Hillary Does a 180 On Iraq Withdrawal, Joins Obama and Democrats--Or Does She?

One of the most overlooked stories in the campaign season is Hillary Clinton's ideas on staying in Iraq in massive force for the foreseeable future.

When Tim Russert asked her on MTP to commit to getting US trops in Iraq down to 50,000 by the end of her first term in 2013, I was sure she was going to give us the old bellylaugh.  

I was sure she was going to say, "Now Tim, I can't imagine we would have any purpose for having 50,000 troops there."  

But no, she REFUSED TO COMMIT TO 50,000 FOUR YEARS INTO HER PRESIDENCY.  I was gobsmacked.  What is she planning, I thought? Or is she not planning at all beyond getting elected?

Then here on dKos her supporters insist she's got plans for withdrawal, and I point out that she says she'll "immediately start bringing our troops home," but she never gives any clue about the pace of withdrawal or when it will be accomplished.  She could bring out two troops on Day One and not bring out another until 2013 and still keep her campaign pledge.  

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/...

Contrast Obama: His plan is "to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year."  The pace and goal are right there.  

Well, HRC is working hard to join the democrats on this one.  Seems that's one happy byproduct of her troubles in her campaign: for a blessed two or three months, she's given up on triangulating right and is going to join democrats and most everyone else in actually saying something about LEAVING IRAQ.

just got a phone call — unprompted — from Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a Democratic candidate for president, blasting Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for saying she would withdraw nearly all American troops from Iraq within a year of beginning redeployment.

"Senator Clinton’s comments are a stunning flip-flop — she’s been saying she would keep troops in Iraq for five years, until 2013, and now she comes up with an inconsistent, incredible turnaround," Mr. Richardson said.

Mrs. Clinton has maintained that she would leave a residual force behind in Iraq to pursue narrow missions, a position that her spokesman said she still holds. As her aides have done before, the spokesman declined to say how many troops Mrs. Clinton would leave.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...

Well, it's a start: she's sending out conflicting signals from her quiet asides to democrats on one hand and what her recordable official spokesmen say on the other.  A straddle.

Thank god for small things.  We can work with a sraddle while she's still in panic mode.

Let's nail down HRC and all the democrats RIGHT NOW on their plans for Iraq while we can, before they are tempted to sidle up close to the moderate Republican ground occupied by John McCain.

Let's get HRC committed to the flip before she flops to the "responsible" pro-war view in order to get pets from Krauthammer and Broder on her being the most hawkish of the democrats.  Let's get her to FINALLY take the Forever War off the table by 2013.

•  Tip Jar for knowing what the hell we're up to

  in the biggest foreign policy issue of our lifetimes.

  by Inland on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 05:42:07 AM PDT

  •  Her champion made the call

    Last night there was a dairy about that phone call Richardson made to Patrick Healy about Clinton's "flip-flop" on Iraq.  We're told that WBR III (William Blaine Richardson III) was "blasting" HRC.

    There was speculation about why the NM guv was attacking the woman who he been defending so gallantly throughout the campaign - in what seems to many to be a not so transparent bid for a second place on a possible Clinton ticket.

    It seems to me that with that call, we're being treated to bit of political theater.  It serves a number of purposes.  Richardson may well have made the call on HRC's behalf, in a ploy to focus attention on a new Iraq policy which is far more palatable to Dems in Iowa and New Hampshire.

    It also helps Richardson who has been trying to dispel the belief that he's running as HRC's stalking horse.  And it draws attention away from an unflattering story published this past Wednesday on the front page of Concord Register:

     

    A student at Pembroke Academy challenged Bill Richardson about his past dealings with oil and gas companies yesterday, and Richardson challenged her right back, calling the information she cited "not right" and suggesting she confused him with another candidate, perhaps a Republican.

    But the figures Maddisun Barrows quoted are correct, according to two nonpartisan organizations that collect and analyze campaign finance data. Barrows, a junior, was curious about how Richardson's talk of clean energy on the campaign trail meshes with the more than $500,000 in campaign contributions he's received from the oil and gas industry since 2005.

    "Can you explain why petroleum-based companies support a candidate who is supposedly trying to eradicate them?" she said.

    ...

    The exchange came during Richardson's afternoon appearance at the school. He gave a short speech focused mostly on his desire to withdraw American forces from Iraq, then took questions from a dozen or so students lined up at the microphone. Barrows was among them. She had known little about Richardson, but she researched him online when she learned he would visit the school. One article piqued her curiosity: a story in the December edition of The Progressive, titled "Is Bill Richardson Radioactive?"

    — Meg Heckman
    Student challenges Richardson over oil donations
    12.20.07

    WBR III wants voters to focus on his position on Iraq and to pay no attention to the oil men and the war profiteers behind the curtain.

    
    
    ````
    peace
    
    

    by peace voter on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 07:59:49 AM PDT

    •  Simpler explanation:

      Bill's done the calculus

      (probability she will win) X (probability she would ask him to be VP) = 1/Desire to cover for her.

      by Inland on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:02:52 AM PDT

      •  you disagee with my analysis?

        Have you not noticed WBR III repeatedly defending HRC's honor throughout the campaign.

        Have you not wondered why he staked out the "troops out of Iraq" position with proprietary zeal - describing himself as the only "major" candidate holding that position.  

        He has strong ties to the Clintons.  He seems to have been running as her probable veep choice all along.
        
        
        ````
        peace
        
        

        by peace voter on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:13:25 AM PDT

  •  NO TIPS for subterfuge.

    There is a world of difference between a candidate, any candidate, not jumping up and making a pledge that might not be possible given the facts that the future is completely unforseen and a candidate actually planning on keeping the numbers you pose here.  You're assisting Li'l Timmy Russert in playing "gotcha" politics.  How would you like that "gotcha" shoe if it was foisted on the foot of your candidate?

    Just what part of "As President, I will end this war" do you folks not get?

    by emsprater on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:23:25 AM PDT

•  If you listened to

  the July 24th debate you heard Hillary say

  the best estimate is that we can probably move a brigade a month, if we really accelerate it, maybe a brigade and a half or two a month. That is a lot of months.

  Which is exactly what she said yesterday.

  I think we can bring home one to two combat brigades a month," she said. "I think we can bring nearly everybody home, you know, certainly within a year if we keep at it and do it very steadily."

  by xy109e3 on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:03:14 AM PDT

  •  But she wouldn't commit to 50,000 at the end of

    her first term.  

    Her website maintains no estimates.

    And her spokesmen fall silent.

    It's a straddle.

    Good time to make her get past that.

    by Inland on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:06:46 AM PDT

    •  But where's the "180?"

      by Partially Impartial on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:11:52 AM PDT

      •  Commitment, no commitment,

        50,000, zero....is your point that a straddler who never has a position can't be accused of changing it?

        Whatever.  She's got to be nailed down now while she's in panic mode because she's triangulating right for her re-election in 2012.  Just leaving it up to her pander of the moment isn't good enough.

        by Inland on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:15:06 AM PDT

      •  there isn't one, not even a 90, or a 45.....nt

        by Rumarhazzit on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:16:02 AM PDT

      •  I think it exists. ....

        solely within the minds of those preprogrammed to dislike Hillary so vehemently that they spend all their time diarying about her perceived negatives and no time at all diarying about their own candidate's positives.  Sad to have a candidate so lacking that you have to tear down the opposition continuously in order to bolster their chances.

        by emsprater on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:27:56 AM PDT

    •  What?

      Obama is saying the same thing that Hillary has been saying since July.

      by xy109e3 on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:16:09 AM PDT

      •  I agree with Richardson, own ears, her website.

        Would I be surprised if someone could link another statement while HRC straddles and dodges and weaves?  No, but then again, you haven't.  Where's your link?

        by Inland on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:18:13 AM PDT

        •  I have no idea what your point is

          If you really wanted facts, you could have reread the  July 24 debate  transcript to see what she did say instead of pushing Richardson's opinion about her position.  

          Hillary said the same thing in July that she said yesterday - no straddle, no dodge, no weave.

          by xy109e3 on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:31:10 AM PDT

          •  Um, I can't find what you quoted.

            Instead, she basically says the same as her website:

            And since the election of 2006, the Democrats have tried repeatedly to win Republican support with a simple proposition that we need to set a timeline to begin bringing our troops home now.

            Emphasis added.  Like I said, that doesn't set a pace or a end time.  She say "begin" immediately but not finish by the end of her second term.

            by Inland on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:00:30 AM PDT

            •  The quote I provided that you can't

              find is about halfway down on the transcript link. Try seaching on the word brigade.

              Even though the quote you provided has the word Iraq in it, it is a different topic (i.e, the current Congress has been trying to win Republican support for a simple timeline)

              by xy109e3 on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:05:45 AM PDT

      •  A broigade a month comes home

        and if POTUS Hillary refuses to do that, the Senate should filibuister something fierce.

        If HRC and Obama are on the same page, this should not trouble you.

        Agreed?

        by Bill White on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:30:31 AM PDT

  •  Bring home everyone EXCEPT

    those who are going to stay as part of her "plan". Stay to keep fighting terrorism, stay to train Iraqi troops, stay for pretty much the same reasons we have troops there now.

    With no time table for complete withdrawal. No estimate on numbers that will remain or how success will be defined.

    kind of like now isn't it?

    by okamichan13 on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:36:08 AM PDT

•  I don't know about this particular issue...

  But I rec'd and tipped because I want people to remember the recalcitrance on the war vote of both Clinton and Edwards (up until he started running hard left suddenly)...

  by DraftChickenHawks on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:05:25 AM PDT

  •  Don't forget about WBR III

    "I supported President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, without a new resolution from the UN, because I was persuaded that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to the United States and our interests in the world...At this point...we must see this mission through."

    — Bill Richardson
    page 348
    Between Worlds | The Making of an American Life
    published November 2005

    
    
    
    ````
    peace
    
    

    by peace voter on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:04:11 AM PDT

    •  Thanks, I did not know about this!

      Actually, other than normal talking points (Energy Secy, UN Ambassador) type of stuff, I do not know much about Bill Richardson at all.

      It is true of most of the others too, for me.  Since I followed Obama closely starting from 2004, when I really fell in love with his rhetoric and eloquence at the convention, I am afraid I have not looked too closely at any of the others...Did not feel the need to, since he seems so much the right person for the country, especially right now...

      by DraftChickenHawks on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:32:53 AM PDT

      •  You're welcome, DraftChickenHawks

        (I'll bet you get a lot of compliments on your screen name)

        Richardson has not been subjected to the same level of scrutiny that comes along with being a top tier candidate.  It's difficult to keep up.  The  WBR III (William Blaine Richardson III)  Henry Kissinger connection may have escaped your attenion as well.

        
        
        
        ````
        peace
        
        

        by peace voter on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 11:14:18 AM PDT

•  Why listen to what she says . . .

  When she has a well-established record:

  Strike one (looking):

  Being a smart person, she was well aware that the Bush cabal used public relations firms to sell a bogus war to the American public in 1990.

  Maybe this was a learning experience for her?

  Strike two (half swinging)

  Then - and this is fair game based on her claims of 'experience' for her husbands' administration - then went on to impose sanctions based on equally dubious underlying claims that killed half a million Iraqi kids.

  At least all that suffering was 'worth the price' . . .

  Strike three (must have been a foul tip 'cuz she's still up there swinging away):

  And then, In Act 3, she voted for the Bush cabal's second Iraq war.   Over a million (and counting have died) . . .  is the number now large enough to be "just a statistic"?

  How many strikes are we going to give this monster when we lock people up for life on their third strike for stealing a piece of pizza?  We are indeed one fucked up country.

  by Roadbed Guy on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:11:02 AM PDT

  •  That's pretty damn dishonest of you

    Strike two (half swinging)

    Then - and this is fair game based on her claims of 'experience' for her husbands' administration - then went on to impose sanctions based on equally dubious underlying claims that killed half a million Iraqi kids.

    At least all that suffering was 'worth the price' . . .

    First, those were UN sanctions.  Second, neither Clinton is even mentioned in the article you linked about "worth the price."

    All your post says is that she voted for the war in 2002.  Not too illuminating.

    by Partially Impartial on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:27:26 AM PDT

    •  Not dishonest at all

      Hillary claims that she has foreign policy experience based on her husband's regime.  Therefore, statements from her husband's mouthpieces count (or, like others have pointed out, she wants to be associated with the positive while diassociating herself with the bad - sorry, doesn't work that way).

      And it's a complete cop-out to call them "UN sanctions" - they were for all intents and purposes enforced by the Clinton administration.  Harper's Magazine has a good article on this for the forgetful / mass-murder-apologists

      And, yes, I realize that these sanctions started under Bush 1.  But, some 80 to 85% of the child fatalities took place under the Clinton administration over several years - at least 75% could have been prevented if the Bush sanctions had been immediately reversed rather than amplified.

      But it interesting (and scary!) to see how fanatical the supporters of this insanity are . . .

      by Roadbed Guy on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:36:08 AM PDT

    •  Absolutely .....

      not to even mention the real fact that the person behind the suffering and deaths of all those Iraqi kids (I suppose adults don't even matter) was Saddam Hussein, not Bill Clinton and certainly not Hillary Clinton.  These folks who try every trick they can find to tie the Clintons to deaths around the world due to political circumstances within the victims own countries are beneath the contempt that the authors of "The Clinton Chronicles" are deserving of.

      Shameless hacks.

      by emsprater on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:18:08 AM PDT

  •  WTF? "This monster"?

    You're referring to Hillary?  

    Shmuck.

    by emsprater on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:36:36 AM PDT

    •  Contribute to the deaths of a couple of

      million of innocent people and I'll call you a monster.

      Others prefer to focus on "electability"

      To each their own I suppose . . .

      by Roadbed Guy on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:54:17 AM PDT

      •  You must call all politicians ....

        monsters then.  JRE voted for AUMF, and Obama continues to vote for funding.

        You're just one of those who apply your "standards" to folks you already detest.

        Ron Paul much?

        by emsprater on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:40:45 AM PDT

        •  I apply the same standard to myself.

          I am not pleased, for sure, but too cowardly to do anything about it.

          It's something that deeply shames our entire country. We have truly become a nation of evil.  

          So, from time to time I indulge in lashing out at some of those who are the most responsible . ..

          by Roadbed Guy on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:37:41 AM PDT

•  Who cares what

  she says?  She will say or do anything to get ellected.  Will she mean any of it?  NO.

  by nisleib on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:15:00 AM PDT

  •  BINGO!

    Man I hope Bloomberg gets into it if Clinton wins the nomination.

    - Albert Einstein

    by Walt starr on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:26:29 AM PDT

    •  Bloomberg would run as a Republican

      DailyKos is dedicated to electing Democrats, why aren't you?

      by xy109e3 on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:36:43 AM PDT

      •  Democrats ain't exactly what they used to be

        since Dailykos started.

        Hell Lieberman was a Democrat then wasn't he?

        by bam bam on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:48:46 AM PDT

        •  Oh if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination

          I won't be posting on DK any longer.

          - Albert Einstein

          by Walt starr on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:57:15 AM PDT

        •  Yup, and Bloomberg was the biggest donor to

          Lieberman's independent Senate run after Lamont beat him in the primary.

          by ShadowSD on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 07:47:09 AM PDT

        •  Do the Kossacks still support

          Lieberman since he stopped being a Democrat?

          by xy109e3 on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:11:09 AM PDT

      •  Bloomberg is an Independent

        So am I.

        - Albert Einstein

        by Walt starr on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:56:51 AM PDT

        •  Bloomberg was also the chief financier of

          Lieberman's rogue independent Senate run that promised to bring the troops home as soon as possible.

          FYI.

          by ShadowSD on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 07:46:11 AM PDT

          •  And Hillary endorsed Lieberman against Lamont

            what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

            - Albert Einstein

            by Walt starr on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:02:17 AM PDT

            •  In the primary she did

              (But Lamont won the primary anyay, so that's irrelevant)

              The point is that even Hillary had the sense to support Lamont in the general.  Lieberman's "independent" run was an affront to democracy that would have been impossible in most states due to sore loser laws; what happened was that an incumbent retained power by losing a primary to an opponent, and then saying "wait... best one out of two", as if that's at all a legitimate way to cling to power in a democracy.  We are left with a neoconservative, pro-torture chairman of Homeland Security as a result; Bloomberg not only enabled this directly, but just as importantly, has said nothing subsequently to suggest his foreign policy views are any different than Lieberman's.  

              (I'm an independent too, BTW)  

              by ShadowSD on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:22:18 AM PDT

              •  then change Connecticut law

                Lieberman did what he did and it was 100% legal.

                As for me, I'm casting a vote against Hillary clinton. Hopefully, that will only be necessary in the Democratic Primary on February 5, but I'm prepared to take it all the way to the general election.

                - Albert Einstein

                by Walt starr on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:33:26 AM PDT

                •  I take less issue with that

                  than the choice of Bloomberg in that vote, as opposed to voting for third party candidates with credible anti-war platforms; if you said you were considering voting Green Party or for Paul, at least they could offer that much, but Bloomberg?  Voting for a candidate who is quite likely more neoconservative than Clinton defeats the purpose of preventing Clinton from being the nominee.  

                  by ShadowSD on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 02:48:36 PM PDT

      •  walt's only a democrat...

        ...until obama loses.

        by campskunk on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 07:32:54 AM PDT

    •  Bloomberg?

      I guess he would be allright.

      I wonder what Bloomberg and Obama were talking about over breakfast a few weeks ago.

      by nisleib on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:37:08 AM PDT

      •  I dunno

        Rumors say that if Obama wins the nomination, Bloomberg won't get in, but if it's Hillary v. Guiliani, he will.

        - Albert Einstein

        by Walt starr on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 07:01:19 AM PDT

        •  That is what I've been wondring

          by nisleib on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 07:42:44 AM PDT

          •  IT's only rumor, though

            so take it with a few pounds of salt.

            - Albert Einstein

            by Walt starr on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 07:44:16 AM PDT

  •  Why do you think that's more true

    of her than of the other candidates?

    by Partially Impartial on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:37:33 AM PDT

    •  Because

      I'm paying attention.

      by nisleib on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:58:39 AM PDT

      •  The old Potter Stewart, eh?

        by Partially Impartial on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:59:42 AM PDT

•  What I heard in the July 24 debate ...

  Was all three leading candidates being very cagey - as they should be - about making promises to Tim Russert. (Richardson pandered shamelessly, which disappointed me but didn't help him.)

  What I see in this diary is an attempt to resuscitate a dead horse, in order to beat it again.

  by al Fubar on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:25:05 AM PDT

  •  A brigade a month comes home

    and if Hillary becomes POTUS and will not do that Obama need to filibuster some critical aspect of Hillary's agenda.

    You okay with that?

    In the meantime, bringing Iraq to the front-burner now may help slow John "I love the surge" McCain who would be our toughest opponent in the general election.

    by Bill White on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:28:51 AM PDT

  •  Well, HRC thinks Iraq isn't an issue

    because she's managed to avoid taking about it.  Pretty strange attitude when we've got 160,000 troops in the field.

    by Inland on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 07:57:20 AM PDT

    •  she's talking about it now

      and she seems to making it an issue through yet another surrogate - Bill Richardson.
      
      
      ````
      peace
      
      

      by peace voter on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:16:35 AM PDT

•  We also need to totally re-structure war making

  procedures.

  The Iraqi AUMF was a travesty. A travesty that can trace its roots to the Tonkin Gulf resolution but a travesty nonetheless of BOTH the US Constitution and the UN Charter.

  by Bill White on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 06:32:51 AM PDT

•  The advantage of having a specific plan ...

  ... whether or not it's as progressive as those of the other candidates, is that it gives her a mandate for action if/when she wins the nomination and general election.

  Of course, events on the ground can always change what a president does once in office, and most people understand that. But a politician needs to campaign on some kind of platform and run on a particular agenda for his/her election to mean anything. Otherwise, it's all just a big popularity contest. I should think it would help a lot for Hillary (or whoever else our nominee might be) to draw the sharpest distinctions possible with our GOPponent, so that s/he can govern more effectively by being able to claim that the people support those ideas and policies.

  Win or lose, at least that way our victory or defeat will stand for something. Without strong positions on major issues like Iraq, all of this calculated triangulation and wishy-washy middle-of-the-road stuff just amounts to so much sound and fury signifying nothing.

  by philimus on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:28:03 AM PDT