Why would Sen. Clinton threaten to cut off aid to Iraq?

[Usrename]

I’m hoping that some Hillary fans can help me out here, and show me that she’s not all that bad as she seems to me to be.

In last night’s candidate forum at Soldier Field she threatened to cut off aid to Iraq as part of the second step in her plan to deal with the occupation there. The people in Baghdad have been without water for two weeks now, in the middle of summer. What kind of person would threaten these folks, and why? What is her motive? She's the one who keeps reiterating that words have consequences.

If anybody here at DU understands this woman, and you don’t think she’s really a monster, please try to explain it to me how this kind of threat is justified.

Is this supposed to be some kind of "get tough with the trouble-makers" strategy? That sounds an awful lot like the current fool in the Whitehouse to me; intent on punishing someone, especially if they are defenseless innocent bystanders. It just seems to me that if there is someone that should be threatened with getting their funding cut off, and you want to show how tough you can be, in my mind it should be Halliburton and Blackwater that get threatened. Why in the world would anyone with a conscience threaten all these innocent people after we have made sure that they have nothing?

Show me why I’m wrong in thinking that she is just as damaged as the current occupant of the Whitehouse. I do wish that someone can convince me I’m wrong.


From the transcript:

MR. OLBERMANN: Thank you, Senator Biden.

Senator Clinton, what do we do in that hypothetical?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I have a three-point plan to get out of Iraq, starting with redeploying our troops, but doing it responsibly and carefully, because as many of the veterans in this audience know, taking troops out can be just as dangerous as bringing them in. And we’ve got to get out of Iraq smarter than we got in.

Secondly, we’ve got to put more pressure on the Iraqi government, including withholding aid from them if they don’t begin to stabilize the country themselves. And thirdly, we need an intensive diplomatic effort, regionally and internationally.

But if it is a possibility that al Qaeda would stay in Iraq, I think we need to stay focused on trying to keep them on the run, as we currently are doing in Al Anbar province.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/us/politics/07demsforum.html?pagewanted=8&_r=1

I am hoping for a thoughtful discussion of this issue.

[BlooInBloo]

1. I'm not a fan (she's 3rd or 4th on my preference list), but nor do I hate her like every other DUer

Maybe the rationale is that:

(1) The US cannot stabilize the Iraqi government,
(2) Therefore the Iraqis are the only ones who can,
(3) If they *don't*, then dangerous/unpredictable powers will reign in Iraq,
(4) If the US continues funding an unstable government, those funds will end up in dangerous/unpredictable hands.

I haven't thought deeply about the issue, so I'm not saying I think the above is *correct*. Just trying to provide a possible rationale, as the OP asked.

[Onlooker]

2. I assume ....

I assume she doesn't mean humanitarian aid. We give all kinds of aid to Iraq and will have to do so for a long long time, since we are the cause of their current problems. Perhaps she'll withhold aid that goes to companies owned by families and friends of politicians or withhold some aid for roads, construction, weapon, etc. Obviously, without a political solution, it probably makes sense not to be arming one side against the other.

[journalist3072]

3. Uh, it's called holding the Iraqi government accountable for their lack of progress

Do you really think it's right that the Iraqi parliment goes on vacation while our men and women in uniform continue to do in Iraq's civil war?

Well, I don't think that's OK.

I so I agreed with Sen. Clinton's comment about witholding aid if the Iraqi government doesn't start to stabilize itself.

[rodeodance]

4. read this.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2354

Securing Stability in Iraq as we Bring our Troops Home. As President, Hillary would focus American aid efforts during our redeployment on stabilizing Iraq, not propping up the Iraqi government. She would direct aid to the entities -- whether governmental or non-governmental -- most likely to get it into the hands of the Iraqi people. She would also support the appointment of a high level U.N. representative -- similar to those appointed in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo -- to help broker peace among the parties in Iraq.

[Usrename]

6. She may have just misstated what her goals are.

In the link she talks about redirecting aid, not cutting it off.

But, as you can see by some of the previous comments, some people wholeheartedly support that line of action.

:shrug:

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

5. I don't think she's threatening innocent people

We give tons of aid to Iraq now, and there are still shortages of water, electricity, security, etc. The aid is not something we give to "the innocent people", it's something we give to government officials. Somehow the aid never "trickles down" to the folks in the street. If we withhold the aid, it's only a stick (or removal of carrot) to try to influence the leadership.

Can we pull out of Iraq? If we pull out, and the civil war claims millions of lives (albeit only "their" lives, not any of "ours"), did we do the right thing? Is the civil war inevitable, after we took away the only force capable of keeping the lid on (Saddam)?

I'm not smart enough to have the answers. I feel like we're standing over a patient, scalpel in hand, with the patient's skull opened and the brain half cut open, and we're reading "brain surgery for dummies". We can't walk away, and we don't know how to fix it.

But, if I were king, I'd make Kucinich my Secretary of Defense, get us the hell out, and let the place implode. The headline would read "Our Bad".

[Usrename]

7. Sure, she was threatening innocent people.

Whether she means to or not is a different question.

And the only people who seem to benefit from all the aid we send there are the U.S. contractors.

[sinkingfeeling]

8. Aid for the Iraqi government has nothing to do with humanitarian aid to Iraqis.

[Usrename]

9. Unbelievably, and unfortunately, that statement may be true.