(AP) Clinton: U.S. out of Iraq by January '09

[Eugene]

Clinton: U.S. out of Iraq by January '09

By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer

16 minutes ago

DAVENPORT, Iowa - Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday that President Bush should withdraw
all U.S. troops from Iraq before he leaves office, asserting it would be "the height of
irresponsibility" to pass the war along to the next commander in chief.

"This was his decision to go to war with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed
strategy," the Democratic senator from New York said her in initial presidential campaign
swing through Iowa.

"We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office" in January 2009,
the former first lady said.

The White House condemned Clinton's comments as a partisan attack that undermines U.S.
soldiers.

-snip-

Full article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070128/ap_on_el_pr/clinton2008_12

[AtomicKitten]

1. Bush has no intention of leaving Iraq before he leaves office.

It is and has always been his intention to make Iraq the Democrats' problem.

[KingFlorez]

2. The troops won't get pulled out until after Bush is gone

He's just waiting it out, so the next President will have to deal with the disaster. He won't pull them out.

[BayCityProgressive]

4. '09????

are you fucking nuts Hillary? So I guess we can count on over a million dead Iraqis and about 6,000 dead Americans.

[harveyc]

3. You have got to be kidding me!

She is essentially saying the 110th Congress is not going to do anything to end the Iraqi war!

[AtomicKitten]

7. examine what they can do

The only thing Congress can do is cut off funding. The problem is Bush is (1) already deploying more troops to Iraq now and (2) he can draw on the Pentagon budget for a while, brow-beating the Dems when the supplementary funding bills come up.

First of all it isn't fair to lay this fiasco on one Senator's doorstep (in fact, all 28 that voted yes on the IWR are in line for some blaming), but I think the anti-HRC sentiment here at DU precludes fairness and reason with regard to looking at this realistically.

Congress has few legal and constitutional options and will be challenged every step of the way by the imperial presidency.

[welshTerrier2]

15. "legal and constitutional options"

there are two factors involved here; not just one. we may agree or disagree about what Congress might be able to achieve. Certainly, they do have the power of the purse granted to them by the country's Founders. but perhaps your point of view is correct that Congressional options are fairly limited.

that does not excuse any Democrat, however, from failing to call for an end to this madness long before bush leaves office. there's more to leadership than solely looking at what can be achieved today. we should look for leadership and expression of our values and beliefs from our candidates.

it's important to say that this war and occupation cannot do anything but get more people killed. regardless of what hopes we might have once held for something positive in Iraq, remaining in occupation will NOT achieve it. that's what needs to be said NOW as an expression of our values and beliefs.

such statements should not be constrained by those things that might limit what we could actually achieve in stopping bush.

[AtomicKitten]

18. I wonder if it has occurred to you

or other disgruntled types that perhaps she and others are doing precisely that with their banging away at it in the press. It is your assumption that they aren't doing anything that perhaps makes this method invisible to you.

Even if you provided a script you approve of, screeching before a mic would not help the discourse. They are using press manipulation, whatever it takes, to the end the war. Because that's precisely what it is going to take with few legal and constitutional options available to Congress.

Kudos to all the Democrats for keeping the discussion of the quagmire in Iraq robust in the press. Kudos for using every manipulation, in this case blaming, to stir the pot of America's discontent because America has a short attention span.

I say brava! to Hillary and all the other Democrats for pressing this issue. Other Dems are applauded here for same; why begrudge Hillary? Enough with the double-standards.

[welshTerrier2]

20. you say brava; i say see ya ...

i think i would prefer not to continue this discussion if i am to be labeled "disgruntled" and someone who is calling for "screeching".

if you would like to stay focussed on the candidates and the issues, please let me know.

[AtomicKitten]

21. whatever

Your unfocused, passive-aggressive, anti-HRC, red meat thread exposed your version of political discussion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3081028

Bye.

[keepCAblue]

5. So when is Chelsea enlisting?

She's of prime age and she's now got TWO MORE FUCKING YEARS to get her ass over to the recruting office.

[liberalpragmatist]

6. Um, all she's saying is troops shouldn't be there by Jan. '09

She isn't precluding an earlier withdrawal - all she is saying is that they had better not be there by the end of Bush's term.

Hillary isn't my first choice for the nomination - Edwards is, followed by Obama and Clark. But I don't see anything objectionable from these quotes.

[fooj]

8. 09? Wow. What a BRAVE step forward.

:puke:

[IndianaGreen]

9. How many names will we have on a future Iraq War Memorial by then?

Hillary is quite happy to let Bush continue the carnage in Iraq for another 2 years, and unfortunately she is not the only Democrat holding that position.

What if Bush attacks Iran? Is Hillary at all concerned about the Iraq War turning into a regional conflict?

Letting things happen is not a trait we want in a President. This is NOT leadership!

[AtomicKitten]

14. I wonder if Hillary knows she has all this power you claim she has?

Congress has few legal and constitutional options and you know it.

It is truly disgusting that DU allows such insidious twisting of facts and reality to be used as red meat for the haters here.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. But they aren't using the ones they have to force his hand

Congress has the power of the purse. There's no reason that when the 2008 supplemental comes up that they can't simply refuse to fund any further military activities and instead only fund a 6 month transition. Bush has to sign the bill or the troops go without supplies. If he doesn't sign it the DNC can immediately run ads about how Bush isn't supporting our troops.

I'm not saying that Congress can snap their fingers and make this end, they can't. But they have the power to fight Bush on this. It's not the easy thing but it's the right thing.

And personally I'm not taking a stab just at Hillary. I haven't heard anything from Obama or Edwards that's particularly different. And while Kucinich is right about this, he doesn't take politics seriously so I have no reason to take him seriously.

[AtomicKitten]

27. as I posted upthread

The only thing Congress can do is cut off funding. The problem is Bush is (1) already deploying more troops to Iraq now and (2) he can draw on the Pentagon budget for a while, brow-beating the Dems when the supplementary funding bills come up.

Their only constitutional option has become more complicated. I for one would prefer they just cut him off at the knees and take their lumps, but I know there are implications of that we can't even begin to understand.

Keeping Iraq alive in the press is good strategy and it is working with the public turning against the war in droves. This will provide fertile ground for consideration of impeachment in the upcoming investigations, impeachment another method of getting the hell out of Iraq.

This sticky business is much more complicated than some seem to understand and that is certainly true in the blaming of one person, in this case HRC, for the fiasco and its solution.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. I understand how complicated it is, and again I'm not blaming Hillary Clinton

The implications are that if we cut off the funding we'll be blamed with losing the war and lose the 2008 election, or at least that's a possibility.

My problem is that the same logic was applied in 2002 when the Democrats voted for the IWR and got us into this mess in the first place. I can't remember the last time that the party as a whole did the right thing instead of the politically expedient thing. We can reverse the damage that another Republican President will do but we can't bring soldiers back from the dead.

[AtomicKitten]

35. truer words were never spoken

- we can't bring them back from the dead. Indeed, and the basis for my primary pledge. However, Cheney has dug in his heels of this imperial presidency, insisting the executive branch will not answer Congress' subpoenas. I am beginning to believe extrication from Iraq is going to be much tougher than I had thought previously. However, stoking the anti Iraq war sentiment in the press is most certainly not a bad thing in spite of the predictable negative reaction here.

[fooj]

37. FWIW- I am entitled to an informed opinion.

As much as I appreciate your input, I don't need a lecture on how "complicated" this all is.

Hillary takes good care of Hillary. That's got NOTHING to do with the war in Iraq.

[IndianaGreen]

25. Hillary is failing the leadership test on Iraq, right in front of our eyes!

A real leader does not say, like she does, don't dump this hot potato on my plate on January 2009. Hillary could take some cues from John Conyers!

We need leaders, not personalities for President.

[AtomicKitten]

28. There is nothing HRC could say or do

that would ever please you, and that bias makes you ineligible to be taking seriously pontificating on what a leader is or is not. Your opinion is just that.

[welshTerrier2]

29. interesting standard

what then would be your eligibility to "pontificate" on bush?

it's hard to see how being highly critical of someone dismisses your "eligibility" to criticize them.

[AtomicKitten]

30. These are message boards

where people post their opinions .... O-P-I-N-I-O-N-S. Just calling a spade a spade.

I thought you were done talking to me, or does just lobbing barbs fall within the confines of that freshly expressed self-restriction? Take a stand and mean what you say and say what you really mean instead of posting passive-aggressive threads and barbs. I don't have hip boots high enough nor the inclination to wade through the BS.

[welshTerrier2]

32. you didn't answer my question about bush

if you don't want to, that's of course more than fine ...

[AtomicKitten]

34. There is a problem with the framing of that question.

Bush is the opposition. We at DU are supposed to be in the vicinity of being on the same side.

Your decision to join the ranks of those stoking intraparty discord is duly noted.

We have bigger fish to fry in America, so I will leave you to chatter amongst yourselves as I find the abject petty and pointless nastiness and negativity of that mindset a complete and utter waste of time.

[fooj]

41. Wow. Is there enough of you to go around?

[fooj]

36. Hillary has PLENTY of power. That's not a "claim"...it's a FACT.

C-Span thought it more important to cut from the march yesterday to televise her "town meeting" LIVE. Hell, they even got there early enough for the National Anthem. I witnessed it. No "twisting of facts" here. In the meantime, I'll pass on the "red meat"...

:smoke:

[Mass]

44. How about just leading? Telling us she understands this war was wrong?

Does she has freedom of speech?

And then, about leading in the Senate, a prt of which she is, by offering solutions, helping uniting Democrats around a resolution, ...

I do not know if there are the votes in the Senate to do that, but not trying is the best way to fail, and it seems to me that the Democrats in the Senate are just doing that, and that Hillary is certainly the most proeminent of all.

So, excuse me if I do not fall in adoration at her feet.

[welshTerrier2]

10. let me make sure i understand the reason she provided for ending the war

It's not that more than perhaps as many as 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion. It's not the hundreds of billions of dollars the war and occupation have cost the US. It's not that this has been a war to provide billions of dollars of revenues to bush's friends in the oil industry. It's not the senseless death and maiming of American troops and the lifetime of devastation they and their families will suffer. It's not because we have no right to remain in a country that overwhelmingly wants us to leave immediately. It's not because this f*&king war has ripped the heart and soul out of America. It's not because bush's actions in Iraq have destroyed any credibility or prestige the US might have once had. It's not because the war and occupation have done deep and lasting damage to important alliances we once valued. It's not because this has been a very real distraction from focussing on global terrorist activity. It's not because we are facing huge competition from emerging giants in India and China and the war and occupation have been a massive distraction.

No, it's none of those things. At least it's not the reason cited yesterday by Mrs. Clinton.

The reason bush should get us out of Iraq in two years (two more years of this crap???!!!) is because "it would be 'the height of irresponsibility' to pass the war along to the next commander in chief". OK. Just wanted to make sure I heard her right.

[AtomicKitten]

11. Nice twisting of her actual statement !

She said:

"We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office" in January 2009,
the former first lady said.

She didn't say this is the REASON we should leave Iraq, she said it is the EXPECTATION of the American people.

I'm sorry to see a once reasonable poster turn to the dark side.

[welshTerrier2]

17. funny, i had the same thoughts about a once reasonable poster. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

19. Good -- we are on the same page then. nt

[fooj]

38. Actually

the EXPECTATION of the American people is to have him "extricated" from office before 2009. It's safe to assume it's a possibility.

[IndianaGreen]

12. and she is still criticizing the management of the war, not the war itself

That's about an amoral position as I have ever heard!

[blm]

26. Or how about the fact that it is immoral for us to be there , especially since

Iraq has been in a civil war for the past YEAR, everyone in DC knows it, and the US is not allowed to involve its military in civil wars unless there is a specific mandate for that mission.

[lligrd]

13. Far Too Late!

If this is her campaign stategy then I don't see how progressives can support her.

[Ninja Jordan]

16. This will be the death knell of her campaign. Out by '09? Way to take a stand!

[MasonJar]

23. Hillary is clearly not calling for the troops tp stay that long; she is

telling Bush that he must remove the troops before he leaves office, the latest being Jan 2009.

[AJH032]

31. exactly

it's quite clear in fact. It's not surprising that DU misinterprets it, however.

[Tellurian]

43. Yes, I agree. In fact, Hillary IS applying pressure to Bush as evidenced

by the virulent response fired back by the WH.. Declaring her remarks a partisan attack on the WH.

Congress has been hamstrung by the shredding of our Constitution by the Republicans and Bush. Their power has been diluted beginning with the Patriots Act. Bush has given himself Superpowers. More than should have even been allowed for one branch of government against the other. Bush has systematically shifted the balance of power to the Executive Branch with the support of a Republican held Congress coupled with insidious "word" enhancements of his signings.

If you want to know where we stand Constitutionally, you can educate yourselves here at this link.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/sep/29/the_star_chamber

Haven't you ever wondered why Bush and Cheney have continued with nose thumbimg swag to declare: "he's the decider"?

[Flabbergasted]

24. Well its a great political statement. But she doesn't even wish it were true....

Hillary is AIPAC's back up plan....

[ima_sinnic]

39. what a cop-out! gee, *, you better bring them home by then or I'll, I'll ...

--or she'll what?
she has succeeded in saying absolutely nothing while making it appear that she "cares" and has "taken a stand."
she COULD take a strong principled stand against one more minute of the atrocity that is the Iraq occupation, but then she wouldn't be HRC.

[harveyc]

40. I don't get this ...

There is no way Shrub is going to stop the war in Iraq unless forced to do it by the Congress.

The Congress, of which she is a member, has the Constitutional power to end the war.

What the hell were her motives for saying this?

[catgirl]

42. Bad Response Hillary

First, she didn't answer the question that was asked.
Secondly, as the dems are coming in witht he intention
to wield power and make demands on the Iraq
situation, Hillary is saying "it's your (Bush) problem,
deal with it.

The dems position is Bush has made a huge mess and
we can't trust him to proceed further without our
guidance. Hillary doesn't seem to have a stand and
basically says- do what you must, just settle it before
we come into power. Wrong.

[Mass]

45. Not a good day for Democrats yesterday.

Clinton telling Bush he should clean his mess, but not giving us any insight on where she stands on these issues, and Biden endorsing hot pursuit in Iranian territory. A lot for a single day.

http://blog.psaonline.org/2007/01/29/backtracking-on-backbone/

STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, he did go on to say he doesn’t think the United States needs to go into Iran, but a few weeks ago, Senator Biden, you wrote the president a letter saying you don’t believe he has the authority to go into Iran. Did you get an answer?

BIDEN: No. But, look, George, I agree with Gates. There’s no question that we have to do everything we can to protect American troops and that includes hot pursuit across the border as a practical matter.

[Tellurian]

46. It was a Great Day for Hillary, though..

If she angered the WH by her statement..

and the president's response was:

"The White House condemned Clinton's comments as a partisan attack that undermines U.S.
soldiers.

She struck a nerve in Bush's never ending plan for troop deployment. Didn't she!

[karynnj]

47. Maybe Biden should be asked how well that

worked in Cambodia.