. ... we will not do this by walking out of arms limitation talks and environmental treaties like the Kyoto treaty ... we will not do this by talking about the use of tactical nuclear weapons ... we will not do this by exploiting the oil resources of the Middle East or propping up tyrannical governments in the region ...

until the U.S. seeks to become the good guys again, the risks to this country will continue to grow ... the U.S. will not be able to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle forever ... until we learn that the only way to grow stronger and safer is by returning to the moral high ground, we will not achieve peace ... radical Islam did not come about because of what Americans believe in; it came about because of the abuses Americans have done in the Middle East ... the road to peace and security will be achieved by introspection and a change in U.S. conduct, not by bombs and invasions ...

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

34. Amen to all of this

Excellent summary of what's so damagingly wrong with our foreign policy.

[Chico Man]

46. 14 permanent US military bases in Iraq

Shi'ites or no Shi'ites. Think about that.

(edit, make that 14)

[YvonneCa]

61. Thank you for saying this...

..I did not agree to the war, but we were sent by this administration. Now we have to make it right. This is in ALL our interests.:think:

[dameocrat]

68. That is a phony crisis too

just like the WMD in Iraq. El Baredi at the International Atomic Energy Agency has found no evidence of any nuclear program in Iran. Neocons are lying to us again. Just more mushroom cloud fear mongering.

[Skwmom]

93. Didn't she help create the situation by giving Bush a blank

check to go to war? She was down right giddy today in her interviews. But then again she doesn't have to worry about her child getting killed or horribly maimed in Iraq.

[Mark E. Smith]

106. You Sound A Bit Like Rush Limbaugh

He likes to talk about all the Democrats in Congress who believed Bush's bullshit about Iraq as well.

But shouldn't you know better?

[Dr.Phool]

11. Let's nominate Spitzer

To run against her in the primary!

She's made a lot of questionable votes since she's been elected. Dem unity is one thing. Selling out is quite another.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

37. Have wondered about a 2006 NY primary challenge

I've been afraid to suggest this before b/c I was worried it would hamper our attempts to regain a Senate majority, but after Hillary's latest meanderings-- it's reaching "straw that broke the camel's back" levels. I'd say that if no strong alternative emerges we should hold our nose and support Hillary for NY Senator in 2006 (though not for the 2008 nomination, obviously) since it'll help us to inch closer to recapturing the Senate. OTOH if Eliot Spitzer polls well or demonstrates strong favorables, and can recruit a strong campaign team, I'd say bring him on board in the primaries.

I thought about the prospect of drawing Colin Powell over to the Democratic fold since he does seem to have been the one person who kept Bush from invading Iraq right after the 9/11 attacks (and focusing instead on al-Qaeda in the Afghanistan camps), but I'm still nauseated from that "bioweapons trailer" performance before the UN. And he probably wouldn't run on our side anyway. Spitzer might be an excellent choice, and if nothing else, if he were to prevail, it would force the media to just shut up with all the Hillary hype after 2006 so that we could focus on nominating a real Democrat for the '08 contest. I'm not yet convinced, but if he can demonstrate that he'd be a contender, I'd certainly support it.

[Geek_Girl]

76. I thought Spitzer was running for Gov

eom

[katinmn]

12. Disgusting. She compares the bloodbath in Iraq to

our "occupation" of Okinawa for 50 years.

Yup. She'll do anything to get elected. Too bad cuz she had a shot at the presidency at one time.

[2diagnosis]

98. now the media will use

her talking points to say that the leading Dems support *'s policies- ?@%!!

[joanski01]

15. I have always wondered why, since

Clinton was given the PNAC plans while he was President, they let this attack on Iraq happen. The top Dems just let the neocons go forward. Dems in Congress rolled over and let it happen. I'm sick!!

[KittyWampus]

43. Clinton Was Given The PNAC Plans While POTUS? Got A Link For That?

[mattclearing]

53. I'm sure he was aware of it.

Hard to believe that a document calling for a Pax Americana, signed by the people who had run against him, and demonized him for the past six years or so went unnoticed in the Oval Office.

Of course, it's possible that he was occupied.

But no, Congress settled on a policy of regime change while Clinton was in office, and he signed off on it, so chances are he was down with the PNAC.

[AntiCoup2K4]

74. He was definitely notified of their agenda.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

And it was soon after this letter that Clinton allowed "regime change" to become the official policy toward Iraq, even though he did not invade Iraq himself. So clearly the PNAC'ers did influence his foreign policy to some extent.

However, I'm willing to give Bill the benefit of the doubt at that point, because 1) He had no reason to assume that a group which contained many of Bush Sr's defense advisors would be outright LYING to the President of the United States, and 2) Scott Ritter's team had not yet finished their inspections at this point - and found that Saddam in fact had no weapons.

[FloridaPat]

84. Busco brought this up in Sept right before the 2002 election. It was

all he could talk about besides the Dems being unpatriotic because of the Homeland Security Dept holdup. Bush wouldn't shut up. The UN was waiting for Congress to make a decision before they did their final vote on Iraq. 90% of the world was against the invasion. The letters to Congress were 100:1 against the bill. The Dems decided to get rid of the whole thing by voting on it not believing the idiot would actually attack. They were either for it or incredibly stupid.

[Coastie for Truth]

16. Colin Powell's Pottery Barn Theory

"WE" broke it. Therefore "WE" own it. (i.e., "WE" have to pay for it)

"WE" broke it -- That place is going to descend into civil war - even worse then now -- after we leave. The question is how soon after we leave, and how bloody.

"WE" own it -- "WE" do have some kind of "Marshall Plan" obligation to the Iraqis whose country "WE" screwed up -- and "WE" do have some, at least, moral obligation to the innocent Iraqi civilians whose lives, and businesses, and families "WE" screwed up.

That's the Colin Powell "Pottery Barn" Model in a nutshell.

"WE" broke it. Therefore "WE" own it. (i.e., "WE" have to pay for it)

Just like "WE" unleashed an earthquake or hurricane or tsunami on it. "WE" have collective guilt for the sins of the NeoCons.

[thebigidea]

31. we or "we" don't own shit, it was never ours to own to begin with

if you think America can own Iraq, try driving down one of its highways.

[Coastie for Truth]

41. In the "Pottery Barn Rule" use of "Own"

we broke it -- so we have to fix it.

[thebigidea]

50. repeating it doesn't make it any more applicable.

... why peddle Colin Powell's bullshit? He's already disgraced and waiting for speaking invitations. His idiot simplifications and wishful thinking helped sell us this delusion.

He wasn't right then, he certainly isn't right now.

[Coastie for Truth]

51. So - we just go in uninvited,

screw up their economy and infrastructure, kill their innocent people, orphan their children, widow their women, steal their oil, and say "excuse me" and leave.

That's the Neo-Con way.

I am not a defender of Bush's personal NeoCon war.
There was no link between AlQaida and Iraq.
There were no WMD's.
There was just Bush's Texas cowboy macho ego (all hat, all bull crap, no cows).
Bush lied -- people died ---- lots of people.
This is a diversion from serious economic problems here at home.

But we screwed up Iraq and the Iraqis- all by our freakin' selves.

[thebigidea]

60. it is pure delusion to think we'll be able to fix anything

just as idiotic as thinking we can own a sovereign nation.

neither pottery barn nor reality actually work by this "rule" Colin pulled out of his colon.

... and its ridiculous to think that the neocon way involves leaving a country they need bases in. they have no intention of leaving... apologizing, paying for damages, investing in Iraqi engineers and construction companies from afar, pulling out Bechtel and Halliburton, pulling out Allawi, Al-Whore-a, and tens of thousands of troops is not the "Neocon way" - its the only decent way out of this.

[Coastie for Truth]

69. That's the fun of being Democrats

we can agree to disagree and have fun doing it.

[thebigidea]

75. Colin Powell, the great Democrat

[Guaranteed]

91. Yeah, that theory rests on the idea that we CAN fix it.

I just don't think we can. In fact, it seems like a big part of the problem is US.

[The Crazy Canadian]

18. She voted for and continue to be a strong supporter of the Iraq war.

A recent PNAC document calling for a larger military force was signed by a bunch of liberal hawks who held top positions in the Clinton Administration.

[KittyWampus]

44. A Document Surfaced Which Was Signed By A Few PNAC Proponents

and also some of Clinton's Administration... that doesn't mean the Democrats who signed were PNAC'ers.

[AntiCoup2K4]

73. Would you sign a document that came from those fucking traitors?

I know I wouldn't. I will not support even 1% of the PNAC agenda, nor will I support anybody who does. Those who willingly collaborate with KNOWN traitors are without excuse.

[comradebillyboy]

20. her position is perfectly reasonable

the united states, under bush's leadership fucked up iraq in a major way. it would be immoral and unethical to leave without at least re-establishing some sort of civil order. i was totally opposed to the invasion, but now we are obliged to repair what we fucked up.

her position is one supported by the majority of americans i think. and she has a coherent position, unlike kerry.

[Domitan]

22. Difference between you and her

she never opposed the invasion. Blood is on her hands.

[Benhurst]

29. Repair, yes. But not steal their oil and plant permanent military

bases on THEIR soil.

[karynnj]

39. Kerry's plan is quite coherent to me

the difference w/ Hillary is permanent bases where Kerry agrees with Kennedy that this goal makes us part of the problem as an occupying force,.

[welshTerrier2]

40. kerry and kennedy agree ??

well, perhaps, as you pointed out, they agree on NOT building permanent U.S. bases in Iraq ...

but the agreement comes to an abrupt halt when you consider that Kerry plans to vote for additional funding to help achieve "victory" in Iraq ... I don't know for sure but i would be very surprised if Kennedy votes for the $81.9 billion supplemental budget request for Iraq ...

and Kennedy has also called for a withdrawal timetable and an immediate beginning of troop withdrawal ... when asked on MTP whether he agreed with Senator Kennedy's proposals, Senator Kerry cleary and succinctly responded: "No."

[karynnj]

45. But both Kerry and Kennedy said they were not far apart

When Kerry was on MTP, he answered "no" on setting a time for withdrawal and to immediately bring home 12,000? soldiers -both of which Kennedy had asked for, Then Kerry went on to describe in detail that his and Kennedy's differences were in process and that they agreed on goals. Primarily no long term occupation.

Then 2 weeks later when Kennedy was on MTP, Russert played only Kerry's 2 "nos" and asked about there disagreement - Kennedy's answer was similar to Kerry's. Apparently, they see themselves more in agreement or disagreement. (Both are strong enough on their own not to fake common ground when it doesn't exist.)

The supplemental includes Tsunami aid, the increased death benefit for soldiers killed since 911-which Kerry proposed over 2 years ago, and other benefits for troops. Kerry has been pushing many soldier and veteran benefits that he is lobbying for inclusion. The funding will pass, Kerry seems to be fighting for the troops to be the focus of it.

[welshTerrier2]

55. no more money for war

i saw a pie chart a few days ago (sorry, no link) that showed the largest chunk of funding going for continued operations in Iraq ... point one is that bush has already requested a massive increase in the defense budget to more than $400 billion ... he should be "living within his means" and scaling back some of the bloated, corporate-supporting, extraneous weapons systems ... he should NOT be given additional funds for Iraq ...

pushing for more "support the troops" funding is all well and good, but more money will do nothing but enable bush to continue the PNAC program in the Middle East ...

regardless of whether Kennedy and Kerry want to "make nice" or not, the bottom line is that Kerry will vote to give bush more funding and I strongly suspect Kennedy will not ... that's a huge difference in their positions ... you're right to suggest that the funding will be approved but that doesn't justify, at least in my mind, a vote to support it ...

btw, just as an aside, I thought you argued your position on this very well ...

[LittleClarkie]

64. The way to stop a war is not to yank the funding first

That seems ass backwards to me. As long as they are out there in harm's way, the soldiers need weapons, body armor, vehicle armor and the like.

We're either ending the war or we're not. If Bush can not be made to stop the war, we can't stop providing the soldiers ways to defend themselves. Unless you think the way to stop the war is to kill all the soldiers on the American side. Yeah, that'd probably work, but I'd prefer another solution.

The war must be stopped in another way. Where the hell are the protests!

The main problem is, we have no assurances that the money is going to the soldiers' needs, and not into Haliburton's pocket. One thing I like about Kerry's approach is that he's trying to get military family aid onto the thing. He's trying to get money earmarked to actually help the military and it's families survive this thing. I think that will be his tactic this time. Last time he tried to get an alternate supplimental bill passed with returning soldier benefits in it. No go. He's trying it this time a different way.

I just read today that most of the money alloted to port defense is unspent. That seems to be the MO of this administration. We all know that most of the 87 billion likely didn't go where it was supposed to. Considering the new money is likely to pass, the game now is to make sure the money goes where it's really needed. And that is not in Dick Cheney's pocket.

Kerry and Kennedy differ on their timelines mainly. Kennedy wants right away; Kerry wants a longer time table. As he has said, wrong war at the wrong time, but now that we're there, we can't just say "See ya." Even people like Kusinich and Dean had plans that called for stabilization and training first IIRC. None of them are that far apart in this area.

[welshTerrier2]

66. well, you made most of my points for me

bush will not spend the extra money Kerry is going to vote for on anything but prolonged occupation ... he already has a multi-hundred billion dollar defense budget ... if he wants to spend money on the troops, there are billions of dollars in the Pentagon budget that could easily be used ...

I have no objection to Kerry's push to get better protection for the troops ... but let's deal with reality here ... all his vote will end up doing is allow bush to say he has "the support of the Congress" ... check with me a year from now, or two years, or three years and let me know when Kerry will "stop supporting the troops" because he now realizes that more funding will only prolong the war and not protect the troops ...

one point you made that I couldn't agree with MORE is that we are either in this or we are not ... that's exactly right ... and I am NOT IN THIS ... do i want the U.S. to fail? No. do i want a stable Iraq? Yes. do i want civil war? No. the problem is, there will NEVER be stability in Iraq while U.S. troops remain ... even on the heavily controlled MSM, it couldn't be more clear ... the size of the insurgency is GROWING, not shrinking ... even Porter Goss has acknowledged we're building a breeding ground for the spread of terrorism worldwide ... so, you are right ... we are either in this or we are not ... everyday we stay the course puts this country and the cause of global peace at greater risk ...

[karynnj]

72. I do have some of the same worries you express

Two of my teenage daughters and I went to the DC antiwar rally in (jan/feb) 2003. I had hoped that with the weapons being destroyed in Iraq by the inspectors that this nightmare could have been avoided. I see now, that nothing the the Congress or protesters could have said or done would have stopped Bush at that point or really any earlier point.

Some of Kerry's statements while questioning Rice and in some interviews, do sound as though he may take a stronger position if things continue as they are or get worse. I think he's in kind of an awkward situation because if he would have won, he would have had the ability to use the exit strategy he specified and I can think of no reason to think he wouldn't have done so.

He clearly feels that simply pulling out leaving a failed state with huge oil reserves (power) in the biggest hot spot in the world would be catastrophic. How (other than by saying * can't be trusted) can he refuse to vote for things Bush asks for that he would have asked for himself, The difference is Bush is not trust worthy - so if Kerry and others in good faith trust him,they could inadvertently make him more dangerous On this vote, Bush is likely to get well over the votes he needs. I am more concerned about Kerry's legitimate argument that the military is over stretched. My concern is that if the force is expanded it will simply be a larger maximally over stretched military.

Kerry may feel that by positioning himself on the side of the soldiers' getting what they need and simultaneously pushing his own plan he might be able to eventually get bipartisan support to fight Bush's plan or more realistically give the Democrats the ability to use this issue in 2006. (Bipartisan support for a real exit strategy, though unlikely, may be the only real long term solution and only if Bush cares about the political cost. - many of Bush I's people are closer to Kerry than Bush on this. There may be enough Republicans who reject PNAC. Where do older Republicans like Lugar stand?)

It was weird reading Kerry's 1971 testimony at the same time of the first debate where they were discussing Iraq. Now that the election is over and he is not in the position to control how the war is ended, it has to be weird to be one of the committee that he implored to take a stand to leave Vietnam years ago. Reading Kerry's statement (on his Senate web site) I do think that he genuinely cares for the troops. Also, for whatever reason, I trust Kerry more than any political figure of my life.

[pauliedee]

105. Kerry is stronger candidate

Kerry is the strong candidate who the republicans fear most. He almost won with the deck stacked against him. He has more experience and grit than Hillary Clinton and is more electable in every state.

Gore couldn't beat Bush in debates, then got fat, grew a beard and disappeared after the 2000 election only to return last year with screams. Meanwhile, Kerry clubbed Boy George like a baby seal while the republicans waatched helplessly three times. He also demanded Bush unify the country after the election. He showed grit that Gore lacks.

[Vinnie From Indy]

21. Yet ANOTHER Dem Bashing thread!!! Thanks!!!! Your doing Rove's work!

Is this NOT obvious to anyone?

[Domitan]

23. Bah

I'm just glad that the disease of Groupthink has not taken over all of us here on DU.

[stray cat]

25. No danger of group think on DU.

Sometimes we don't even include the "think".

[Coastie for Truth]

58. That's the fun of being a Democrat (esp a heavy volunteer)

It's like herding cats (like felis margarita cats)

Link to the little guys -- http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/agarman/sandcat.htm -- mean and independent

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

26. No, Rove would be actively working to get Hillary nominated

since she would send GOP fundraisers into a tizzy and basically fill up their campaign war chest immediately-- and probably force us to suffer one of worst electoral defeats in decades. The way to beat Rove is to deny him what he wants, to refuse playing into his hands, and that's to nominate somebody he's not expecting. Bayh, Boxer, Clark, Gore, even a Kerry re-run-- he'd get cold sweats since it wouldn't be in his particular game plan.

[welshTerrier2]

33. NO, you're doing bush's work

oh, excuse anyone who does not agree with a Democrat ...

i mean, how can anyone dare be critical of someone who support bush's position for continued occupation ... it's probably fine with you if we criticize a republican who takes the exact same position that Mrs. Clinton has taken ... but, on no, if a Democrat said it then it must be OK ...

you're the one doing rove's work for him ... the occupation that Mrs.. Clinton is calling for is imperialism ... we invaded a sovereign country based on a pack of lies and now we're supposed to agree with continued occupation ??? get real ...

if the Democratic Party does not give every Democrat a real voice on this issue, the Party will indeed suffer a serious rift ... whining about those who hate this war and who will not go along like sheep to the slaughter with the misguided Democrats who call for more war is not going to change that ...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. Hillary's doing Rove's work. Didn't you notice what she said?

Is this NOT obvious to you?

[LdyGuique]

The US has built 14 permanent bases in Iraq

Halliburton has built 14 permanent military bases in Iraq -- of which it is speculated that 4 or 5 will be permanently manned by US troops for years to come. This is part of the neocon PNAC strategy -- a permanent presence in the ME. Lame Duck and Rumsfeld are being deliberately disingenuous about setting a date for pullout as they have no plans to do so.

It would appear that this information is being circulated behind the scenes in the House and Senate and I would expect to here a rising tide of support for a permanent presence over the upcoming months before it is widely publicized that we've already built the bases with an intent to remain.

Hillary started out life as a Republican and it appears that she's slowly circling around to become one again. I have to admit that I was very unsettled by her backing Tata as I'm adamantly opposed to current policies of offshore outsourcing and the plethora of work visas being handed out for onshore outsourcing to imported Indian workers. There is NO evidence that in country jobs cannot be filled by qualified American job candidates.

The Clintons began their Repug-lite days when he first ran.

Personally, I've been spending time on LewRockwell.com and reading some of their listed columnists, such as Paul Craig Roberts, Fred Reed, and Jacob Hornberger. Paul Craig Roberts has been a darling of the conservatives for years, but not of the neocons. He does a better job at trashing the neocons and the Administration than most Democrats.

Libertarians have always been a mix of independent thinkers, ranging the spectrum from both extremes. Somewhere along the way, they've been categorized as RW -- not true. They just aren't very PC nor do they groupthink on all issues -- each person has his/her own take on issues, one-by-one.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[DemocracyInaction]

35. Doing a Monica on the American public is not going to work

As some billionair friend of the Clintons and big Dem supporter from Hollywood was quoted on Crossfire talking to other friends in NY: He said that Hillary should not run for President because she cannot win because she is too polarizing---and he concluded in essence he doesn't give a shit that it's her personal ambition. AMEN. Do they really think that this "I'm Georgie's Monica" bit will make her the warm fuzzy choice of the Dem Party and a resounding vote into office by the American people?? Not in this lifetime, dear. She is just making it worse for the whole damn party. I wish the two of them would go away now....I really do.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

38. This was David Geffen, wasn't it?

I heard something about this.

[zulchzulu]

42. She was muttering RNC talking points ad nauseum in an endless loop on MTP

I could have sworn something was in my coffee when I was watching her out-hawk McCain on Meet The Russert today.

There seemed to be absolutely no difference between her and McCain. I was in the other room when she responded about running for President...I'm sure I would have hurled chunks if I had seen her answer that question.

[Benhurst]

49. It's amazing the number of Democrats who will defend

Hillary and Bill no matter what they do. Sometimes I fear we are as bad as the Repubs when it comes to blindly following our "leaders."

For starters, wouldn't it be nice to belong to a party whose leadership draws the line at torture, murder, and illegal, immoral wars?

[zulchzulu]

86. The Clintons play Top-40 tunes when I'd rather hear jazz

Sometimes they tend to be sellouts.

[Chico Man]

47. Ever wonder how many times the Clinton's bombed Iraq?

Where would Bushie have been without them?

Without Clinton, the Iraq people would have been able to defend themselves against Bush's invasion into Bagdhad. We wouldn't want that, now, would we?

See the US Bombing watch for the god-awful truth.

http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html

[Dr Fate]

48. I'm glad- she is destroying her chances for the 2008 primaries...

She really is- the war will be even more unpopular by then. WHERE are we going to get the money & troops from???

I like Hill on several levels, but I did NOT want to see her as the nominee- and this guarantees that I wont.

These big-wig DEMS are really out of touch.

[BobF]

108. Out of touch indeed...

Is this the same Hillary Rodham Clinton who once (correctly) warned us all of the 'Vast Right-Wing conspiracy'?

Doesn't she remember which group impeached her husband, and falsely savaged her reputation for YEARS?

Hillary...a little advice...beware trying to befriend vipers. They will strike at you no matter how carefully you try to embrace them.

Hillary is either much smarter than I am, or else too dumb for words. I figure that the "smarter" case is true, and that there is some Grand Plan in play here, but I'll be darned if I can figure out what it is.

"Watch out for snakes!"

[mattclearing]

52. Just more proof that the Party establishment will drag us along...

...kicking and screaming, unless we replace them.

I liked Bill, but I think Hillary is positioning herself poorly. She is like our other leaders in the Senate the past five years...unsure of, or afraid to stand up for, our ideals.

She is basically standing up for an Imperial Democratic Party.

And it disqualifies her for my support until there is no non-Republican alternative.

I suggest anyone who opposes a prolonged adventure in Iraq, and the establishment of permanent bases there, should find another hopeful to support when the time comes.

Of course, we could be out of Iraq by '08, for all Hillary knows.

It's so early.

But this still is poor judgment on her part.

[democracyindanger]

56. Hilarious

All the knee-jerk reactions based on second and third hand remarks about the interview. I wonder how many folks in this thread actually saw it.

[Cha]

57. This is Tom Tomorrow's take on Iraq..

[Disturbed]

67. The Big Dawg and his wife...

have been shrewd operators. The Rethugs would love to have Hillary be the Dem nominee. They are pushing for that already. She is positioning herself to be acceptable to Moderate Repubs and RW Dems. Even RW Dems seem like liberals when compared to the dominant Rethugs who are now Fascists and Fundies. Moderate Dems are like Moderate Repubs in that they are at the bottom of the totem pole in their parties.

Some say that she doesn't know what is going on. I think she does and is playing to her Corp. sponsors. Bill and Hill are a team that play for the Multi-Natls.

[detroitguy]

62. Not sure what her game is

Maybe she feels that she can sell her soul to get elected and then pass national healthcare to win back salvation. Not sure it'll work, though. By 2008, I think support for the Iraq war will be seen as a political "taint" on any candidate. Both parties will be seeking to be seen as the party that can end the war.

[Cha]

71. "60% Americans want an opposition party"..

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/02/17/americans_want_an_opposition_party.html

[CWebster]

70. I would not expected any less from her, but

it is hard to wake people up about her because they assume she must be the liberal the Right paints her as.

Couldn't help but notice she was dissembling, Condoleeza style, this morning.

[Igotsunshine]

77. This isn't politics, her heart is beating red, white and blue.

As an American, she is offering the best way for our country to make the most out of an unspeakably horrendous situation. We can't put the shit back in the dog, we can't undo W's lies, so we gotta do the best we can with the situation as it exists today. Not how we want it to be but how it is. Now, we democrats can either light a candle in the darkness or we can merely curse at the darkness. Hillary is trying to light a candle and I admire her for it. Very simply, God knows we shouldn't be there. It was a tragic mistake to go in. But, now that we are there, we can't leave until the Iraqi's can run their own country . . . however long that takes. The alternative, a country run by Islamic militants is too awful to contemplate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

78. Ah, yes, the good old Red, White and Blue.

"We have to stay there until the Iraqis can run their own country."

What makes you think that the Iraqis can't run their own country right now? Perhaps the Iraqis will choose a country "run by Islamic miltants", as you fear. What then? Do we hang around and kill them until they are able to "run their own country" the way Bush and the imperialists want?

Can't you see the irony of what you (and, Hillary) are advocating?

[LdyGuique]

81. And, this is precisely why many have called Iraq another Quagmire. . .

In fact, it's the Mother of All Quagmires or MOAQ.

Anyone with any sense of history, especially since the end of WWII knows that the Middle East is a roiling, boiling pot of explosive differences. We certainly expect our government to know this -- they pay big bucks for expert advice. And, the ONLY reason that most have even a minor interest in the topic is due to oil--oil in immense reserves underlying nearly all of the Middle East.

How many know the differences between the two major branches if Islam? Or the cause? Or the historical bloodbath over it? How many know much about Wahabinism? There are Sunnis, Shiia (aka Ishmali) and the avide fundanmentalist reformers: the Wahabi. ANYone who messes with the status quo is quite capable of unleashing violence and bloodshed of an unimaginable magnitude. (See A good and simply written overview}

And, unfortunately, I must agree that we are well and truly quagged now, if only to stop the bloodbath to come. Oddly enough, Syria has the most to gain by allying with us as they are the only secular Islamic state in the ME. However, several permanent bases with a relative handful of troops (30,000) isn't going to be enough to stop the jihadist wars to come.

I suspect that 90% of the Congress will come to the same unfortunate conclusion, that in order to prevent this bloodbath, which we've allowed to gain a major foothold, it will require a permanent military presence. There is no way that this doesn't severely piss me off and I suspect most of the Democrats in Congress.

All because they lacked the strength of character to require that this war be "declared by Congress," rather than by an Executive Order from Bush. It's unlikely that the declaration of War would have happened from Congress. Until Congress takes control of its responsibilities and Constitutionally-defined duties, we will slide further and further over the edge into the abyss of an expanding war.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

94. However long that takes?

Classic quasi-Orwellian phrase for "as long as there's oil in the ground that we can filch and use as a bargaining chip in potential conflicts with other future superpowers"-- i.e. the neocon attitude summed up. I read Hillary's statements and she very clearly opts on the side of establishing "permanent bases" in Iraq, which is exactly what's been inflaming the Middle East in the first place. This is what Hillary and so many others pushing for these permanent bases are so clueless about-- people in Middle Eastern countries see those bases as a modern send-up of European colonialism, which they detest to an extreme. They don't dislike America b/c they "hate our freedom and democracy"; they dislike us b/c they hate to be colonized (or to suffer what they perceive as colonialism, fairly or not).

We in the USA are infamously ahistorical which gets is into big trouble, b/c other places remember their history. In the Middle East, the Arab people remember the rapacity of the British and French colonialists in the early 1900s, and they react with extreme violence to it. Remember that the British suffered by far the most military defeats during their colonial days in Arab/Muslim countries: The Brits were defeated three times in Afghanistan, in Iraq (1920s), in Egypt (Suez, 1956), and in Aden (1960s). The French also got a bloody nose of their own in Algeria, as we all know. After the US bases were established in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War and made permanent (breaking Cheney's original promise in 1991), the Saudis became furious about it. We don't read the Arab press much, but there was almost daily ranting about how the US was effectively colonizing Saudi Arabia with the bases. The point being, that those people absolutely hate foreign colonization-- or even the impression of it-- and react violently to it.

What keeps vexing me is why in the world we need the damn bases in Iraq in the first place. We already have the bases in Kuwait, with a population that actually *does* support us and doesn't mind the installations there. If the whole point is to prevent any major disruption, the Kuwait bases are fine for that. So why the additional bases in Iraq and in the Gulf, which are wildly unpopular? The only reason for those bases is a forward imperialistic policy, i.e. to actively deny oil to India, China and Europe as an act of war. This is the sort of blithering idiocy that we can't tolerate-- the neocon wet dreams about the US swaggering around like an old 19th-century colonial power. We don't have the ability to do that anymore.

It doesn't help that Hillary herself seems to be espousing the same sort of neocon drivel. She too appears to be utterly ignorant of the history of the region, especially that of Iraq, which was one of the first countries in the world to be terror-bombed (Arthur "Bomber" Harris beginning his distinguished career of bombing innocent civilians-- the Nazis later on were merely following the British model in Iraq). So the Iraqis see the new "imperial" power after the fall of Britain-- the USA-- attempting the same sort of scheming as took place in the 1920s. They don't want us to establish permanent bases there, and Hillary seems incapable of grasping this.

[EVDebs]

80. On to Iran ! eom

[ChiciB1]

82. I've Always Felt The Clinton's Were To The Right

of me. However, because of the accomplishments it's hard to argue that they didn't play the "game" very well.

I see a change in the wind and we want to return to our roots. And the Clintons aren't the real "base" of the Democratic Party. I think we are forging ahead with our agenda and the DLC is beginning to look a little weak. I could be wrong here, but my hopes are high.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND The REPUKES!! A BIG difference!

If the Clintons want to cozy up to the Bushies, it will all come out in the wash!

[ckramer]

83. Hillary supports Iraq occupation, Kerry supports 81 billion for Iraq

Oh isn't that great? I'm going to vote Ted Kennedy for president!

[karynnj]

92. And Kennedy Supports Kerry

at least per reports of a Boston Party for campaign worker that Kerry and Kennedy were at

[Snellius]

85. Even Newt said how much he was impressed by her

and on FOX no less.

[many a good man]

87. To be a player you have to establish creds with TPTB

Both Sens. Kerry and Clinton know this well. The back room, bipartisan consensus was we have to have permanent bases in Iraq to protect the oil supply. The only disagreement was how to pull it off. Some wanted to go the slow way but Bush wanted to go the cowboy way.

Sixty years later we still have our bases in Germany and Japan. We will have bases in Iraq until the last drop of oil has been pumped out of the Middle East. Get used to it.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

95. Then we're going to suffer brutal terrorist attacks for that entire period

and go into deep debt, reduced to the status of a third-rate power. People in countries like Germany and Iceland don't seem to mind our bases there b/c they don't impose on the local population too much. (And it goes two ways-- Germany has some bases in the USA, in Texas IIRC.) OTOH Arabs in the Middle East know what those bases imply and they see colonization, and they react violently to it.

The point here is very basic: The people of Iraq don't want those damn permanent bases, and if the people want us to leave, IT'S TIME FOR US TO LEAVE!!! Our bases in Kuwait are more than adequate for guarding the oil supply-- we don't need the damn ones in Iraq. They're a waste of valuable resources, and a waste of the irreplaceable lives of our brave soldiers.

[IronLionZion]

90. Worst Democratic defeat in history

she's lose the liberal vote and she doesn't have the conservative vote to lose. If McCain gets the Repub nomination, then she's fucked. :wtf: is she trying to prove?

yeah, she's my NY senator and has done some good, but this woman can not be allowed to run for president. Stop Hillary Now!

I hope the good Senator Boxer runs and cancels out Hillary's vote.

[Placebo]

96. Hillary '08

:)

[journalist3072]

97. No she did not.

I heard her on MTP. She DID NOT, I repeat, DID NOT, call for some long term occupation of Iraq. Tim Russert asked her if she thought there should be some target date for withdrawal of US troops. She said they (the US Congressional delegation) asked some of the Iraqi leaders the same thing---at this time, should there be some target withdrawal date? And she said they all told them no.

But she DID NOT call for long term occupation. Her comments today, and her overall position on Iraq, should not be misrepresented.

[Democrat Dragon]

107. boy oh boy!

can things be taken out of context here!

[journalist3072]

109. I know....it's ridiculous!

People really need to go back and listen to and/or read her comments.