Clinton pledges support for Continued US troops in Iraq... beyond 2009

[Tom Joad]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11100906/

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democratic presidential candidate, said in a New York Times interview that if elected she would maintain a scaled-down American military force in Iraq that would stay off the streets in Baghdad and no longer would try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence.

She cited “remaining vital national security interests” for a continued deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq aimed at fighting al-Qaida, deterring Iran, protecting Kurds and possibly supporting the Iraqi military, the newspaper reported Wednesday night on its Web site.

She said her plan was consistent with the Senate resolution, saying it called for “a limited number” of troops to stay in Iraq to protect the U.S. Embassy and other personnel, train and equip Iraqi forces and conduct “targeted counterterrorism operations.”
__________________________

This is why it is so vital for people to participate this weekend in antiwar protests this weekend and beyond. find one near you.

_______________________

Frederick Douglass, former slave, extraordinary speaker and writer, wrote in his Rochester newspaper the North Star, January 21, 1848, of "the present disgraceful, cruel, and iniquitous war with our sister republic. Mexico seems a doomed victim to Anglo Saxon cupidity and love of dominion." Douglass was scornful of the unwillingness of opponents of the war to take real action (even the abolitionists kept paying their taxes):

The determination of our slaveholding President to prosecute the war, and the probability of his success in wringing from the people men and money to carry it on, is made evident, rather than doubtful, by the puny opposition arrayed against him. No politician of any considerable distinction or eminence seems willing to hazard his popularity with his party ... by an open and unqualified disapprobation of the war. None seem willing to take their stand for peace at all risks; and all seem willing that the war should be carried on, in some form or other.

[DemKR]

1. Add "Obama" to your title too n/t

[Tom Joad]

3. You have a link to that.. It would not surprise me in the least, but

want to see an explicit statement. Why would he not be part of the "puny" opposition.

[leftchick]

10. all I found was this

(Senator Barack Obama, a rival of Mrs. Clinton, has said that if elected president, he might keep a small number of troops in Iraq.)


http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070315/ZNYT03/703150529

[The Magistrate]

11. Because There Are Political Realities Over The Long Term, Mr. Joad

That professionals recognize, though amatuer enthusiasts and moralistic dilletants place a high value on ignoring them. The recent comments by both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama reflect and respond to this.

Serious students of the region and its current situation are in no doubt that the withdrawl of U.S. forces from Iraq will be the signal for greatly increased blood-letting and chaos. The political consequences of this, in the United States, are hard to calculate, but many have a reasonable fear it could be turned to attacks on the 'who lost Iraq'?' line against the authors of U.S. withdrawl, that could prove damaging some years down the road. There is also the immediate concern that predictions of increased blood-letting and chaos can be used effectively against proposals for withdrawl before they are executed. These plans are attempts to fend off this line of attack in advance, by displaying what will at least look to the un-tutored eye as measures to ward off and mitigate this expected result of U.S. withdrawl. The problem with them is that they will not work on the ground in Iraq, and because they will not, they are unlikely to be stuck to by any new President, no matter what he or she says during the campaign.

[Leopolds Ghost]

14. Chief among which realities is the Desire to Protect and Enforce the New Iraqi Oil Law, Sir.

I did not see you or Hillary protesting when we failed to stop genocide in the banana-rich (but not US corporate-owned) farmland of Rwanda.

[leftchick]

15. or Darfur

or a handful of other hotspots were there are atrocities yet no oil.

[The Magistrate]

20. Would You Join Me, Ma'am, Then

In urging international military action to halt the Sudanese genocide, and bring the leaders of the Sudan to answer indictments before the International Criminal Court, which is preparing charges now?

[The Magistrate]

18. One Way Or Another, Sir

The oil is going to come to market, and the lion's share of the profit from will go to the refiners and shippers and distributors. Great fuss over this particular regulation is a side-show of small signifigance.

What your tangent into genocide is aimed at quite escapes me. It is not impossible that, as the civil war in Iraq peroceeds, genuinely genocidal acts will be committed, but so far that is absent from the situation, except in hyperbolic propagandas.

[Jcrowley]

35. Have you read the proposed oil contracts?

Do you want the details?

It is quite clear you have not read the details of the new oil law for if you had you would understand what the PSA's are all about and understand who are to be the refiners (sic) and distributors and how important that is to WHO PROFITS. Take a guess.

In short control of the pipelines and the transportation routes is critical to this naked colonialism and that is the sole purpose of keeping US troops in the most energy dense region in the world at a time of rapidly diminishing petroleum reserves.

Hillary said in the interview that there were "remaining vital national security interests in Iraq" that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

It's all spelled out quite clearly. What do you think those "remaining vital national security interests" are? In a word OIL and control over the rate at which it flows and in which direction it goes once it is extracted.

Are you aware of how many oil fields Iraq has and how many have not yet been developed and how much per barrel it costs to get to that oil in Iraq?

Who decides what is genocide? What are the political uses of the term?

The similarities between Iraq and Darfur are remarkable. The estimate of the number of civilians killed over the past three years is roughly similar. The killers are mostly paramilitaries, closely linked to the official military, which is said to be their main source of arms. The victims too are by and large identified as members of groups, rather than targeted as individuals. But the violence in the two places is named differently. In Iraq, it is said to be a cycle of insurgency and counter-insurgency; in Darfur, it is called genocide. Why the difference? Who does the naming? Who is being named? What difference does it make?

[mmonk]

22. Realities indeed.

Dark ones.

[The Magistrate]

25. Here Below, Sir, It Is A Dark Place

"This is the best world possible: everything in it is a necessary evil."

[mmonk]

2. Reminds me of the

"you're going the wrong way" piece Steph uses as a drop taken from Planes, Trains and Automobiles.

[bullimiami]

4. i wasnt voting for her in the primary anyway.

if shes the candidate well, hold nose, vote.

[mmonk]

7. I will vote for her in neither.

There are other offices I can vote for in clear conscience.

[Raven]

5. This is about oil and Israel.

Shame on her and Obama.

[The Magistrate]

6. This Is Mere Campaign Noise, Mr. Joad

The plan is impractical, and will not be implemented.

[Tom Joad]

8. I think we should take hillary at her word...

but then, yes, she would in actuality likely send these troops on combat missions in iraq.

Lucky for us she will never, ever, again see the inside of the White House.

[The_Casual_Observer]

12. Hillary is a pure foist on the american public.

All of her positions/policies are synthetic middle of the road prattle intended to make her an attractive candidate.

[Tom Joad]

16. Her polical life is nothing more than corporate effluent....

we should wear protective boots when approaching...

[The Magistrate]

13. She Is Quite Likely To Become President, Mr. Joad

Certainly the line of opposition you present will have all the effect of a spit-ball impacting a freight train on her prospects.

The first thing just about abyone elected to office does is state that a number of items mentioned in the campaign do not look like such good ideas anymore, whether the excuse offered is changed circumstances or more complete knowledge. It is all part of the dance, and put bluntly, worries people when it is not done.

[Solon]

30. The problem is that this "campaign" prattling doesn't help her chances...

at winning either the primary or general election. Regardless of what the Republicans think, the Iraq war is NOT popular, and most of the voting population want our troops out as soon as possible. If she actually advocated for a complete withdrawal, that would INCREASE her chances of winning the election, not decrease it, this is especially true if Bush holds to the same course he has so far through to 2008. If she keeps up with this prattling, she wouldn't win the election, all people have to hear is that she is for continuing the war, and while we constantly deride "single issue" voters, the Iraq war IS going to be the defining issue of the 2008 election, and both the Democratic and Republican candidates will have to differentiate on this issue.

[The Magistrate]

31. We Are In Agreement This May Not Be The Best Line To Take, Sir

[Solon]

33. I think she suffers from "Foot in Mouth" disease...

What with her recent "Bad men, Evil men" speech, which was just awkward, to say the least, in addition to the "Young people don't work(as hard)" speech from the past that caused her some flack, etc.

Granted I'm paraphrasing these, as just two examples, but it seems, to me, that either Hillary needs to fire her speech writer, or can't improvise speeches that well. This isn't so much a slam as simply an observation, she's not her husband, and most people don't have his gift in oratory skills.

All candidates suffer from this particular disease at least once in their political or professional careers, however, those who stumble more end up making headlines, especially when they are so visible.

Of course, I'm more concerned with policies than speeches, I wouldn't care if a candidate had a bad stutter, if there policies and positions are something I agree with, then I would vote for them. My concern, related to Hillary, is, would she actually implement this as policy, rather than just blowing hot air. Your argument, that's its an impractical policy to try to implement is rather weak, because, no matter how much we wish it weren't true, politicians have a tendency to disregard such arguments when they actually are elected.

I could give examples of this, Kennedy caving in on Bay of Pigs, Johnson directing troops himself, counteracting orders from his own commanders, to disaster, etc. Just because something is LOGISTICALLY impossible to do doesn't mean that a President wouldn't try to do it, Bush and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are the most recent examples of this. Hillary may be talking BS, then again, maybe not, and that's the problem.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[EFerrari]

17. . . .

:spank:

lol

[mmonk]

19. Now is different from when he said it initially.

[newsdude]

21. Yep

Clinton voted for the war, now she's voting to maintain a presence there.

Seriously, the Democratic Party is in dire need of leadership.

Those fussies who blame Nader for Bush's power need to start figuring out a way to steal their party from the corporatists. Or they they must abandon ship.

[R_M]

23. Another reminder as to why I don't want her to be President.

:argh:

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Individualist]

26. Not at all surprising to me

She's a classic example of DLC philosophy. :puke:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Water is wet. She's been for the war since she helped start it.

[Jacobin]

28. The PNAC agenda is hard to kill off, once started

Hillary is NOT the person to do so

[mmonk]

29. Deletes seem to be picking up in this thread.

I guess I better pay attention. I only know what one of them said. The primaries I think will be interesting.

[mdmc]

32. USA! USA!

On to victory!

[Generator]

34. Meet the new boss same as the old boss

Just keep telling yourself that it matters if there is a D behind their name when you vote. (I always thought it actually mattered what they actually said and actually did-and didn't give them a pass if they had the correct letter but that's what this board is all about now-party loyalty even if that party isn't what it says it is)