Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hillary Clinton: 'I will do what this president has failed to do: recognize reality and end the war'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 01:57 AM
Original message
Hillary Clinton: 'I will do what this president has failed to do: recognize reality and end the war'
Edited on Fri Apr-11-08 02:48 AM by bigtree




Pittsburgh, PA — Sen. Hillary Clinton slammed President Bush’s Iraq policy speech today and pledged to begin withdrawing troops at the start of her term regardless of the military situation on the ground in January 2009. (http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/10/the-buck-stops-with-hillary/)

While the President and Sen. McCain both said they will follow the advice of General David Petraeus who called for a moratorium on troop withdrawals from Iraq during Congressional testimony this week, Clinton insisted that her Iraq policy will be directed from the Oval Office.

“Let me describe for you the way our system works. Policy is set by the civilian leadership, the President of the United States sets the policy. Our military, and thankfully so, carries out the policy that is set. You ask the military for their best advice about how to implement the policy that you have set,” she said during a media availability at Pittsburgh International Airport, where she reiterated that she will begin withdrawing troops within her first 60 days in office.

“We have a long history of President’s changing policy. I have been clear throughout this campaign that my assessment is there is not military solution and the testimony delivered this week in the Congress by General Petraeus and Ambassador (Ryan) Crocker reinforced the assessment that I had made,” she said. “The surge was given a stated rationale that has not been fulfilled. We have given the Iraqis years of our blood and treasure for them to take responsibility for their own country.”

She added that, “an orderly responsible withdrawal that is clearly communicated to the Iraqis…will concentrate their attention far better than a blank check with indefinite timetables from this administration.”




At a news conference here, Mrs. Clinton was asked if she would keep to her promises on withdrawing troops, even if she is advised differently by military leaders on the ground. (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/president-is-boss-clinton-says/)

On the heels of Mr. Bush’s speech Thursday morning in Washington, Mrs. Clinton continued to criticize his Iraq policy. Mr. Bush said that the senior commander there will be allowed “all the time he needs” before he reduces troops further, and defended last year’s buildup of troops in Iraq.

Mrs. Clinton characterized Mr. Bush’s policy as out of touch with reality.

“The president refuses to face the reality that we are confronted by in Iraq,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Once again, President Bush is asking Americans for time and patience. But the American people are saying we’ve had enough of both.”

She added, “It’s time for the president to answer the question being asked of him. In the wake of the failed objectives that were laid out to be met by the surge, what is the exit strategy in Iraq? As president, I will do what this president has failed to do, and that is to recognize the reality and end this war responsibility, starting within 60 days of taking office.”




"I just want to respond to some of the statements and suggestions that have been made," she said, "that it is irresponsible or demonstrates a lack of leadership to advocate withdrawing troops from Iraq in a responsible and carefully planned withdrawal. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7337356.stm)

I fundamentally disagree. Rather, I think it could be fair to say it might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again...

You know the lack of political progress over the last six months and the recent conflict in Basra reflect how tenuous the situation in Iraq really is...

For the past five years we have continually heard from the administration that things are getting better, that we're about to turn a corner, that there is finally a resolution in sight. Yet each time Iraqi leaders fail to deliver...

I think it's time to begin an orderly process of withdrawing our troops, start rebuilding our military and focusing on the challenges posed by Afghanistan, the global terrorist groups and other problems that confront America..."




In a statement today, Hillary Clinton criticized Bush's Iraq declarations:

"Today, President Bush delivered yet another address on Iraq - but we’ve heard enough speeches that are long on promises, short on facts.

And the fact is, there will probably be more troops in Iraq after the surge than before the surge. Iraq has barely moved toward political reconciliation, meeting only a few of the benchmarks set out by the Bush Administration at the start of the surge. And violence has once again spiked in Baghdad and Basra.

On Tuesday, I asked General Petraeus when he came before the Senate Armed Services Committee what conditions would mean we should change course, given that the surge has failed to achieve political reconciliation. He did not answer.

Yesterday I called on President Bush to answer the question General Petraeus did not. But the President refuses to face reality.

I want to commend President Bush for agreeing to cut the length of deployments from 15 to 12 months. But it is deeply unfortunate that the President only made this change when the strain he placed on our forces required it.

Now, once again President Bush is asking Americans for time and patience - but the American people are saying he’s had enough of both.

Our troops have done all that’s been asked of them and more. It’s time for the President to answer the question being asked of him: in the wake of the failed surge, what is the endgame in Iraq?

As President, I will do what this president has failed to do: recognize reality and end the war responsibly," she said.




Clinton said on Thursday that if elected she would investigate whether oil companies are manipulating markets to boost their profits.

In her speech to the Beaver County Democrats banquet in Hopewell Township, Pennsylvania, Clinton said the price of a barrel of oil has risen from about $20 to around $110 during the administration of President George W. Bush.
She said it was time to take action to cut prices by releasing stocks from the strategic petroleum reserve and investing in environmentally friendly technology to help make the United States more energy independent.

The New York senator said gasoline prices could be as high as $4 a gallon this summer, raising the burden on working people already hit by an economic downturn and housing crisis.

"We're going to investigate the oil companies and make sure they are not manipulating the market to increase the energy prices," she said, vowing to end tax breaks for oil majors and use the money to fund clean energy investment.

"We're going to investigate the energy traders ... We've got to look into that, make it transparent... We don't really know what's going on," she said.




In U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton’s second visit to Hopewell Township second visit to Hopewell Township in 32 hours Thursday, she promised a boisterous Democratic audience that she’d renew the American dream and repeatedly said she could fix mistakes made by President Bush on the economy and the war in Iraq.

“I hear something. It’s the sound of a moving van leaving the White House taking George Bush,” she said to thunderous cheers. “I believe the whole world will breathe a sigh of relief when George Bush and Dick Cheney turn those keys over.”

Clinton told the audience she would end tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations, invest in manufacturing to spur job growth, pursue sound energy policies and enact programs to help the middle class achieve the American dream, such as increased funding and access to college grants and loans, lower interest rates, improved education for children and universal health care.



“The wealthy and the well-connected have had a president for seven years,” she said. “I think it’s time you had a president that represents you.”

“I will always stand strong for you. I always have,” she said. “I can’t promise you 100 percent results, there’s no such thing in life, but I can promise you 100 percent effort. If you give me the chance, I will not disappoint you.”

"We don't know what new problems the next President will face. But one thing we do know, and know with certainty, is that strength matters in a President -- and in a candidate for President," she told the Beaver County Democratic Committee banquet. ((http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/10/clinton_america_needs_leader_w.html)

"We need a candidate and a President who will stand strong -- who will not waver, who will not bend with the winds of the moment or break when the attacks start flying."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 02:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. Wow!!!
If only she'd said all of this before she voted for the war, a lot of us would be suitably impressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 06:01 AM
Response to Reply #1
21. I'm impressed now
and think she can actually do it.
the primary process is pulling her left and this is a great thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #21
39. I want a leftie who doesn't have to pander or pull to the left. I've
heard too many say what they will do and do something else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Would be nice. But Obama's not that person
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 02:00 AM
Response to Original message
2. Her insistence that she can still win this race makes me doubt her ability to recognize reality.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PetraPooh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 02:37 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. Took the words right off my keyboard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 02:42 AM
Response to Reply #2
10. BO's lead is statistically insignificant, HRC will win most of the

upcoming primaries, and she can beat McCain in November, which BO could not do.

THAT is reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 02:59 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. In your dreams home boy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #11
22. sweetie
that's some exercise routine you have going there. you must be tired by now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeaLyons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #10
30. ..
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #10
33. exactly the reality of this race, dembones
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #10
35. That's just factually incorrect - especiallly if one comprehends the delegate allocation process
... which is weighted toward districts and states with a track record of electing Democrats. It's particularly delusional when one regards the fact that Obama leads in total delegates even as Clinton has the (temporary?) lead in superdelegates.

When one allows one's own zeal to filter FACTS through the lenses of bias, I suppose it's easy to think it a virtue to wallow in denial. It's not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
12. What wrong with taking it to the convention?
With out the delegates neither of them take the convention, that puts a lot at play. Besides whats the hurry McCain it toast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. I see utter futility...unless she goes after pledged delegates which I find highly unethical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
32. Aswith everything, putting on one's best face, even in a crap production, is a sign of decency
All things being equal, of course, for her to simply slouch around would truly be embarrassing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
34. There is also the problem of not recognizing the truth. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 02:09 AM
Response to Original message
3. K&R, for an excellent post.
Hillary doesn't have my vote, but it is good to hear her speak with sense and confidence, and good for the party to be essentially united on the important issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justitia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 02:12 AM
Response to Original message
4. Oh, the irony. -eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newmajority Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 02:31 AM
Response to Original message
5. Hillary, if you could recognize reality, you would end.....
....your pathetic, petty, party-destroying campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 02:36 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. the party's fine
that's the reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Oh, stop it -- BO has only a minuscule lead and HRC will win most of the

upcoming primaries.

Moreover, Obama could not possibly beat McCain in November, so Obama is the one with the pathetic, petty, party-destroying campaign.

Sometimes I wonder whose payroll BO is on because he seems determined to take the party down with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 03:31 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. No, she won't.
North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota are all places she has no chance; her formerly commanding 20-point lead in Pennsylvania has shrunk to around 5 points, which is nearly within the margin of polling error. If she fails to do well in Pennsylvania, which she must not only win, but must win by a large margin in order to have any realistic chance, then the perceptions created will probably not serve her well in the remaining primaries. She will probably win in Indiana and Kentucky, and possibly in West Virginia and in Puerto Rico, but the margins are unlikely to be by enough; if Obama comes within 5 or even 10 points in Pennsylvania, her delegate pickup will be so small that his likely margins of victory in NC will more than offset them. She has no chance.

And the idea that Obama couldn't possibly beat McCain in November is just stupid defeatist horseshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napoleon_in_rags Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 02:36 AM
Response to Original message
6. My goddess awaits!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric Condon Donating Member (761 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 03:00 AM
Response to Original message
13. "...unless the war becomes popular again."
Too little too late, Hillary. We haven't forgotten.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 03:30 AM
Response to Original message
15. Hi Bigtree...I do feel bad that I can't get into your posts.
You do a wonderful job.

Just wanted to say that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 05:05 AM
Response to Original message
17. If hillary could recognize reality
she would no longer be in the race.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kevinmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 05:28 AM
Response to Original message
18. what's the deal with Hillary's head ,,,, she is always boppin her head like a Bobble-Head doll?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrJJ Donating Member (657 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 05:49 AM
Response to Original message
19. Clinton BS keeps spewing

October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

As Delivered

"Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

"If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise."

"This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction."

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 05:59 AM
Response to Original message
20. Thank you for another beautiful photo essay, Bigtree!
K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 06:13 AM
Response to Original message
23. to little, too late, too bad she didn't 'recognize reality'
Edited on Fri Apr-11-08 06:17 AM by Carolina
before she gave Bush (of all people) such awesome power to go to war, before she SHIRKED her CONGRESSIONAL DUTY.

Nothing she can say now changes her part in so much death and destruction... after all didn't she say that words are CHEAP! Her words about this war in 2002 and now are truly cheap. It's her vote THEN that made all the difference and which is the reason this nomination has not been a cake walk for her. She's still a tool with NO MORAL COURAGE or COMPASS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ORDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
24. Can't even recognize the reality of her Primary situation, meh.
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. some folks can't recognize
. . . that the issue of the occupation, and ALL the opposition to that occupation, is important and valuable. It's a shame to focus solely on the politics of this race when considering these candidates' and these sitting senators' proposals for ending the occupation and bring our troops home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
26. HRC is right. The deference to "the generals" is dangerous. K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. I do think that it helps
. . . for the president to come to office with their own internal knowledge of things like force structure, the nature of our commitments abroad, and a clear view of the resources we have in and out of play which will form the basis of our national defense. A great deal of that expertise is already invested in Sen. Clinton because of the role she's played on the Armed Services committee, and, to a lesser degree in Obama who would need to rely more on the counsel of his advisers in both military and foreign affairs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Honestly, any candidate who promises to defer to the military leadership
is prominently displaying a very large red flag. The military is supposed to be under civilian control. If a candidate doesn't have the expertise to fulfill this role adequately, they'd better get that knowledge tout suite.

If they're disinclined to get that expertise or to do the job, then why are they applying for the job of commander in chief of the most expensive military in the world?

If you look at the budget that the president is administering, it's plain that (s)he's little more than a military commander in a suit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. I do think that, under your standard
. . . a case could be made that, under that civilian control, there would be value in a non-military perspective which was less apt to rely on the nation's defenses in addressing foreign conflicts. But, there had better be some level 'expertise' to balance any diplomatic approach against the predictable aggressive initiatives of the military community.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. That's certainly true.
The CiC is ultimately responsible to wield not only the tools of peace, but also the tools of war.

My point is simply that the org chart for the latter is much larger, and so is the temptation to delegate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeaLyons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
31. K&R
Excellent post. Thanks.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #31
38. thanks for the kick!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
37. What a great president she would be!!!
Pity, we are about to throw her under the bus in exchange for the purveyor of fake dreams.......

:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
40. I wonder why she wants this NOW but not in 2004, 2005 and 2006?
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. 2004, 2005 and 2006
Edited on Fri Apr-11-08 04:28 PM by bigtree
In 2004, Sen. Obama said he was willing to support more troops in Iraq, said withdrawal from Iraq would be 'a slap in the face' to the troops fighting there." "Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said Saturday he would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the president and military leaders believe will stabilize the country …'A quick withdrawal would add to the chaos there and make it 'an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity,' Obama said. It would also damage America's international prestige and amount to 'a slap in the face' to the troops fighting there, he said." Christopher Wills, "Obama Willing To Support More Troops In Iraq," The Associated Press, 9/19/04

In 2005, Sen. Obama said that 'U.S. forces are still a part of the solution.'" "I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq….First and foremost, after the December 15 elections and during the course of next year, we need to focus our attention on how reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw.'" Obama speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 11/22/05

In 2006, Sen. Obama opposed Sen. Kerry's amendment to withdraw troops, saying he opposed 'a precipitous withdrawal of troops.' Sen. Obama voted against an amendment by Senator Kerry requiring the president to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq in 2006 and have complete withdrawal by July 1, 2007. "But having visited Iraq, I am also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this administration. It could compound them… A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility" 2006 Vote # 181, S2766, 6/22/06; Obama Remarks, Congressional Record, 06/21/06

Since Barack Obama entered the U.S. Senate, his record on Iraq is identical to Hillary's, with one exception. ABC News reported that, "In fact, Obama's Senate voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton's. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against." ABC, 5/17/07; senate.gov; see chart

source: http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5177


Sen. Obama's floor statement opposing the Kerry bill: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_6 /



Hillary Clinton on Iraq

In January 2003, Hillary sent letter to Colin Powell, urges him to continue robust inspections. "If our words about supporting UN inspectors have any meaning and if we truly want the United Nations to be effective, we must act to support the UN arms inspectors and act to unite the UN Security Council behind the use of U2 aircraft in Iraq...Additionally if we are truly serious about supporting the UN inspections we should increase our intelligence support to the inspectors." Letter to Colin Powell, 1/31/03

In March 2003, Hillary argues that Iraq situation should be solved 'a peaceful manner through coercive inspection.' "'It is preferable that we do this in a peaceful manner through coercive inspection'...he senator said the Bush administration still had work to do at convincing the American public and the rest of the world that Hussein presented a real threat that might require military action. 'The administration should continue to try to enlist more support,' she added." AP, 3/3/03

In October 2003, Hillary goes to senate floor and asserts that the Bush administration 'gilded the lily' on Iraq war intelligence. "I think it is clear, and it is not just a mistake, it is not just a wrong assessment--I think now it is clear that, for a combination of reasons, the administration gilded the lily, engaged in hyperbole, took whatever small nugget of intelligence that existed and blew it up into a mountain, in order, I suppose, to make the case more strongly and convincingly to the American people. But at what a cost? The cost of our credibility, the cost of our national leadership, and even more so the cost of perhaps not being able to take actions in the future that are necessary to our well-being and our interests because we may look like the nation or at least the administration that cried wolf. It is a big price to pay.” Floor Speech, 10/17/03

Since 2005, Hillary has consistently support redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq. Vote #322, 11/15/05; Vote #182, 6/22/06; Vote #75, 3/14/07; Vote # 147, 4/26/07; Vote #167, 5/16/07; Vote #345, 9/20/07; Vote #411, 11/16/07

In August 2006, Hillary grills Rumsfeld, slams 'happy talk' on failed Iraq war policy. "Under your leadership there have been numerous errors in judgment that have led us to where we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a full fledged insurgency and full blown sectarian conflict in Iraq…Mr. Secretary, when our constituents ask for evidence that your policy in Iraq and Afghanistan will be successful, you don’t leave us with much to talk about. Yes, we hear a lot of happy talk and rosy scenarios, but because of the Administration’s strategic blunders, and frankly the record of incompetence in executing, you are presiding over a failed policy." Committee Statement, 8/3/06

In August 2007, Hillary sends letter to Pentagon pushing administration to start planning for Iraq withdrawal. “The Pentagon has issued a stinging rebuke to…Hillary Rodham Clinton, arguing that she is boosting enemy propaganda by asking how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq. Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman wrote a biting reply to questions Clinton raised in May, urging the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has privately and publicly pushed Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace two months ago to begin drafting the plans for what she said will be a complicated withdrawal of troops, trucks and equipment. 'If we're not planning for it, it will be difficult to execute it in a safe and efficacious way,' she said then." MSNBC, 7/19/07

In November 2007, Hillary calls on President Bush to explicitly state that the United States will not maintain permanent military bases in Iraq. "Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton called on President Bush today to clarify the recently signed Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America to confirm that the United States does not plan to place any permanent bases within Iraq and instead plans to begin the phased redeployment of U.S. troops." Press Release, 11/27/07

In December 2007, Hillary introduces legislation that would prevent President Bush from agreeing to create permanent bases in Iraq. "Senator Clinton introduced legislation today that requires the President to seek Congressional approval for any agreement that would extend the U.S. military commitment to Iraq… 'The Bush Administration must not circumvent Congress on the critical issue of the future U.S. presence in Iraq. The Administration must not be permitted to enter into agreements that could lead to permanent bases in Iraq which would damage U.S. interests in Iraq and the broader region without Congressional approval," said Senator Clinton.'" Press Release, 12/6/07

Sen. Obama co-sponsors Hillary Clinton's legislation in January 2008. Congress.gov

source: http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6548

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Why did Hillary speak on senate floor AGAINST withdrawal AND timetable in 2006 and
Edited on Fri Apr-11-08 04:36 PM by blm
spend 2003 and 2004 undermining the campaign of the Democratic nominee who we KNEW would work hardest to get our troops out of Iraq in the safest way possible?

Why did Brinkley mention Clintons were backstabbing Kerry in April2004?
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Why did Bill use his 3 week book tour to protect and defend Bush on his Iraq war decisions while he wouldn't say one word supportive of Kerry's plans for stabilizing Iraq?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

Why did Carville sabotage Ohio Dem voters on election night in 2004?
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Why does Hillary find a camera to undermine honest Dem to validate FAKE ISSUE TO SHOW SUPPORT FOR TROOPS just as Bush does?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

Why do you pretend Obama was so seriously involved when he has only emerged recently to try and lead while Clintons have been USING Their leadership grip the last 15 years to hurt other Dem leaders and the party?

Can't you just fulfill your need to trust and glorify the Clintons without pretending Obama had more power to effect debate the last 15 years than they did?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. there are only two Democratic candidates left in this race
. . . and Sen. Obama doesn't come close to representing the progressive position on withdrawal, much less the absolute position that progressives were pushing in the years you've outlined. The candidates did not differ on IRAQ, once Obama got into the Senate, no matter how many objections you're able to pile up on his rival.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Point being that the POWERFUL at the time assured Bush would have his support, even against
the Dem nominee, and after when the withdrawal was submitted.

Obama is now being closely advised by the staunchest supporters of real withdrawal.

Hillary is being advised by most closely by those who have protected BushInc more than any other Democrats in modern history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
41. "concentrate their attention" shows she STILL IS BLAMING IRAQIS for the chaos, death, and
Edited on Fri Apr-11-08 03:32 PM by WinkyDink
destruction our WAR CRIMINALS visited upon them!!

Every time she speaks of them she sounds peeved, offended even, that the Iraqis just aren't GRATEFUL enough for the "GIFT of FREEDOM".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
47. This is the kind of post I like!...Something meaningful1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC