home

5th Anniversary of Iraq War Decision: Who Will Get Us Out?

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:41:10 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

On this 5th anniversary of the vote to authorize an invasion of Iraq, who is the candidate most likely to get us out? As the Clinton campaign suggests in this video, Barack Obama has been anything but clear and consistent.

I'd put it another way. Obama, even today, wants to focus on who did what five years ago. That is so not the issue and so last year. Voters want to know who has the best plan for an exit and who is best going to be able to execute that plan.

Here's Hillary's plan. Here are 34 Admirals and Generals explaining why Hillary is better equipped to be commander in chief and why her plan to exit Iraq is both the best and most achievable: [More...]

< New Yorker Profiles Michelle Obama | If The Dem Race Goes To The Convention, It Will Be Obama's Doing >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    5th Anniversary of Iraq War Decision: Who Will Get Us Out? | 176 comments (176 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    A chunk of her speech from yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:44:28 PM EST
    was on this and her plan for withdrawal. Missed the whole thing...but the plan seemed to be front and center.

    From Hillary's plan..... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:44:35 PM EST
    Hillary knows that as we bring our troops and contractors home, we cannot lose sight of our very real strategic interests in this region.  Al Qaeda terrorist cells continue to operate in Iraq, cells that did not exist before President Bush's failed policy.  Under Hillary's plan the United States will retain counterterrorism forces in Iraq and the region to fight al Qaeda and will not permit terrorists to have a safe haven in Iraq from which to attack the United States or its allies.

    ah yes...those "strategic interests" must be protected.  iow, aside from a token scale-down to appease the anti-occupation masses, the occupation rages on indefinitely.

    This isn't a plan, this is a con-job.

    Funny, I don't see endless (none / 0) (#3)
    by Joelarama on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:46:59 PM EST
    occupation anywhere in Hillary's plan.  Just realism.

    [ Parent ]
    Soldiers with guns on their soil... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:48:14 PM EST
    is occupation.  What would you call it?

    [ Parent ]
    We have boots on the ground in Germany (none / 0) (#17)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:56:15 PM EST
    and England...are we occupying those countries as well?

    Occupation is a whole lot more than simply a "boots on the ground" criteria. The playing around in the political, social, and economic process is relevant as well.

    We are doing all of those in Iraq under the Bush admin. My understanding is that any of the Democratic plans would differ.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes we are.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:57:59 PM EST
    occupying England, Germany, and 100 or so other countries.  Some countries just like being occupied...Iraq doesn't judging by the blood spilled.

    [ Parent ]
    I lived in Ireland... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:04:06 PM EST
    and worked for the Irish Parliament. I can assure you that America is not occupying neither England not the United Kingdom. Microsoft maybe...in parts of Dublin.

    But politically, they are operating on their own...dealing with their own issues.

    We aren't "occupying" them.

    [ Parent ]

    Although landing troop transport (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:16:00 PM EST
    planes in Shannon did raise a huge flap.

    [ Parent ]
    Yup... (none / 0) (#159)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:40:49 PM EST
    for the first time in ages. We've been landing troops in Shannon for quite a long time.

    The father of a friend of mine used to talk about how the ship stopped off around NIreland for various things. They couldn't stop by the Republic because Ireland had declared itself neutral for WWII.

    [ Parent ]

    Poltically.... (none / 0) (#115)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:43:48 PM EST
    they govern themselves.  Technically, so does Iraq.  

    Granted, our troops aren't hated in Europe like they are in the Middle East.  Europe was afraid of the USSR more than the USA and they figured "hey, free security!".  

    But I don't think we should be have a military presence anywhere but on or within our borders...I think we can't afford it anymore and it fosters hatred and conflict in one way or another.

    I guess that makes me an isolationist militarily.

    [ Parent ]

    Prolly... (none / 0) (#158)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:37:48 PM EST
    this:
    I guess that makes me an isolationist militarily.
    describes it.

    Efforts like this, indicates that there're two sides to that particular knife.

    [ Parent ]

    Chalmers Johnson (none / 0) (#136)
    by facta non verba on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:15:58 PM EST
    has written the definitive works on US militarism. The Blowback Trilogy.

    I am not sure the current statistics precisely but the US has over 730 bases in over 130 countries. We have bases in Paraguay, Ecuador, Iceland, Portugal, Palau, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Romania, Greece, Kenya, Tanzania, Spain, Germany, Norway, Honduras, Haiti, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Turkemstan, Afghanistan, Australia, Nauru, the Solomon Islands, Grenada.  

    [ Parent ]

    I cannot think of a modern war (none / 0) (#39)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:29:39 PM EST
    where America left when it was over.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think that there is one... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:36:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    vietnam (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by english teacher on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:58:02 PM EST
    or as dana carvey impersonating ghwb said, "some people say we didn't learn the lesson of vietnam.  i say we did:  stay the hell out of vietnam".

    [ Parent ]
    Have 4,000 American troops (none / 0) (#101)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:24:24 PM EST
    been killed in England, Germany, South Korea,  in the last 5 years?

    There is just no comparison,  once wars in Germany South Korea and Japan etc finished there was no insurgency or continued war.  In Iraq there is.  If there is a continued presence on the ground in Iraq then the war will not be over and the bodybags will keep coming home.  You might as well have McBush in the White House,  at least he is honest about his intentions.

    [ Parent ]

    I think you just clarified part of my point... (none / 0) (#157)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:31:55 PM EST
    which is that there is a lot more to occupation than kdog's definition that occupation is defined by "boots on the ground."

    It's not just the presence...it's what's going on with regards to that presence.

    [ Parent ]

    Of course that is a part of it. (none / 0) (#167)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:03:20 AM EST
    However, any meaningful armed presence in Iraq long term will be viewed as an occupation (rightly in my view), and will lead to continued long term violence.   Parallels cannot be drawn with Japan/Germany/South Korea.  At least not unless you are McCain who argues that the coalition can remain in Iraq for 100/1000 years and people won't mind.

    [ Parent ]
    I think that the South Korean protestors (none / 0) (#169)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:52:05 AM EST
    from a few years back would disagree with you about that.

    I suspect that in the immediate aftermath of each situation, those countries (and rightly so) considered themselves to be occupied territory. For example, my aunt has several pieces of china/pottery ware that bear the Made in" label "Occupied Japan." This designated a period of time in the aftermath of WWII where there was an Allied occupation force inside Japan.

    [ Parent ]

    Last time I checked... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:52:23 PM EST
    each of the plans had a CT factor involved in them...but IIRC that troop level was a whole lot less than pre-surge levels.

    [ Parent ]
    Any plan.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:55:18 PM EST
    that leaves troops behind to protect "interests" is no plan at all...it's business as usual.

    [ Parent ]
    Then you're pretty much out of luck (none / 0) (#21)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:59:57 PM EST
    unless you somehow manage to elect Nader.

    Occupation criteria requires more than just "boots on the ground." Embassies all over the world are protected by Marines and other military forces. I've got a friend (Army) currently assigned to one of the Southeast Asia embassies. And he's involved in many projects...including, I assume, CT.

    [ Parent ]

    I'll survive.... (none / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:47:30 PM EST
    with a little luck.

    It's the country that is out of luck, imo.  Until we elect a Nader, Kubby, Paul, Kucinich...anybody not just talking sh*t like the 3 stooges.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary's plan... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Friday on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:36:52 PM EST
    Under Hillary's plan the United States will retain counterterrorism forces in Iraq and the region to fight al Qaeda and will not permit terrorists to have a safe haven in Iraq from which to attack the United States or its allies.

    I think we know that McCain would seek to widen and prolong the war, so there is no comparison between him and Hillary.

    But really, how does Hillary's stated plan differ from George Bush's stated justifications for the last five years?

    This is the language of a mainstream Washington Hawk, not a dove.

    [ Parent ]

    ...and Bush's plan (none / 0) (#124)
    by Friday on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:00:01 PM EST
    ...to wit, here is George Bush in his own words (from 2005).

    I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I.
    ...
    We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed, and not a day longer.



    [ Parent ]
    ...and Bush's plan (none / 0) (#132)
    by Friday on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:09:51 PM EST
    Here's more...

    ...George Bush justifying the Iraq war (and linking it to 9/11.

    "Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities."

    ...George Bush announcing limited troop cuts in 2007

    "The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States. A free Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven."


    [ Parent ]
    We destroyed Iraq long ago (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:11:33 PM EST
    And no amount of military presence will change that.  The only strategic interests we have are those we believe are more important than the interest of the actual human beings who inhabit the wasteland we have created.  There is NO military solution to this, and that means get the military out, entirely, now.  A civil war will erupt?  Already has.  The Iranians will be emboldened?  They already are.  AQ will thrive?  Bullsh*t, the Iraqis will take care of them themselves, but they can't do that as long as AQ and the Iraqis have us around to despise, target and rightfully blame.

    We have failed murderously and miserably, and no amount of cowardly pandering to political fantasies and empty concepts of honor will do anything but make it worse.

    Out, entirely, now.

    Sadly, neither Clinton nor Obama... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:13:39 PM EST
    ...really seems to understand this or care.

    And neither, I believe, will have the brass to really change a thing.

    [ Parent ]

    i imagine that both of them (none / 0) (#35)
    by sancho on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:24:13 PM EST
    understand that american society as we know it cannot run without access to middle east oil. the carter doctrine, which cheney retranslated as the american way of life is "non-negotiable," is, finally, a bipartisan affair. i think hillary's endorsement by so many military people is significant and worth paying attention to.


    [ Parent ]
    not to mention Murtha (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:25:35 PM EST
    not a shy flower about getting out of Iraq

    [ Parent ]
    the Murtha endorsment (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:51:53 PM EST
    got a grudgingly positive post at no less than the Dreary Kos.
    I'm glad you go there..... (none / 0) (#122)
    by ineedalife on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:56:44 PM EST
    so we don't have to.

    She should get that second ad on the air. It is a little long but can be edited down. It is powerful.

    [ Parent ]

    if only (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by wasabi on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:56:30 PM EST
    If only we had a sane President in 2003.

    The AUMF was used to get the inspectors in to remove WMDs from Iraq.

    If we had a sane President, when the weapons weren't found, we'd have been able to set up a robust plan for dealing with Saddam short of invasion.  Then all the Senators who voted for the AUMF would be heros.  Too bad most of them didn't realize Bush was certifiable until around the first of the year.

    Here's a chilling review of (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:23:26 PM EST
    Daydream Believers, about the Bush administration, Iraq, neo-cons, etc.  Book was written by Fred Kaplan:

    NYT

    [ Parent ]

    Both will get us out (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Christopher MN Lib on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:54:20 PM EST
    I think that both will get us out of Iraq. I no doubt however Hillary's experiences make her better to lead as Commander in Cheif on day one. Obama says he's the becon of judgement because of his being against the war from the begining. I'll give him some credit for that decision, but one decision doesn't make you some becon of great judgement or leadership. Hillary has shown judgement, leadership, and has experience on foreign policy matters.

    Some of these lefties need to get over that vote. There was bad intelligence, and an adminstration that did not give the inspectors time to do their job, and once the war started badly mishandled the invasion. None of those are Hillary's fault.

    The hole in the 'wrong 5 yrs ago' argument (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:13:54 PM EST
    is that it ignores that we already had an election about this in 2004.  I was against the war from the beginning also. I truly hated that Hillary voted for the AUMF.  I also hated that Kerry and Edwards did the same thing. But I understood the political realities of the times and knew why they did it.  Sure, I wish they had Feingold's courage, but he did not have national ambitions.

    Despite my disappointment, I was a strong supporter of Kerry and Edwards in 2004 because I thought Kerry would be a great president and get us out of Iraq.  So, in fact, was Barack Obama - so much a supporter that he gave that great speech for Kerry at the convention.  Sure did not act like a guy who thought Kerry did not have the judgement to be president.  If he had such strong feelings about it, why did he advance his political career by speaking in favor of Kerry?  He gave Kerry a pass, and said he might have done the same thing himself if he had been in the Senate.  

    So no, I do not think that Hillary's vote in 2002 means she lacks the judgement to be president, any more than I, or Obama,  thought that of Kerry.  Not by a long shot.

    Who will get us out? (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:47:33 PM EST
    None of the 3 stooges, that's for damn sure.

    I believe Kucinich would have got us out, Ron Paul would have got us out.  Nobody voted for them.  I guess all the polls are hopelessly wrong...the voting public loves them some foreign occupation and empire.  

    Oh, that really is ridiculous. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Joelarama on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:49:33 PM EST
    In order to prove that they are not imperialists, Americans must vote for the likes of Kucinich or Paul?  

    [ Parent ]
    No.... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:54:01 PM EST
    In order to end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, Kucinich and Paul were our only real choices.  Not to prove anything, but to achieve a goal, the goal being ending the occupations.

    Maybe Gravel or Dodd too.  Definitely not Obama or Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    Sadly, yes (none / 0) (#67)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:53:31 PM EST
    Imperialism is the default position of post WWII American foreign policy.

    [ Parent ]
    NIE (none / 0) (#6)
    by sinistar on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:48:34 PM EST
    Hillary didn't even read the National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before casting her vote. She didn't even read the supposed lies before falling prey to them!

    Did you read what Jeralyn said about (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Joelarama on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:50:49 PM EST
    focusing on five years ago?

    [ Parent ]
    No, she didn't (none / 0) (#13)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:53:54 PM EST
    She TALKED to, INTERVIEWED, and CONFERRED WITH the people who actually wrote it.

    (BTW - Obama didn't read it either before he gave his opinion, which only with the benefit of hindsight, makes him look prophetic.  At the time, he looked foolish).

    [ Parent ]

    ha (none / 0) (#23)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:01:08 PM EST
    Are you seriously attacking Obama for looking foolish, even though he was right?

    I would rather look foolish and be right than look wise and be wrong.  

    [ Parent ]

    It is easy to be make choices (none / 0) (#55)
    by ricosuave on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:49:16 PM EST
    when you have nothing at stake.  Hillary (like everyone else in the Senate) had to make a real choice when it came to voting on that resolution.  If it just said "The US should invade Iraq" then it would have been a simple no.  

    But the republicans, as much as they can be jerks, are not idiots.  They write these things to put people like Clinton in a quandry.  They have to choose between real things with downsides on either choice.  In this case, Senators had to choose between a resolution that authorized force following international action and agreement, or rejecting that resolution and allowing Bush to interpret it however he wants.  (I think he would have probably announced that there was no support for working with the international community, he would have invaded anyway, and all of the republicans would have said for years that democrats passed up a chance to have a final round of inspections which would have averted the war.)  

    Even Obama said he did not know how he would have voted on the resolution, which was a pretty frank admission that his supporters like to pretend didn't happen.  Just like they pretend he didn't pull his anti-war speech off his website when he ran for US Senate, and they pretend he didn't endorse pro-war Joe Lieberman over anti-war Ned Lamont.

    Everyone knew that Bush wanted to invade Iraq.  Everyone knew that Bush would invade whether this resolution passed or not.  Pretending that this resolution was the only thing that allowed him to invade, and pretending that the defeat of this resolution would have avoided the invasion is just  fantasy.

    I thought those of us on the left were supposed to be in the "reality-based" community.

    [ Parent ]

    Just because you pick the right answer (none / 0) (#118)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:48:02 PM EST
    doesn't mean you arrived at that answer in a sound way.

    On a 4-choice multiple choice question, you have a 25% chance of getting it right. And if you pick the right answer, does that mean you knew the answer?

    No.

    Just because Obama picked the right position, doesn't mean he knew it was the right one. What matters is how he arrived at the decision to oppose the war, not whether he opposed it.

    [ Parent ]

    unbelievable (none / 0) (#150)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:08:26 PM EST
    Well... you seem to be implying that Obama didn't come about his answer in a sound way.

    Would you care to back up your baseless assertions?

    Again - he was right, even when everyone else thought he was wrong.

    Hillary was wrong, even when everyone else thought she was right.

    but go ahead - bash Obama for making the right call even amidst widespread disagreement.  

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not saying (none / 0) (#151)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:23:14 PM EST
    that he necessarily made the choice for the wrong reasons. It was more a general statement about this clamoring to proclaim how he was always on the right side. As you plainly do in your comment. Being right is only half of it, and you can't ignore the fact that even bad judgments and leadership will once in a while put you in the right. My point is NOT about Obama. It's more about the mentality behind this "king of the hill" argument. If you're right, you're right, you're right. No critical thought whatsoever.

    Although, I will point out that I'm not familiar with any interviews or speeches by Obama that specifically mention the justifications for his opposition to the Iraq War before he came to the Senate. His mythic 2002 anti-war speech offers little in the way of sound reasons for opposing it other than the remark concerning "no imminent threat." True, albeit, that remark seems shaky when juxtaposed with this sentence from the same speech: "Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity."

    His speech was right, and his opposition to the war was right, and our opposition to the war was right. My only concern is that people are focusing too much on that rather than the knowledge that led to the right decision. As I said before, a right choice is hollow if it doesn't have the right reasoning.

    [ Parent ]

    looked foolish? (none / 0) (#25)
    by tworivers on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:07:12 PM EST
    He may have looked foolish at the time, but in retrospect he looks wise.

    As do Feingold and Boxer and several other Dem senators who were brave enough to go against the tide of public sentiment (and the avalanche of hype the Bush administration was pushing).

    Don't get me wrong, I'm very disappointed with Obama's lack of leadership on Iraq since he got in the Senate.  His record on Iraq since joining the senate is substantively no different than Hillary's.

    But to make some remark about how he looked foolish - who cares now how he looked then?
    The point is, he was right then.  Yes, i know it was alot easier for him to take such a stand as an Illinois senator than it was for Hillary in the US Senate.  But the fact remains.

    [ Parent ]

    Stopped clocks are right twice a day... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:42:49 PM EST
    Speaking only for myself...

    I don't think he was either wise or prophetic.

    Back then, he looked like a Democratic politician running for the Senate on an anti-war/anti-war funding strategy...one that shifted once he got into office. His votes on Iraq have been a lot more cautious...complete with his apparent opposition to the Murtha plan, a plan I rather liked in that it seemed practical and pragmatic when it came to a reasonable and responsible withdrawal of troops at the beginning of what was quickly becoming a heated civil war.

    [ Parent ]

    hmmm (none / 0) (#64)
    by tworivers on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:52:36 PM EST
    So by that rationale, are Senators Boxer and Feingold stopped clocks also?

    i guess they were just lucky too.

    I admitted that Obama's record on Iraq since joining the senate is substantively no better than Hillary's.  And I am disappointed in Obama for this very reason, as I see there is a disconnect between his words and his actions.

    The truth is, both Hillary's and Obama's records on Iraq the last several years are pretty bad.

    [ Parent ]

    actually.... (none / 0) (#156)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:17:08 PM EST
    that line was snark. Remember that stuff?

    The point is that I don't buy the "he's prophetic" premise.

    Both Feingold and Boxer had a hell of a lot more information than he did. And I would say that theirs wound up being more of an educated guess.

    [ Parent ]

    from Atrios back in early feb. (none / 0) (#177)
    by tworivers on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:12:54 PM EST
    A few weeks back I came across this passage from Kevin Drum from back in the day. I don't exhume it to pick on Kevin, but I thought it captured something from that time well.

    "If your opposition to war is based on the idea that Saddam does indeed possess illegal weapons but it's best to leave him alone anyway, well and good. But if it's based on the idea that the administration is lying and none of this stuff exists, you should tread carefully. I think it's pretty likely you will be proven wrong shortly."

    Those who opposed the war were constantly being told that they'd better be careful, both in why we opposed the Iraq war and how we expressed that opposition when those views had a complete media blackout... what if Saddam really is dangerous! Then you'll be sorry!!! And, you know what? It's true. If they'd found the nuclear warheads, and the long range missiles, and the massive bioweapons programs, and the deadly drones of mass destruction, or whatever, people like me would've been drummed out of our discourse 4ever. Stupid dirty fucking hippie!

    But, hey, if you supported a pointless war which has lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths there was no need to "tread carefully." Bombs away, baby! Bygones.



    [ Parent ]
    He actually (none / 0) (#66)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:52:56 PM EST
    back off his stance on the Iraq war when running for Senate. He wasn't in a heated race at the time. He ran against Alan Keyse, who wasn't even form Illinois.

    He gave the 2004 speech at Dem convention. He had backed off his war stance.

    [ Parent ]

    This is all of topic (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by echinopsia on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:26:00 PM EST
    and beside the point.

    Bush got us there. Period. No amount of blaming and second-guessing changes that. It is completely non-constructive.

    Now let's talk about who can get us out, K?

    I say Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    Have you read her plan? (none / 0) (#142)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:29:38 PM EST
    She said we ain't leaving.  We have "interests".  Not sure what "we" she is talking about, I have no interests there and no interest in being there.

    [ Parent ]
    I was (none / 0) (#152)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:33:47 PM EST
    answering some misinformation on the OFF topic above.

    Of course Hillary will be the one to get us out of Iraq!

    [ Parent ]

    Wanna bet? (none / 0) (#153)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:54:08 PM EST
    I'll give you all 3 of the "electable" candidates for the price of one.

    You name the stakes, payable to talkleft.

    My money is on us in Iraq in 2012.

    [ Parent ]

    He did back off... (none / 0) (#163)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:01:41 AM EST
    But since he's been running for POTUS nominee, it feels like he's stepped it up again.

    [ Parent ]
    Most Senators (none / 0) (#47)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:38:24 PM EST
    did NOT read the National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq.

    One of the few who actually read the NIE was Dick Durban ..... who was one of four Democratic senators (the others being Sens. Bob Graham, Feinstein, and Levin) to ask George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, to prepare a NIE on the status of Iraq's WMD programs.

    Obama was not in the Senate at the time.

    [ Parent ]

    Senator Kerry recently sd. he didn't (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:18:20 PM EST
    read the NIE b/4 the vote either.

    [ Parent ]
    Neither (none / 0) (#97)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:20:53 PM EST
    did Harry Reid.

    [ Parent ]
    And Jay Rockefeller DID (none / 0) (#127)
    by tree on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:01:50 PM EST
    read the report and he voted FOR AUMF.

    [ Parent ]
    And (none / 0) (#98)
    by sinistar on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:22:51 PM EST
    And that is shameful. It doesn't mean we should celebrate people that are derelict in their duty to this nation.

    [ Parent ]
    Derelict in (none / 0) (#113)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:37:11 PM EST
    their duty... we would be voting in a whole new Congress every election. That would be a whole new thread.

    [ Parent ]
    How exactly (none / 0) (#8)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:50:35 PM EST
    is her plan materially any different?

    So she promises that within 60 days of being in office she will come up with a plan to get the soldiers out of Iraq.  How is that any different that Obama's plan?

    I believe they both want to get out of Iraq.  But they both realize it isn't simply a matter of folding up the tents and leaving.  

    If Hillary doesn't want Obama to keep bringing up her war vote perhaps she should stop questioning his experience and judgment because that implicitly brings her's into examination.

    Are you saying, "Me too, Hillary"? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:30:15 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah.... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:56:22 PM EST
    ya can't just leave the Iraqis to determine their own future...there's money to be made in the desert.

    [ Parent ]
    She's going to end it without the (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:57:56 PM EST
    use of mercs, just our good ole American sweat and tears that got us into this.  No hired guns though without a conscience or a chain of command.  That's a profound difference if you are a serving soldier or a soldier family.

    [ Parent ]
    No Mercs In Iraq (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:00:15 PM EST
    Doesn't mean no mercs. Her position is not absolute regarding the use of them in Afghanistan for example.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you sure? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:37:42 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure the legislation she sponsored bans the use of mercs in all U.S. war zones starting in 2009.  It doesn't only pertain to Iraq.

    [ Parent ]
    The proposed legislation does (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:46:48 PM EST
    ban contractors in all war zones.  Only employees of the US government, includes military, will be allowed even for protective purposes, etc.  Buh Bye Blackwater.


    [ Parent ]
    If it was only Blackwater anymore (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:51:09 PM EST
    they have small corporate mercs running check points and flying their corporation flags at the check points.  This has turned into a grand freak war.

    [ Parent ]
    You're preaching to the choir on that :-) (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:52:47 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    just curious... (none / 0) (#147)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:51:28 PM EST
    ... how are war zones defined?

    does a war have to be declared to have a war zone?

    [ Parent ]

    Here (none / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:07:58 PM EST
    We are staying in Afghanistan:

    Our ability to win the war in Afghanistan is at stake.

    And here is the bit about mercs:

    In addition to removing American troops from Iraq, I will also work to remove armed private military contractors who are conducting combat-oriented and security functions in Iraq. For five yeas their behavior and lack of supervision and accountability have often eroded our credibility, endangered U.S. and Iraqi lives and undermined our mission. Now, Senator Obama and I have a substantive disagreement here. He won't rule out continuing to use armed private military contractors in Iraq to do jobs that historically have been done by the U.S. military or government personnel. When I am president I will ask the Joint Chiefs for their help in reducing reliance on armed private military contractors. With the goal of ultimately implementing a ban on such contractors.
    I've already cosponsored the Stop Security Outsourcing Act requiring that security services for personnel at any U.S. diplomatic or consular mission be provided only by federal government personnel.

    Even though she may want to, it doesn't look like she is convinced that she will be able to pull that one off. Reducing.... with the goal of..... weak.

    Read the whole speech.

    [ Parent ]

    Not talking about the speech (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:16:13 PM EST
    we were talking about the legislation which she has proposed in the Senate.  Considering that has not passed at this time, I can understand the speech.

    Can you?  Or won't you try?  Weak, yes you are!


    [ Parent ]

    Because The Speech (none / 0) (#141)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:28:19 PM EST
    Talks about the limits of that legislation.
    Washington, DC - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced today that she has cosponsored legislation to ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq.

    [snip]

    The legislation requires that all personnel at any U.S. diplomatic or consular mission in Iraq be provided security services only by Federal Government Personnel.  It also includes a whistleblower clause to protect contract personnel who uncover contract violations, criminal actions, or human rights abuses

    link

    From the speech:

    When I am president I will ask the Joint Chiefs for their help in reducing reliance on armed private military contractors. With the goal of ultimately implementing a ban on such contractors.

    I've already cosponsored the Stop Security Outsourcing Act requiring that security services for personnel at any U.S. diplomatic or consular mission be provided only by federal government personnel.

    Get the distinction? Banning mercs from working at embassies in Iraq is waaaay different than banning mercs  in Iraq.


    [ Parent ]

    I get the non distinction (none / 0) (#154)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:56:21 PM EST
    but you obviously don't.  The purported reason for Blackwater and the other merc in Iraq and Afghanistan is to provide security services to said diplomatic and consular missions.  The contracts do not cover combat services.

    You are nitpicking on what is no real difference, as is your usual want.  Tell me again, what part of this is so difficult?  But you don't want to see it and will probably continue your dishonest argument.  Find someone who gives a rat's a** about what you think next time.


    Senator Clinton Cosponsors Legislation to Ban Use of Private Security Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan

    Washington, DC - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced today that she has cosponsored legislation to ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq.

    "From this war's very beginning, this administration has permitted thousands of heavily-armed military contractors to march through Iraq without any law or court to rein them in or hold them accountable.  These private security contractors have been reckless and have compromised our mission in Iraq.  The time to show these contractors the door is long past due.  We need to stop filling the coffers of contractors in Iraq, and make sure that armed personnel in Iraq are fully accountable to the U.S. government and follow the chain of command," said Senator Clinton.

    The legislation requires that all personnel at any U.S. diplomatic or consular mission in Iraq be provided security services only by Federal Government Personnel.  It also includes a whistleblower clause to protect contract personnel who uncover contract violations, criminal actions, or human rights abuses.

    By the way, those other contractors mentioned in the last paragraph are not mercenaries.  Truck drivers and other personnel will still be there or is that too big a problem for you.


    [ Parent ]

    What? (none / 0) (#155)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:32:18 PM EST
    Not about Afghanistan. This is about Iraq. The legislature HRC is pushing is for a no  merc zone in Iraq but only for embassies.

    Other mercs in Iraq are not affected by the bill. At some point in the future, HRC is hoping to persuade the Joint Chiefs of Staff to eliminate all mercs in Iraq if she becomes president.

    [ Parent ]

    What other mercs in Iraq? (none / 0) (#161)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:20:28 PM EST
    besides those in security assignment for diplomats and consular services?  What are they doing?

    Earlier you said she did not include Afghanistan. You are a bigger bs'er than I thought.


    [ Parent ]

    BS? Hahahah You Show Your Ignorance (none / 0) (#162)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:33:42 PM EST
    What other mercs in Iraq? besides those in security assignment for diplomats and consular services?  What are they doing?
    The contractors that HRC talks about here.  
    When I am president I will ask the Joint Chiefs for their help in reducing reliance on armed private military contractors. With the goal of ultimately implementing a ban on such contractors.

    And the ones MilitaryTracy mentioned up thread,

    If it was only Blackwater anymore (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:51:09 PM EST
    they have small corporate mercs running check points and flying their corporation flags at the check points.  This has turned into a grand freak war.

    In response to your misrepresentation of HRC's bill:

    The proposed legislation does (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:46:48 PM EST
    ban contractors in all war zones.  Only employees of the US government, includes military, will be allowed even for protective purposes, etc.  Buh Bye Blackwater.

    You obviously not paying attention.

    And remember the four Blackwater mercs that were killed in Falluja? Bodies hung and burned, remember? People like them are not covered by HRC's  bill.

    Oh and Hillary's bill, H.R. 4102, The Stop Outsourcing Security Act, does  only applies to Iraq, which if my geography is correct means Afghanistan is not covered by the bill.

    [ Parent ]

    No (none / 0) (#166)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:02:36 AM EST
    Her Legislation is to remove mercs from only from embassies and diplomatic missions and only in Iraq.

    You can read about it here.

    [ Parent ]

    fine (none / 0) (#33)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:17:42 PM EST
    However that doesn't address how she plans to get our troops out of Iraq.

    FTR, I think she is kidding herself if she thinks that getting rid of the mercs will happen simply by passing a law.  

    Logistically it isn't that easy.

    [ Parent ]

    She Has A Detailed Plan (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:22:58 PM EST
    Which looks more like staying than going to me. The key tipoffs for me are repeatedly qualifying withdrawal with the word 'responsible', and the other qualifier that national interests trump all.

    And she has said that the WOT in Iraq and at large will not end with her presidency.

    Obama is the same. McBush is the worst on all of though.

    [ Parent ]

    "Responsible" is a problem for you? (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ricosuave on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:51:47 PM EST
    So do you support an "irresponsible" withdrawal from Iraq?

    [ Parent ]
    No such thing, imo... (none / 0) (#119)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:51:53 PM EST
    All withdrawal is responsibile.

    Staying in any way, shape, or form is irresponsible.

    [ Parent ]

    Responsible To Whom (none / 0) (#131)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:06:21 PM EST
    Is the question. If we were going to be responsible to the troops they must come home ASAP. Responsible to Iraq? Israel? The greater region? US national interests? The American people? Oil companies?

    Responsible to whom, generates many different answers about how fast we will be leaving.

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed (none / 0) (#37)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:28:28 PM EST
    I am a realist.  I opposed Iraq from day 1 because it seemed a truly stupid idea.

    But we're there.  And we can't just take out ball and go home.  

    All 3 know this. Hillary and Obama are hedging because they both know they can't simply leave.  McCain has absolutely no interest in leaving and is trying to goad us into war with Iran, so clearly he is not acceptable.  

    I wish we had more people like Russ Feingold in the Senate in 2002.

    [ Parent ]

    Sure We Can (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:34:31 PM EST
    And we can't just take out ball and go home.  

    One of HRC's good points is that our presence there is why the country is flailing politically. HRC's other good point is that she is against Bush's plan to bind us with Iraq for many years after he is out of office.

    We can leave, and fast. We are occupying a foreign country and have no business being there. If they want us to become an ally after we leave that is up to them not us.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not suggesting (none / 0) (#60)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:51:10 PM EST
    that we stay there for 10 years.  But we aren't leaving in 90 days either.

    [ Parent ]
    How does it look more like staying (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:38:47 PM EST
    than going?

    [ Parent ]
    All The Hedging (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:50:55 PM EST
    As opposed to flat out saying that we are leaving and that the Iraqis can manage on their own. She also says that:

    As we bring our troops and contractors home, we cannot lose sight of our strategic interests in this region. The reality is that this war has made the terrorists stronger. Well, they may not have been in Iraq before the war, they are there now, and we cannot allow Iraq to become a breeding ground and safe haven for terrorists who seek to attack us and our friends and allies. So let me be clear - under my plan, withdrawing from Iraq will not mean retreating from fighting terrorism in Iraq. That's why I will order small, elite strike forces to engage in targeted operations against al Qaeda in Iraq. This will protect Iraqi citizens, our allies, and our families right here at home.

    link

    The first time I read the speech she mentioned "Red China". Looks like she changed than, much better now it is only China.


    [ Parent ]

    Her plan is that we begin redeploying (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:58:29 PM EST
    60 days after she takes office.  That's pretty cut and dry if you ask me.  You can't redeploy more than a combat brigade a month.  They have to hit the road with all of their equipment and drive to Kuwait, then all of the equipment has to be thoroughly cleaned and then taped down, strapped down, helicopters have to be completely bubble wrapped, lashed down and loaded onboard huge ships that will take between 30 to 45 days to get back to the U.S.  In the mean time the troops will be having to fall back and protect themselves from attack during their moves, and also they will have to respond to genocides that could crop up as they are taking their leave and the power vacuum is being filled in the areas they vacate.  Plus, as commander in chief she won't be giving us a whole lot of details that could or would help insurgents planning attacks against our troops as they move around and prepare to leave.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, But (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:19:00 PM EST
    That is all dependent on forming a plan (60 days), getting  the "international community" to come in to take our place so that we can responsibly withdraw.

    There are parts that sound great, I wish I could believe that all the qualifications that have to be met before withdrawal will fall into place. Many of her constituents do not want to leave Iraq for various reasons, ergo all the qualifications.

    As much as I like HRC, I do not think that we have seen our last 'bring the troops home' mass protest.

    [ Parent ]

    Not according to her plan (none / 0) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:35:19 PM EST
    This is her plan per her site.

    Bring Our Troops Home. As President, one of Hillary's first official actions will be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She will direct them to draw up a clear, comprehensive plan for withdrawal that starts removing our troops within 60 days.  The plan for withdrawal will incorporate the most effective on-the-ground strategies and tactics to move personnel and equipment efficiently out of combat zones and then out of the country, and will focus on protecting our troops and reducing the risk of attacks as they come home.

    Says nothing about needing the international community onboard with her to begin withdrawal.

    [ Parent ]

    She Say It In (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:00:04 PM EST
    From her speech:

    The second part of my plan involves working to secure stability within Iraq as we bring our troops home, stability that will be key to a successful withdrawal of our troops.

    [snip]

    When I'm president, we will pursue a more integrated strategy. We'll empower local leaders and use U.S. and international influence to press the Iraqis to reach political reconciliation, and I will call on the United Nations to strengthen its role in promoting this reconciliation.

    She says that the withdrawal will be first, but then say that for it to be successful Iraq must be stable. Successful meaning if Iraq is not stable the withdrawal will stop?

    I do not see stabilization in the region happening for a while, along the lines of US and Israeli interests.

    Part of her plan, albeit understated, is that Iraq is ours. I do not see that happening, especially without US troops occupying the country.

    Bottom line, I am not arguing for Obama as CIC. I believe that we are not leaving anytime soon given the choices we have for POTUS.


    [ Parent ]

    You're reading into that what you want (none / 0) (#171)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:45:26 PM EST
    If the country stays away from genocide/civil war we can withdraw two combat brigades probably every 45 days is what the military will tell you those words mean.  If the whole country breaks out into civil war we will probably have to stop our redeployments until it comes under control.  I realize that somebody who isn't in the military doesn't consider the war on the ground much other than we shouldn't be there but we are there and some feel we have a responsibility to do what we can about the bloodshed that will occur within the power vacuum we are leaving behind in the wake of our withdrawal.

    She has no understated plan that Iraq is ours, once again that is what you want to read into her words.  Talk to someone who has been to Iraq and they will tell you how much of Iraq is ours.  Hillary has been to Iraq.  Have you?  I haven't, I haven't had to face the reality of three SUV's with darkened windows racing together in unison and body armor and seven armed guards and driving 70 mph everywhere I go being flanked by an attack helicopter.

    [ Parent ]

    What I Want (none / 0) (#172)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:08:40 PM EST
    Is the troops to leave now, without any conditions.  There is a civil war on, and US presence is exacerbating that war not stemming it, imo. The Iraqi people and our responsibility to their safety and freedom has been Bush's mantra as well.

    Only 29% of Iraqis believe that US withdrawal will make Iraq less safe.

    Obama's plan and Clinton's plan are identical and they are based on Iraq being stable, aka winning. I do not see that happening until all troops leave so that the Iraqi government can base their actions on Iraqi self interests as opposed to sucking up to the US occupying force. A catch 22.

    I don't think that we have any business in Afghanistan either.

    For me this is not about the election, it is about getting out of Iraq. I truly believe that you and I will meet at future anti war marches demanding that BHO or HRC withdraw all troops as promised.

    OK I am a pessimist on the issue, I admit it. What I also believe is that your wishes are interfering with your otherwise healthy dose of skepticism. Grains of salt should be flying on this issue.

    [ Parent ]

    Uggh (none / 0) (#173)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:43:29 PM EST
    Compare BHO's speech and HRC's speech. They are the same. If HRC and BHO deliver as promised, we will be fighting wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and possibly Iran. Both point to Iran as the biggest threat to the middle east, a standard BushCo theme, and quite wrong imo. Elephant in the room.

    Neither candidate has repudiated the WOT or that it can be won. This is BushCo thinking. Terrorism cannot be fought on a battlefield it must be addressed by adjusting foreign policy. And policy in the Mid-East is about as hypocritical as you can get as it stands now.  Neither candidate has addressed that issue, because, at best, they are both trying to show that they are at least as good warriors as McCain, at worst they are showing their commitment to continue the status quo US policy in the Mid East without variance.

    [ Parent ]

    Squeaky, you're getting war paranoid on me (none / 0) (#174)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:53:52 PM EST
    Friend, we are so military warm body broken.  If I could let you read the last email from my husband's career manager literally begging him back into the combat zone I would but I can't because it isn't proper.  We are up, 20 years in in January and strongarming soldiers and stop lossing them has had a very undesireable long term consequence, it has killed the feelings of commitment that many soldiers could have or would have naturally had.  So this email was very respectful of the fact that my husband would be eligible for retirement very soon but begged him to come back to the fight.  Our son has a major foot surgery coming up to literally rebuild his clubbed feet.  After that he will be in a wheel chair for two months and he will not be able to put weight on his feet and then he will spend the rest of the year relearning how to walk on new feet.  My husband declined the offer but let DOD know that if they will allow him to care for his child and family through this he will return the favor gladly by staying in uniform stateside doing everything that he can for them and they agreed.  Looks like we'll be giving more than 20 because they need us so badly.  The United States isn't going to war