Hillary Clinton's Iraq Plan

I've been thinking about the Iraq plan that Clinton announced yesterday. I don't know all of the specifics, but in its broad outlines there are two major components: 1) Stop funding the various Iraqi institutions unless they achieve certain objectives (this we'll call the stop funding Shiite death squads component). 2) Cap the number of American service personnel in Iraq at where it was January 1. She's also going to co-sponsor the non-binding resolution opposing the escalation, but her plan is basically the same with or without that resolution.

The first component is something that Congress can do on its lonesome because there is only so much money in the pot right now. And it frames the issue in such a way that will minimize the "why do you hate the troops?" nonsense. And it puts real pressure on the administration and it, you know, stops funding death squads. But ultimately it doesn't do anything about the troop levels in Iraq.

That's why there's a second component. It'll be tough to actually pass a thing with either the president's signature or enough Republican defections to get to veto-proof. Still, there are a lot of Republicans who don't want to run for reelection the war around their neck, and who knows, maybe some honestly opposed to the war too. And this is something tangible that they can do to end it. It's worth pushing a Democratic position that involves hard numbers even if it's a long shot because crazier things have happened than passing something like that.

The sum of this is hopefully real change in the war. Maybe like with her leadership on the minimum wage, this gets the issue some more traction (that and opposition to the escalation already being popular and the election results).

It also re-defines the center. Having a position to the "left" of the nonbinding resolution makes that resolution more centrist and makes it an easier pill to swallow for Republicans and for other Democratic hawks. In a sense, it gives some Senators and Representatives cover to go further than they might otherwise go.

Cross posted at Washingtonians for Hillary Clinton

•  Speaking truth to power, huh?

  It also re-defines the center. Having a position to the "left" of the nonbinding resolution makes that resolution more centrist and makes it an easier pill to swallow for Republicans and for other Democratic hawks. In a sense, it gives some Senators and Representatives cover to go further than they might otherwise go.

   It sounds more like mice afraid of their own shadows.  

  by ice2wata on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 11:21:11 PM PDT

  •  Well

    This is Congress we're talking about.

    by Carl Ballard on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 11:23:39 PM PDT

•  Too little, too late

  Hillary Clinton backed this war and sucked up to Bush for far too long for her to have even one iota of credibility on this issue.  At this juncture the only thing I want her to do is to shut her fucking pigeontrap and KEEP it shut.

  In your hearts, you all know that if -- somehow -- Bush's poll numbers ever go back up again, this spineless woman will find a way to once again be an Iraq War hawk.  And probably an Iran War hawk too.

  by asskicking annie on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 11:25:56 PM PDT

  •  I Don't Know That

    The woman has a 30-year record (maybe you should read it?), and flatly put, there's not much in there to suggest she's 'spinless', as you so kindly suggest.

    For instance, try Googling "Health Care 1994".
    Because that was the popular thing to do, right?

    Right!? $700 Billion a year this nation spends over and above any other country on health care, this 'system' is absolutey ruining people, it is among the most well-armed political lobbies on the planet, and as far as I know (does anyone dispute this?), she and her husband have at the very least made the biggest effort to solve the problem.

    by Blue Democrat on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:19:54 AM PDT

    •  I saw her interview on PBS

      or the Mcneil Lehrer news hour.

      I thought her points were valid. Her points about putting constraints on the administration were important. The more that message gets out there, the better. Also she did a good job of explaining why we have to stop funding these Shia militias that are carrying out ethnic cleansing. And those are my words not hers. But she did talk about how we have to stop giving the Iraqi military funds. And I especially like what she said about Iran. Something along the lines of - this administration is so inept, no way we can allow them to attack Iran. I thought it was a good interview. I would not call her a war hawk. I am very pleased that she is calling for getting the troops out although she does not favor doing so immediately.

      by cassidy3 on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 02:21:43 AM PDT

  •  Strongly disagree

    In your hearts, you all know that if -- somehow -- Bush's poll numbers ever go back up again, this spineless woman will find a way to once again be an Iraq War hawk.  And probably an Iran War hawk too.

    I find that hard to believe. Besides, Bush's numbers will not go up because the American public wants our troops out of Iraq. I do not see how this war could suddenly become popular. And she made it very clear that war with Iran is a bad idea.

    by cassidy3 on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 02:26:37 AM PDT