Hillary and Dems on Iraq

I know it seems I am picking on them, and maybe I am a little, but the cognitive dissonance displayed here astounds me:

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 military force there . . .
This stance deserves deep consideration by Democratic primary voters. . . . Hillary Clinton's promise to continue the Iraqi occupation will become the Democratic Party platform if she is the nominee. This is a very dangerous roadmap for the Democrats.

And yet, MYDD whips for the current House proposal on Iraq funding which is identical in principle to the Hillary formulation. Amazing. On the flip what Hillary said.

Those are all different moving pieces on the chess board. And from the vantage point of where I sit now, I can tell you, in the absence of a very vigorous diplomatic effort on the political front and on the regional and international front, I think it is unlikely there’s going to be a stable situation that will be inherited.

And 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, and I do not believe that it can be successful. If we had done it right from the beginning, we might have had a fighting chance. We did not, and I think it is beyond our control now.

But what we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of, between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region — the ones that are going to remain for our antiterrorism mission; for our northern support mission; for our ability to respond to the Iranians; and to continue to provide support, if called for, for the Iraqis.

Q. So what you seem to be suggesting if I understand is a policy of maintaining American forces in Iraq, but redeploying them out of Baghdad and keeping them let’s say in areas where they could protect against Iranian infiltration, or stabilize Kurdistan, or possibly put them in Al Anbar — I don’t know if that’s part of your plan.

A. Well it is. Al Anbar is the likeliest candidate for the failed state scenario that will serve as the launching pad for Al Qaeda. That is their primary objective in terms of what they’re trying to achieve right now.

It would be far fewer troops. We would not be doing patrols. We would not be kicking in doors. We would not be trying to insert ourselves in the middle between the various Shiite and Sunni factions. I do not think that is a smart or achievable mission for American forces.

So I think that we will have troops.

In the legislation I’ve introduced, if we were to start the phased withdrawal now, it’ll take months to do it the right way. I’m told, Michael, that we don’t even have good plans for an exit strategy. Hopefully, Secretary Gates has turned his attention to that. But how you withdraw from the forward operating bases, how you move out of Iraq either through the north or through the south, how you don’t leave your troops to be sitting ducks — I’m not convinced we’ve even thought that through yet.

So trying to withdraw is not something you snap your fingers and tell people, do it tomorrow. It has to be done in a thoughtful, orderly, careful way that defends our troops on these routes they’re going to have to take to get men and equipment out of Iraq.

So there’s a lot of serious thinking and planning that has to go on. And I don’t think we’ve done what needs to be done to be in position to make a lot of those decisions yet.

Please explain the differences between the House Leadership position and Hillary right now? Why is one supported and the other vilified?

< Background on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh | Let the March Madness Begin! >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It sounds to me, (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 08:50:10 AM EST
    and it's always hard to tell with Mrs. Clinton, that this is an Endorsement of the Murtha plan from a year ago.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 08:54:14 AM EST
    Good eye my friend.

    That is exactly correct.

    Ironic isn't it?


    So the question arises: (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:00:17 AM EST
    if the evil HIllary can get behind that, why can't the House leadership?

    Related question (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:11:32 AM EST
    if Hillary is evil for being for THAT proposal, what is MYDD for whipping for a plan much worse than that?

    A Prediction (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:17:19 AM EST
    Bill Young is speaking in support of the bill on the Appropriations Committee, so I think the full bill will pass wirth Republican support.

    Really? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:18:05 AM EST
    What an indictment of the bill then.

    Murtha seemed satisfied too (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:22:28 AM EST
    Frankly, I don't know what's going on in the House.

    oh, (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:23:33 AM EST
    and Young said something like "we're giving the President most of what he asked for." Not. Good.

    Just a reminder (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:41:34 AM EST
    that we are not leaving Iraq. The oil companies are negotiating contracts. The candidates are getting their donations. The price of gas is near record. We occupy the largest oil reserve on the planet.

    All is well with the world.

    Again, we are NOT leaving Iraq. Ever. Not Murtha, not Hillary. Not the corporatocracy. Get used to it.

    NOt even MYDD (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:49:37 AM EST
    Which is also why Dave Lesar (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:36:51 PM EST
    is moving himself and Halliburton's H.O. to Dubai.

    For what it's worth, (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 11:21:59 AM EST
    it's also the Tommy Thompson plan.

    This is an AIPAC Plan (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 11:35:46 AM EST
    With an eye on eventually getting US bases in Iran. MEK is part of the plan.

    This is continuation of Clinton policy (3.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Kevin Hayden on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 10:23:20 AM EST
    Compared to Bill Clinton's policy, this merely cedes the Southern No-Fly Zone while retaining the Morthern one.

    Under the guise of protecting the Kurds, it also helps contain Kurdish nationalists to protect our relationship with Turkey.

    But more than that, this reiterates the longterm Clinton commitment to Likud/AIPAC Israelis, granting Mossad a zone to spy on Iran, and, of course, creating a DMZ that blocks a solid Shia crescent from forming.

    It says: we don't care what happens to Iraqis, we only want to keep Iran as isolated as we can.

    The difference between this and the House policy? Not much. But then, I'm not really impressed with either.

    We could build an alliance with a populist Shia government and with the reform movement in Iran. Instead, we kowtow to Israeli and Saudi interests and an Iraq govt of elitist expats that will never have the trust of the Iraqi populace.

    Much of the motivation of the terror organizations is driven by anger at repressive Middle East governments, so this policy only ensures that terrorism will continue.

    As with the Shah or Ferdinand Marcos (or even Noriega and Saddam at one time) the approach remains "yeah they're repressive bastards, but they're OUR repressive bastards."

    But it'll keep the military-industrial complex profitable, so hey, that must be good, right?
    Me? I vilify them all for surrendering real democracy to the corporatocracy, because they make so many lives expendable.

    If it were possible (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 10:34:34 AM EST
    to go back to the status quo ante bellum, I'd support it.

    I'm really tired of this paranoia about Israel and AIPAC.


    A defacto partition? (none / 0) (#9)
    by cal11 voter on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:39:06 AM EST
    A line north of Bagdad and south of Kirkuk.  Then, the Sunni and Shia can decide how they will settle the rest of the Iraq map.  Of course, it would be a complicated situation.  But she's thinking.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:49:25 AM EST
    She's thinking but Bush is not. And he is President.

    Out of Iraq please.


    Hillary in the long run (none / 0) (#17)
    by diogenes on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:24:36 PM EST
    For the record, I was called a nitwit on another thread (Jeralyn agreed with the content but not the namecalling) for stating that Hillary had no intention of withdrawing from Iraq if she were elected president.  Others apparently believed her pledges made to various campaign groups.
    McCain, Giuliani and the entire Republican leadership would support a plan to stay in Iraq forever but give up street patrols after a certain date.  Bush might well enact Hillary's plan in January 2008.  Then it's Tweedledum and Tweedledee. But the peace protestors will take down the Denver convention, just like Chicago 1968.  
    Now it's crunch time for Obama.  Let's see what he promises come January 21, 2009.

    Bringing down the Convention (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:26:58 PM EST
    would be just as stupid today. Do you really think that it was a good decision to let Nixon become President?

    What you describe is exactly why the Congress must write the final chapter of the war--now.


    Whatever happened to? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:45:53 PM EST

    I never would have started this war. And if it is not ended when I am president in 2009, I will end it.
    CNN Transcripts, Feb. 14/07

    Her triangulation modulator (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by mentaldebris on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 06:57:30 PM EST
    was on the fritz that day. This is why she rarely says what she means, because she hardly ever means what she says. Typical politician.