Skip to main content

I like Hillary, but this really irked me:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - As 55 people died in Iraq on Saturday, the holiest day on the Shiite Muslim religious calendar, Sen. Hillary Clinton said that much of Iraq was "functioning quite well" and that the rash of suicide attacks was a sign that the insurgency was failing.

Clinton, a New York Democrat, said insurgents intent on destabilizing the country had failed to disrupt Iraq's landmark Jan. 30 elections.

"The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure. Not one polling place was shut down or overrun," Clinton told reporters inside the U.S.-protected Green Zone, a sprawling complex of sandbagged buildings surrounded by blast walls and tanks. The zone is home to the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy.

"The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure," Clinton said.

Makes me wonder...How many more people will the insurgency need to kill before we know we've won?

Is it just me, or do her words sound like something the Bush administration would say?

Originally posted to Rome890 on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 11:54 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Very weird (none)
    It's not April 1 already, is it?
  •  Hooray! (none)
    Maybe Hillary can pin a medal on dubya
    in his flight suit?!

    We're winning.  Tell that to the 2+ soldiers
    who are dying every day.

  •  Sh'es just (none)
    another fair weather dem. I mean, after the election, all of the sudden her abortion comments then this? And let's see after a liberal landslide in 2006 will she suddenly turn left?

    I'm just so fed up with this shit. Can't somebody hold a f**king position for at least an hour these days?

  •  Just goes to show you... (none)
    Gannon was right... there are some democrats who are having trouble discerning reality. Bush should have no trouble working with them.
  •  She just made the Kerry mistake for 2008 (4.00)
    This gaffe is going to come back to haunt her in 2008 just like Kerry's shortsighted vote to authorize Bush in 2002 came around to bite him later.

    Why is it whenever just when things start to turn better for the Democrats, one of them will do or say something completely stupid to give the Republicans a talking point to use against them?

    First Obama, then Hillary, do they WANT to lose?

    •  I know. (none)
      wouldn't the smart thing to say just be "We have more work to do." I mean, learn to shut up once in a while.
    •  Did she just say it for political points? (none)
      And if so, why the hell would she want to help the other side?

      Social Security: No Crisis! Here's your cat of the day

      by Rome890 on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 12:21:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Either Way, it was stupid. (none)
        If it was just for points it was plain stupid.
        It costs her support from the Democrat base and does nothing to endear her to the right which always has and always will hate her.

        And if she honestly believes it, she's too stupid to be backed in 2008.

    •  Not true!! (none)
      The Republicans say a TON of stupid things.

      The difference is THE MEDIA and the way it reacts with biased double-standard coverage.

      George Bush can get up there and flat out lie and say something like he never claimed he wasn't concerned about Bin Laden and the media will talk about it for just a couple of days and then move on.

      But Kerry or Dean say something TRUTHFUL and they'll just find something nuanced in what they said and cover it for 3 months.

      Oooh kerry said he was in Cambodia!! Did you hear that guys?  I don't think it's true!! Let's talk about it ad-nauseum for 2 months on every freaking show now. Wooopie.

      Oooh Kerry said Mary cheney is a lesbian - did you hear that? hehe naughty!

      See, the Republicans are just brilliant.  They have lied so much and been so brazen about it that they can basically get away with saying anything now and the media just laughs it off.  "Oh, there they go again - you know how those Republicans are!!"

      It's like having a nephew that always farts at the family dinner.  When HE does it you all laugh, it's funny - he's cute, that's just the kid being a kid.

      But if your mother does it - not so funny and you wonder what the hell is wrong with her.

      Dems are expected to be adults while the Republicans break all the rules and make the rest of them up as they go along.

      It's sickening

      I voted for John Kerry and all I got was this lousy sticker...

      by diplomatic on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:28:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Was it (4.00)
    the $200+billion cost?
    the 60+ attacks/day?
    the creation of a united Shia theocracy from
    Iran to Lebanon?
    the nearly 1500 dead American soldiers?
    the $9 billion missing U.S. funds?
    the shattering of our European alliances?
    the 100,000 dead Iraqis?
    the construction of 12 + permanent military
    bases indicating that we're there to stay?

    Would someone please tell me what
    convinced Hillary?

    Or was she given a lobotomy by the Busheviks en route to Baghdad?

    •  What convinced her (none)
      She was convinced, obviously, by the fact that she couldn't drive from the airport to the Emerald City, and after she got to the Emerald City she couldn't leave it. (How does she know how anything is working outside of the embassy?)

      Don't be too hard on Hillary. She has a touch of mad cow disease, perhaps.

  •  Sadly (4.00)
    Hilary has no core principles. And thats exactly what the republicans will throw at her in 08, and it will sting when we hear it because its true... her only core principle is to be the first female president.
    •  Sadly (none)
      I fear you're right.  If she was going to make
      such a declaration,  shouldn't she have
      been wearing a flight suit on an aircraft carrier?  I understand that's standard
      protocol now....
    •  I agree. (none)
      I am sick to death of opportunism being the core principle in politicians.

      Also, she's a terrible public speaker. I hope to CHRIST she doesn't run; if she does, that she doesn't get the nominations. I do NOT want to listen to that woman's grating and wholly unschooled yelling for an election season, let alone 4 States of the Union.

      I also don't want to be in the position of having to campaign for her. God forbid.

      Rage, rage, against the lying of the Right.

      by Maryscott OConnor on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 09:20:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  She will get tarred (none)
    with the "superliberal" brush anyway by those who seek to demonize her.  She is a weirdly hypnotic object of fascination to the right wing and any attempt she makes to mimic or appease them is wasted. She might as well stand up for what she believes in because "windsurfing" obviously doesn't appeal to the American electorate. She is probably the most mythologized personage in modern politics in that everyone THINKS they know her but many of these same people aren't even listening to what she is saying. I am sorely disappointed by her comments and don't know why she is pandering like that. I guess I thought I knew her better too, so I am guilty of the same assumptions.

    I went back to Ohio.....

    by BlueGoo on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 01:29:03 AM PST

  •  This is what drives me nuts about Hillary (none)
    She just doesn't seem to want to directly contradict this administration. There is no way that the right wing will ever like her. Yet she takes these center-right positions, as if to win moderates over...and it seems to me that all she does is avoid controversy with the moderates in the short-term, at the expense of expanding the base of people who will actually like her.

    I wish Hillary would go Barbara Boxer. Just stake out a principled progressive position and stand on it. New York loves her, and from all accounts justifiably so. She seems to be doing a great job for her constituents. But she constantly shortcuts herself, by indulging in these contradictions to basic liberal principles.

    "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

    by jbeach on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 01:39:58 AM PST

  •  Hillary=Shameless scumbag (3.25)
    This is more of Hillary posturing in an attempt to seem more mainstream.  She will do or say anything to achieve a nomination that she really believes is viable.  Much like Kerry saying that we need to stay in Iraq.  Flush her, she is a scumbag and unelectable besides.

    Sometimes, out of the most ordinary looking vessel can flow the most extraordinary wine.

    by normcash on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 01:48:27 AM PST

  •  Give her a break! (4.00)
    Hillary is just appealing to those coveted Lieberman-loving, purple-finger-waving, red-state quadraplegic Democrat trans-sexuals who also happen to believe Saddam Hussein hit us on 9/11 and enjoy playing competitive darts on the weekend.

    Once she get THEIR vote, no one can stop her!They're all the rage!! Soccer Moms move over, Nascar dads get a life - these guys are the future of our party.

    Why waste your time appealing to the other 50 million Democrats who think the Iraq war is bullshit when you can swing that crucial .05% of the population who will totally agree with her on this!!

    I voted for John Kerry and all I got was this lousy sticker...

    by diplomatic on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:02:21 AM PST

  •  You know what I wonder? (none)
    How the HELL did they switch out Hillary's brain when they switched out Bill's brain during his bypass?

    Where are the dems heading? Not left, not right -- but FORWARD! Chaaaaaarrrrrggggge!

    by Zapata28 on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:17:04 AM PST

  •  Haaaahahahhh - Hillary's a Comedian (none)
    I 'm eating, and I just clicked on this thread.  

    And as I read the First graph, I started laughing out loud, with a mouth full of food.

    I'm still laughing, as I type.

    Well, it looks like Hill is running.

    But you know, if ButchCo teaches us anything, these past 4 years, if you want to get ahead, it's safer and easier to lie, then to tell the Public the truth.  

    And she has the RWCM boxed in.  Since it's an open primary on both sides, it'll be hard to call her out on the same bull shit that the Kitty Murder and the others will be saying on the other side.

  •  Just wait until she.... (4.00)
    ...supports a state ban on gay marriage.  I can't remember were I read this, but it's been written that the Big Dog told Kerry to support the State Amendments on the ballot, especially in Ohio.

    Now I don't know if New York has run into that issue:  but if it comes up, watch Hill endorse it.

    Also, how long will it be before Hill says "they hate us for our freedoms."

    And look for Hill to start attacking violent video games and the "dirt and violence" in Hollywood.

  •  Duh (none)
    Hmm, looks to me like things going great:

    Eight suicide bombers struck in quick succession Saturday in a wave of attacks that killed 55 people as Iraqi Shiites marched and lashed themselves with chains in ritual mourning of the 7th century death of a leader of their Muslim sect. Ninety-one people have been killed in violence in the past two days.

    For the second year running, insurgent attacks shattered the commemoration of Ashoura, the holiest day of the Shiite religious calendar, but the violence produced a significantly smaller death toll than the 181 killed in twin bombings in Baghdad and the holy city of Karbala a year ago.

    What a stupid thing for her to say.

    Normally, I'd try to defend her, but there's no way I can this time.


    Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act. -- George Orwell

    by Page van der Linden on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:53:50 AM PST

  •  she ` running for president (none)
    hillary is getting ready to run for president she has to be a hawk to have any chance in the red states.she is full of it and know`s it but in 2008 she can note these comments and say she supported the would just be a lot easier if she didn`t run  and we could have a real debate on issues and not dredge up all the old crap about bill. i actually had a wingnut coworker tell me the other day that bill and hillary killed vince foster so i shouldn`t complain about bush having blood on his hands.that`s the kind of crap a hillary campaign would  dredge up.
  •  Can I suggest a slightly different take on this? (4.00)
    We liberals will never see the Iraq war as won. How can we when we measure the cost in lives of American and Allie troops and Iraqi men, women and children? How can we when we consider the cost to international relations and the standing of the United States? How can we when we consider the real cost to the welfare of the American people?

    Yet to Bush and his neocon strategists the Iraq war is won. They are now firmly entrenched in the Middle East country that gives them the beginning of control over the region. They are a vital support for whatever fragile government emerges that will need the backing of the marines in their armoured Humvees. US contractors have control of the flow of oil of the second biggest oil field in the world. And all it will cost for this permanent base in the heart of the Arab world is a small continuing loss of life to which the American people have become accustomed as if it is a minor tax hike on the price of their petroleum gas.

    We can never discount the cost of this empirical adventure. Does Hilary agree with Bush and those who see this ugly and debased "achievement" as having been a winning of something with any credibility? No, of course not. But she has to deal and work within a country where the majority does. She is merely reflecting what we are bitterly going to have to get accustomed to: George Bush has "won" in Iraq. Not in our terms but theirs.

    May his soul forever pay the price that others have had to pay in order for him to do so and may we get a world that never agsin measures winning by such means.

    But don't shoot the messenger of this unpalatable fact!

    •  Refusing to accept right-wing framing (none)
      is not "shooting the messenger".  If she's truly a moderate or a liberal, not some Joementum clone, then she should refuse to propagate the right-wing frame about Iraq.

      I believe she in fact shares the Bushco view, otherwise there is no explanation for her joining in on propagating the rightist meme.

      •  Political expediency. . . again (none)
        She has begun her campaign for President, obviously.

        She wants those "war monger" red state votes.  Someone should have sent her the "memo". . .this is the NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY.  We stand for what we stand for, not plotting and planning how to manipulate voters on all sides of the issue.

        OTOH If she really believes what she said, then I don't think I could very well support her for the office.

        If not now. . .When?

        by shirlstars on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 09:42:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  She is a conservative dem (4.00)
    at heart.  she is a past Goldwater Republican and didn't she change when she married Bill?  And Bill is a conservative dem.

    Both of them, and the DLC, believe that dems are perceived as weak on National Defense.  It is their contention they need to make strong statements.  Now this statement of hers is foolish in the extreme.  This is not a sign of strength, but pandering so that she will not be attacked along national security lines.

    That will not help her.  She should know that.  But she could very well believe it.  Sigh.

  •  This is one of the (none)
    reasons that I do not support Hillary Clinton.

    Her remarks were made to give her audience on global issues for the purpose of positioning herself as a candidate for the presidency.

    Does she really think that the suicide bombings now are an indication of the insurgent's failure?  If so, what did she think the suicide bombings indicated up to this point?

  •  IMHO Hillary Clinton.... (4.00)
    has always been vastly overrated. Her comments in the article seem very naive. What has she truly accomplished that is so great? Personally, I think that she probably was a bad influence on Bill politically. My gut tells me that Bill is naturally more liberal than he appeared and that Hillary had a role in "pulling him to the right". Hillary Clinton can't hold a candle to Barbara Boxer.

    "...always be capable of feeling deeply any injustice committed against anyone, anywhere in the world..." - Che Guevara

    by John Masotti on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:49:21 AM PST

  •  Reality check, Mrs. Clinton (4.00)

    Oh, but I know you aren't truly that ignorant.  Triangulation of rhetoric is the name of the game, isn't it?

    Reminds me of Bush's comment, that more attacks by insurgents = their failure.

    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, Published: October 27, 2003, Filed at 9:41 a.m. ET

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Monday that U.S. progress in Iraq is making insurgents more ``desperate'' and spurring attacks such as the bombings at the international Red Cross headquarters and four police stations across Baghdad that killed dozens of people.

    ``The more progress we make on the ground, the more free the Iraqis become, the more electricity that's available, the more jobs are available, the more kids that are going to school, the more desperate these killers become,'' Bush told reporters at the White House.

    No more Mr. Nice Democrat

    by Viktor on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 06:00:23 AM PST

  •  It should be obvious by now (4.00)
    Hillary is nothing but a shameless political hustler with no core values.  She's bought into the crap that Dems need to "move to the center" to regain power and since power is what she is after that's where she's going.

    She will never escape the ultra-liberal label Repubs have stuck on her, no matter how much she apes Lieberman, so these moves, designed to make her more palatable to so-called mainstream America will accomplish nothing.  Nothing, that is, except dilute the message of the party.

    Basically, she's a whore and all her finger in the wind shifting will prove out to only give cons ammunition to label her as an (ultra liberal) opportunist who will say anything to get elected.  They may be right.  Except for the ultra liberal part.

    She wants to be pres, and wants to run in '08, bit if there would be a worse candidate then Kerry, or Lieberman, it would be Hillary. She must be stopped!!!  Even if all this is just a smokescreen to hide her true progressive agenda in the name of electability, it will kill her at the polls.  Notice that the Kool-Aid Kerry drank over Iraq destroyed any coherent message he might have had in the campaign.

    Hillary in '08 = four more repub years.

    Stop her

    •  watch for this: (4.00)
      Of course the RWCM will now start ot praise her and talk her up as '08 material.  Just wait for them to tout her "popularity" and "electability."

      Sure.  Just like they said Dems should dump Howard and nominate Kerry because of his "electability."  A lot of good that did us.

      Never take advice from the enemy.

      •  You've hit on something very important! (none)

         Where is it, that Democrats have been getting their "advice" from?


        Democrats running for office should really have some idea regarding the track record and performance results of their chosen inner circle of trusted advisors.

        It amazes me, therefore, why a proven loser and wet noodle like Bob Shrum keeps on getting recycled back over and over again as the campaign advisor du jour for Democratic Presidential candidates.

        Certaintly, Al Gore should have recognized that Bill Clinton's successful candidacy in 1992 came from running an aggressive and offensive-minded campaign led by James Carville and Bill Clinton's own nose for the framing of issues.

        The Gore campaign started itself in a big, big, hole when he had lackluster people like Tony Coelho (eventually replaced), Bill Daley, and Bob Shrum orchestrating his campaign.

        These "geniuses" all convinced Gore that he had to publically rebuke Bill Clinton all over again (this, after his Senate acquittal and 12-months of media exhaustion) and "distance himself" from Clinton.    This, however, was nothing more than the RWCM's own wish-fulfillment set into motion in hopes for seeing a campaign waged NOT on the excellant track record of the Clinton-Gore adminstration & policies, but for a campaign waged strickly on the familiar GOP turf of character profiling, assasination, smears, and moral-high-ground-myth-making ( Bush ).

        Bush was such a lousy candidate that Gore won anyways, but, by such a narrow margin that it could be stolen out right from under him, in the light of day, by direct obstruction of the counting of legal votes and getting the right-wing court to block the recount remedy.

        As we all know, had Gore made the campaign about the track record & pocketbook benefits of Clintonomics .VS. the track record of Reaganomics, and, had Bill Clinton himself campaigned throughout Arkansas and Tennessee,  Gore would have prevailed in a landslide.

        So loser Bob Shrum is brought back in the John Kerry campaign and we see no mention of Abu Grahib whatsoever at any time in Kerry's campaign.  Had Kerry pounded away relentlessly on issues like: the shame, horror, and UNAMERICAN legacy of Abu Grahib, the Worldwide embarrasment (and abuse of office) of Bush-fed WMD fiction, the tragic death count (both civilian and servicemen), and, we saw the old 1971 John Kerry back in form, there's no doubt Bush would have had to declare martial law to still remain in the White House.

        What happens here is that the RWCM-RNC-RWRadio guys all figure out in advance (with a little help from Frank Lutnz) where the favorable and unfavorable contrasts (and propaganda) are, and then, they go out to the Democrats and pressure them with: "shhh, you can't talk about that subject?,  you can't talk about rich .vs poor,  Don't say that!!!,  you have to say this, you can only say that..", etc.

        Like fools, these so-called "genuis" Democratic consultants (and even the candidates) then play right into their game plan and their own campaigns then find themselves awash in side-issues, backpeddling, and NeoCon-policy-imitation.

        Then, they become surprised when they lose and people think they don't stand for anything.

        No folks,  the choice here is about having a country ruled by an aristocracy of war-profiteers, monopolists, cooporate enterprises, and their paid-for media-assets at the expense of everyone else (and, also, the entire world), or, having an actual functioning democracy, true freedom, with economic opportunity for all.

        It's time the Bob Shrums, Tony Coelhos, Bill Daleys etc., of the world be fired and fired forever and be replaced only with people that understand the value of the highly contrasting message, aggressive, offensive-minded, pull-no-punches campaigning, and showing people in bold, stark, clear terms: just how messed-up the country is (and the world) with the Neo-Cons running things!


        (and , yes, especially on "security").

  •  It's like in the movie, Clueless (none)
    (w/ Alicia Silverstone)

    And outcast girl in school is taken under the wings by the cools kids....she becomes popular, and thence becomes a real turncoat "to fit in".

    It's like hillary made some strange "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"

    And the pisser is ...Sen Byrd really took her under his wing and heled her get some credibility in the senate.  He must be really chirping behind closed doors at the monster he helped create.

    Where are the dems heading? Not left, not right -- but FORWARD! Chaaaaaarrrrrggggge!

    by Zapata28 on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 08:51:39 AM PST

  •  Hillary = Joe Leiberman (none)

     For whatever reason, Hillary, once the target of neo-con judicial and political abuse, has given up the fight and, like Leiberman, decided to join the neo-con, Warfare-state crowd.

     Let's all stop the "talk" of Hillary as a potential "presidential candidate" now forever.

     Just how would her own foreign policy be any damn bit different from the horror wrought by Bush-Cheney?

     She has publically endorsed everything that they've done!

     Let me repeat that.

     WMD fraud, First-strike Warfare, U.S. Occupation, Detention Camps, Torture, the Patriot Act...It's all good stuff to her.  No opposition here with her.  She's a happy-camper.

     No folks:  I think we can come up with a better candidate that this in 2008!!  and while we're at it - how about a new Senator for NY in the fine tradition of RFK for 2006, instead of yet another waste-of-space Senator in the tradition of Joementum.

    •  Since you tie it all together so well (none)
      Just for you.  :-)

      Image Hosted by

      No more Mr. Nice Democrat

      by Viktor on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 10:19:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Very sad... (none)
        That photo is quite a sad commentary on the sorry state of American politics.

        The only thing missing from this picture, are the buckets of blood (and buckets of Oil) that should be falling over their heads and drowning them.

        Let's hope Howard Dean can inspire a new breed of fresh Democratic candidates to run for office to take their place who will not waste their time in those positions by being shills for the Scorched-earth, Neo-con, Warfare-state, Propagandacy (that is our current government) but will instead:  value truth, value evidence, value human rights for real, value civil liberties, value international law, and value government accountability - once again.

        These folks have failed the test!


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site