Sen. Clinton Wants Troops in Iraq for at Least 10 Years

[davidswanson]

By David Swanson

On Monday, Ted Koppel offered a report / commentary on National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" which can be found online with this headline: "A Duty to Mislead: Politics and the Iraq War," and this introductory text: "Democrats are telling voters that if they are elected, all U.S. troops will be pulled out of Iraq. But as Sen. Hillary Clinton privately told a senor military adviser, she knows there will be some troops there for decades. It's an example of how in some cases, politics can force dishonesty."

Well, someone is trying to force dishonesty. I'm not sure it's politics.

In the audio report, Koppel points out that in a recent debate Senator Hillary Clinton said that her first priority if elected would be to "bring our troops home." She did not say ALL our troops, Koppel points out, and she does not mean ALL our troops. She told the New York Times three months ago that some forces would have to remain. And Koppel adds that he spoke with someone from the Pentagon who briefs Clinton, and that she had told this person that if she is elected and reelected, she expects to have troops in Iraq at the end of her second term. Koppel notes that that's 10 years away. He adds that he thinks she's "right" and that the other Democratic candidates agree with her. When, oh when, he laments, will we get the truth instead of applause lines.

But let's back up a minute here. The question of how long U.S. troops remain in Iraq is not an immutable fact for Clinton and Koppel to get right, as scientists observing the natural world. It's a question to be determined by either the U.S. Congress or the U.S. President or both. Koppel, in fact, has no say in the matter, and I for one am profoundly uninterested in his opinion. Clinton's opinion, on the other hand, is of the highest importance. Koppel is to be applauded for exposing it to the light of day.

Koppel, it appears, however, did not learn his lesson in 2003 at that New Hampshire debate where Congressman Dennis Kucinich received such thunderous applause for taking Koppel to task. Koppel does not have the right to determine which candidates are "real" candidates or to put words in their mouths. Neither Kucinich nor former Senator Mike Gravel intends, if elected, to keep troops in Iraq for a year, much less a decade. In fact, these candidates are trying their hardest to fully end the occupation of Iraq prior to 2008. My distinct impression is that Republican candidate Ron Paul shares this position.

Some of the other Democratic candidates, as well, may not share the Clinton-Koppel position in favor of a decade or more of occupation. In fact, that may be exactly why Koppel has exposed Clinton's position and described it not as a position at all, but as an observation of facts that any serious candidate would recognize. Koppel may be concerned that some of the other Democrats whom Disney (ABC) considers viable do not share Clinton's position. He is instructing them on what position to take if they want to be in the center of the stage and treated respectfully by the media.

Something is, indeed, trying to force dishonesty.

Each candidate needs to be asked, and the answer reported: Will they work now for the complete withdrawal of all troops, mercenaries, and contractors?

In fact, there are a lot of questions they should be asked.

[IndyOp]

1. And Iraq is such a convenient position from which to

invade Iran. :grr:

[Rydz777]

4. Zbigniew Bzezinski in Time this week says Putin is just itching

for the US to invade Iran. The Russian establishment is delighted that we are in the Iraqi disaster, and look forward to a big spike in oil prices (from which they benefit) if Bush is foolish enough to attack Iran.

[Cha]

44. It would benefit Russia

if the bushits attack Iran because the Mid-East oil would be tied up and then Russia's oil would go for a very High price? Is that it?

[MadHound]

2. Yup, Hillary isn't going to pull the troops out during her first term for certain,

After all, she's going to have to prove that she's tough as a man when it comes to military matters. Besides, her corporate backers, the same as the 'Pugs corporate backers, want this war to continue for as long as possible.

What I'm going to find interesting around here is if Hillary wins, and stays in Iraq, how many people who are anti-war now will change to pro-war just to stand behind Hillary.

It is for this, among many other reasons, that I'm standing for Kucinich. The man wants to do what the people want done, bring the troops home. And unlike Hillary, he has been on the right side of the issue on the war since the very beginning. He has voted against the IWR(yay! He was smarter than Bush!) and has voted against every single funding bill since. Unlike some candidates out there.

Yep, if Hillary gets in, we're staying in Iraq, despite what she says. Notice how she parses her words when it comes to talking about Iraq. She's doing what she can to appease the majority of Americans who want the troops home, yet still leaving an avenue open where she can keep them in Iraq. The double speak is nauseating.

[ShortnFiery]

8. I'm a former Army Officer and I never swaggered like HRC and Maggie Thatcher LOVE to throw their ...

perceived power around. HRC is trying to out-do the most manly men - it's very disquieting. I don't even recognize HRC as the same women as she portrayed during the 1990s. She's now OUR woman WARRIOR :crazy: ... our Conan of the Democratic Party. :puke: :(

What is HRC shooting for: The second coming of Margaret Thathcer even before that dried up old war horse is placed in the ground?

Yes, we need another Maggie Thatcher, but for the US to royally screw up our beloved country. :eyes:

[blm]

9. That's the head of the nail - she'll have to 'prove' how tough she is the same way

the dictatortot who ran away from military service had to - with REAL army men and women.

Probably practicing a 'steely gaze' in the miirror for years now.

[Zandor]

3. Catchy headline there

Based on an unnnamed Pentagon source. Hmmm.

[bvar22]

17. OK. Here's a NAMED source.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- If elected president, Sen. Hillary Clinton said, she would likely keep some U.S. forces in Iraq in a supporting role after 2009 because America has "a remaining military as well as a political mission" that requires a presence there.

However, in an interview with The New York Times published Thursday, Clinton said the American troops would not play a role in trying to curb sectarian violence.
Rather, they would be positioned north of Baghdad to combat terrorists, support the Kurds, counter any Iranian moves into Iraq and provide logistical, air and training support to the Iraqi government "if the Iraqis ever get their act together."

Obama outlined a plan for maintaining a U.S. presence in Iraq similar to Clinton's.
"Withdrawal would be gradual, and we'd keep some U.S. troops in the region to prevent a wide war, to go after al Qaeda and other terrorists," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/clinton.troops/index.html

[Zandor]

19. So where's the 10 years?

I don't see it.

[bvar22]

21. I know you don't "see it".

And thats sad.

[Zandor]

30. "Quote" it for me

Thanks.

[GeorgeGist]

5. Convenient Lies ...

are easier for Wannabes than honesty.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mugsy]

7. Pandering to the Right again.

I have *NO* idea why she continues to insist on pandering to the Right... a group that will NEVER vote for her even if Jesus himself endorsed her.

She seems to think she has the Democratic vote "locked up", so she ignores them and says stupid things like when she echoed Bush's "we're safer but not yet safe" at the last debate. Uh, no we aren't. Sorry Hil, but if you believe that anything that has occurred since the invasion of Iraq has made us "safer", you're too far out of touch with reality to be my president.

[Tom Joad]

13. Panders to the donors.

[mckeown1128]

48. Nope it isn't pandering to the right...

which makes it very scary...she is to the right.

[msongs]

10. do you have proof for your claim or is this just more BS? nt

[Hissyspit]

11. I heard that. Thanks for posting it.

You could tell Koppel was kind of pissed.

[Tom Joad]

12. Bill Clinton's continuation of Iraq sanctions killed tens of thousands of Iraqis

Billy Clinton also bombed Iraq.

So why do people think that there will be any other outcome to a Hillary presidency?

[BootinUp]

14. Koppel has a history

of influencing elections with his selective reporting. Nightly reports on hostages seems to come to mind.

[iamahaingttta]

15. We've had troops there for 15 years now...

...and before you know it, it'll be 50.

Personally, I think that as long as there are 50 United States, and a fossil fuel based global economy, there will be American troops in Iraq. Not even a Dennis Kucinich will be able to pull them all out.

[illinoisprogressive]

16. Hillary is a total hawk. very republican like in war mongering

[Discord]

18. Hillary is in the mold of the Old School Dems.

More of the same vote selling and pandering that got us in this predicament in the first place. Political complacency.

I will NOT vote for HRC, I don't care if she wins the primary, I'll abstain in the general elections if she is the candidate. I know many that will also.

This time around, I'm voting my conscience, not for "anyone but a repuke."

DK for Pres!!!

[Alamom]

20. Clinton Calls on Pentagon to Plan for Withdrawal from Iraq 5/23/07

May 23, 2007

Presses Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Begin Proper Planning

Washington, DC - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, in both a letter to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and in a private meeting with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace, called on the Pentagon to brief the Congress on any existing plans for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, or provide an explanation as to why such plans have not been properly created.

"The seeds of many problems that continue to plague our troops and mission in Iraq were planted in the failure to adequately plan for the conflict and properly equip our men and women in uniform," Senator Clinton wrote. "Congress must be sure that we are prepared to withdraw our forces without any unnecessary danger."

The full text of Senator Clinton's letter follows:



Dear Mr. Secretary:


Given the express will of the Congress to implement a phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq and the importance of proper contingency planning to achieve that goal, I write to request that you provide the appropriate oversight committees in Congress - including the Senate Armed Services Committee - with briefings on what current contingency plans exist for the future withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Alternatively, if no such plans exist, please provide an explanation for the decision not to engage in such planning.

(link to entire letter)


http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=274922










June 7, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions Lieutenant General Douglas Lute at Senate Armed Services Committee Confirmation Hearing



>
General, one of my concerns is that there is growing pressure here in the Congress--and it certainly is reflected around the country-- that at some point in the not very distant future we will begin to withdraw our combat troops when it becomes abundantly clear, as I believe it already is, that the Iraqis are not yet done with killing each other. They have no intention to reach a political resolution and there is no one in the Iraqi government nor on the scene who appears able to emerge to try to force those political settlements that are absolutely essential to any kind of stability or security in Iraq.

We may, as I have said, have remaining missions that will be concerned with Al Qaeda with the difficult position that we find ourselves in vis-à-vis the Kurds, the Turks, and the increasing pressure on the Kurds from the Sunnis to the south. As well as, perhaps, a continuing training and logistical role if the Iraqis get their act together, as well as protecting our interests and attempting to figure out what to do about Iran going forward. But I do not foresee a long term role for our combat brigades in the midst of this sectarian civil war.

So, to that end, since we know it will be difficult, time consuming, and dangerous to withdraw our troops and our equipment, I wrote to Secretary of Defense Gates on May 23, and gave a copy of my letter to General Pace asking for briefings on what exactly the planning was with respect to future, maybe even imminent, withdrawals of US forces from Iraq. And Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Secretary Gates be entered into the record.


more..........


http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=275680









Sorry, I don't have anything this current from the other candidates, maybe someone else does.





edsp

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. Nice deception and implied military threat to Iran by HRC

==We may, as I have said, have remaining missions that will be concerned with Al Qaeda with the difficult position that we find ourselves in vis-à-vis the Kurds, the Turks, and the increasing pressure on the Kurds from the Sunnis to the south. As well as, perhaps, continuing training and logistical role if the Iraqis get their act together, as well as protecting our interests and attempting to figure out what to do about Iran going forward. But I do not foresee a long term role for our combat brigades in the midst of this sectarian civil war. ==

Here is the clever deception by HRC: "But I do not foresee a long term role for our combat brigades in the midst of this sectarian civil war."

In other words, she is making it sound as if she will not keep troops in Iraq in the long-term while giving herself the perfect inoculation against charges of flip-flopping by implicitly limiting that comment only as it relates to the civil war. She, consistent with all her statements on continuing the (de-escalated under HRC) war, will not keep troops fighting in the civil war but they will remain for the other military missions she has consistently outlined, including on her own website.

[Alamom]

24. Sen. Clinton - Iran & Iraq

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13520/democratic_debate_transcript_new_hampshire.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F8211%2Fhillary_rodham_clinton

NH Debate Transcripts


BLITZER
I'd like to ask: How would you approach solving the problem we have Iran today? Would you use force or would you use diplomacy? And if you used diplomacy, what would you do?


CLINTON: Well, I am very concerned about Iran. And I believe that we should have been using diplomacy for a number of years now.

I am, I guess, pleased that the administration is starting to talk to the Iranians, but it is way overdue. We have allowed the Iranians to begin their nuclear program, to imprison Iranian Americans as they are now, to send weapons across their borders to be used against our young men and women.

And we need a process of engagement. You know, the president's policy has been, we don't talk in this administration to people we don't agree with or that we think are bad. All during the Cold War, we always talked to the Soviet Union.

They had missiles pointed at us. They had leaders who said they would bury us. They waged wars around the world. We never stopped talking.

In my administration, diplomacy, patient, careful diplomacy, the kind of diplomacy that Bill Richardson did for my husband, that really gets people to stay with it over time.

Are you always going to get good results? No. But you've got to start the process.

However, we still have to make it clear that Iran having a nuclear weapon is absolutely unacceptable. We have to try to prevent that at all costs.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON:But we need to start with diplomacy in order to see what we can accomplish.



BLITZER: So what happens, Senator, if diplomacy, when all is said and done, fails?

CLINTON: Wolf, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals, because we've had an administration that doesn't believe in diplomacy. You know, they have every so often Condi Rice go around the world and show up some where and make a speech, and occasionally they even send Dick Cheney -- and that's hardly diplomatic in my view.



NH Debate June3
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/03/first.100.days/index.html

The last question posed to the eight Democratic candidates at Sunday night's debate came from Ivy Merrill, a substitute elementary school teacher.

"Given that the circumstances in this country and in our world were essentially the same when you take office, what would be your top priority for your first 100 days?"


John Edwards: "To travel the world -- re-establish America's moral authority in the world -- which I think is absolutely crucial. The other things become less important and subservient.

Hillary Clinton: "Well, if President Bush has not ended the war in Iraq, to bring our troops home. That would be the very first thing that I would do."


Barack Obama: "That would be the number one priority, assuming nothing has changed. The second priority is getting moving on health care because that's something that we can get done, I think, very quickly."


Bill Richardson: "Nobody's talked about your profession, education.
"I would upgrade our schools. I would have preschool for every American, full-day kindergarten. I would pay our teachers what they deserve. I'd have a minimum wage for our teachers, $40,000. I did that in New Mexico. We went from 49th to 29th.

Joseph Biden: "I would end the war in Iraq and immediately move to defuse the possible war in Iran and immediately defuse what's going on on the Korean Peninsula.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. "We have to try to prevent that at all costs."

All costs=military force as a last resort?

==Hillary Clinton: "Well, if President Bush has not ended the war in Iraq, to bring our troops home. That would be the very first thing that I would do."==

It is a shame HRC lied to the American people instead of being honest about her plan to keep troops in Iraq. Notice, though, that the triangulator did not say she would bring all the troops home. ;)

[Alamom]

27. Okie-dokie.....

[creeksneakers2]

28. If she lets go of the sectarian war

Iraq will explode and there will be nothing left to train, get oil from, keep Iran out of, etc. My guess is that Shi'ites would slaughter Sunnis into total submission. Then a radical Shi'ite would take over and kick us out.

Getting out of Iraq is going to be almost impossible. No leader is going to want the blame for the humanitarian and geopolitical consequences of a complete withdrawal.

I think best course for now would be to force Bush to make a real plan for how the Iraqis can take over. Find all the problems that need to be addressed. If planning for an Iraqi takeover runs into some insurmountable barrier, then the public needs to be convinced that there is no alternative but to withdraw. Only then, when leaders can say they have no choice, can they act.

I hope that day never comes. I'd like to see a real plan and see it succeed.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. I've got a solution, abandon the whole democracy thing and give the Sunnis control of the military

And install a Sunni dictator. That's what the British did after World War I and the country was at least stable.

[bvar22]

31. That is how I see it.

Her statement if chock FULL of "Weasel Words".

Does ANYBODY really believe that the US Military will be able to remain in Iraq and protect EXXON's OIl on a "limited" basis? I don't believe that even Hillary believes this, but her statement DOES give political cover for pretending to be Anti-War before 2008, and maintaining the Occupation, Permanent Bases, and the Imperial Palace (Green Zone)AFTER 2008.

"OOPS! The "insurgents" are still attacking us. We must have MORE troops and another $150Billion for Iraq. No one could have forseen this! We should be able to draw down troops in another 6 months!"

And the CorpoWar keeps rolling along under NEW management.

[MGKrebs]

34. I do.

We could help them control their borders. The Corps of Engineers could help them build infrastructure. We could provide medical assistance. We could help get water and electricity working. Refugee assistance.

The military is good at a lot of things if they have a clear mission.

What we CAN'T do is be in charge. And we can't pretend to be helping them when we are trying to rip them off.

Too many people assume that leaving even one soldier in Iraq is equivalent to keeping 150,000 there. And if we had only one soldier there, that he would be the One In Charge.

Don't fall for the right wing false choice. There are more than two options. It's not all-or-nothing. We can be more sophisticated than that if need be.

edit to add: You are actually making two separate statements: "remain in Iraq" and "protect Exxon's oil", but we do not have to accept that one inevitably leads to the other. George Bush might be committed to protecting Exxon's oil revenue, but that doesn't mean that every other possible president is.

[Ethelk2044]

46. She is talking out both sides of her mouth and her A _ _

She never had any attentions to bring all the troops home. This is what you call a Flip Flop

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. Will any anti-war person vote for Ghouliani-lite now nt?

[matcom]

25. Folks I got SERIOUS news for all of you

The U.S. Embassy is as big as the fucking Vatican in Iraq.

We ain't going anywhere. Think troops in Germany (only MUCH more dangerous) for Decades.

Any pol who says our troops are leaving is lying.

It really is that simple.

[jmp]

29. As long as ...

As long as elements of al-Qaeda or affiliated groups remain in Iraq, there will be some number of US troops in Iraq to hunt them down and frustrate their efforts to take over the country.

No serious person running for President is going to walk away from a known al-Qaeda cell. And I doubt that even the most outraged here would propose that we do.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. Bill Richardson has said that he will not support a residual force

[jmp]

39. Bill Richardson

Richardson is a fringe candidate and has nothing to lose by adopting an irresponsible position that appeals to the screwy fringe of the Democratic base.

I'm not sure why any American would support such a stance unless they don't believe that al-Qaeda has declared war on the US. If you won't hunt down and capture or kill terrorists/enemies/militants/freedom fighters that are actively trying to harm the US ... you have no business being President of this country.

[eridani]

37. Utter nonsense

What bullshit--"attempts to take over the country". As if a Sunni fundi sect that is a tiny minority of even the Sunni resistance could possibly force its will on the Shi'ite majority. If we get completely out, the mainly Saudi and UAE Al Qaeda in Iraq will be ripped to shreds in a fit of xenophobic rage, them being the only foreign targets left.

[jmp]

40. Are you serious?

Like there isn't a recent history in Iraq of a subset of the Sunni minority forcing its will on the Shiite majority? You'd be amazed what a small group can accomplish with mindless violence.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. The Sunni minority has always had some power there to help force its will on the Shiite majority

First it was the Ottoman Empire, then it was the British, then it was the United States. Unless Saudi Arabia is willing to go to war, the Shiites should have no trouble taking over the country, especially with Iran's backing.

[eridani]

43. I was referring to the tiny Al Qaeda presence, not the Sunni resistance

You suggested that Al Qaeda could control Iraq when they don't even control the minority Sunni resistance.

Former Sunni dominance was entirely a result of outside imperial intervention anyway--Ottomans, then British, then US. The elaborate balance between clans, society and government that previously existed has been smashed to smithereens by our intervention.

Can't find the URL, but somewhere in my stash (if I can remember the right search words) is an astonishing article about Saddam negotiating the repurchase of a few tanks from some clan leaders--and failing! Iraq has never had any gun control laws whatsoever, and social formations independent of government owned tanks, ferchrissakes! That's a situation beyond the wildest dreams of even the most fanatic 2nd Amendment proponent here--they all assume that "arms" means personal weapons, thus ruling out tanks and nukes.

[D23MIURG23]

35. To me what this says is...

"All the REAL candidates know that Iraq is destined to be the next Vietnam. Just look at all the OIL over there..."

Just exactly what is it that these assholes think they are accomplishing by selling our military and diplomatic prowess, our safety, not to mention any gambit at the stability of our collective HABITAT(!), all for a five year supply of smelly black liquid?

[calteacherguy]

36. Poets, priests, and politicians...

Have words to thank for their positions
Words that scream for your submission
No-one's jamming their transmission
And when their eloquence escapes you
Their logic ties you up and rapes you

De Do Do Do De Da Da Da
Is all I want to say to you
De Do Do Do De Da Da Da
Their innocence will pull me through
De Do Do Do De Da Da Da
Is all I want to say to you
De Do Do Do De Da Da Da
They're meaningless and all that's true

De Do Do Do De Da Da Da
Is all I want to say to you
De Do Do Do De Da Da Da
Their innocence will pull me through
De Do Do Do De Da Da Da
Is all I want to say to you
De Do Do Do De Da Da Da
They're meaningless and all that's true

[Imagevision]

38. Hillary; " I said I would bring the troops home, I never said ALL of them...my God?!!!

A few weeks back Bill Clinton announced he would distance himself from being photographed and seen in the company of George H. W. Bush. yaaawwnnn... these people are so bright.

[mnhtnbb]

41. Edwards' position is that all combat troops should be withdrawn, with

no permanent U.S. bases, over a period of 12-18 months. He does consider
leaving 'security' type forces, but wants international assistance.

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/2/14/112343/492

[IndianaGreen]

45. Keeping troops in Iraq, from Hillary's own mouth! (Oil & Israel)

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda. It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.

-- Hillary Clinton

Published on Thursday, March 15, 2007 by the New York Times

If Elected... Clinton Says Some G.I.’s in Iraq Would Remain

by Michael R. Gordon and Patrick Healy

WASHINGTON — 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 to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”

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

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0315-02.htm

[mckeown1128]

47. We need a president who will end the war...

like edwards or Obama