If Elected Clinton Will keep Military in Iraq

They are calling it a more nuanced position in the article  Here is what Hillary said

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a "remaining military as well as political mission" in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

But here is the real kicker for me.

She said in the interview that there were "remaining vital national security interests in Iraq" that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

We aren't building those fourteen permanent bases in Iraq just to leave them unstaffed.  And Commander in Chief Clinton will be more than happy to keep them staffed, or as I like to say, occupied.

She declined to estimate the number of American troops she would keep in Iraq, saying she would draw on the advice of military officers.

Vote Hillary.  Vote for continued occupation.   Call it nuance if you like.  I call it war.

•  Too bad

  So much for electing the first female president in 2008.  But that's the way it goes. If she won't stand up for the people, she doesn't get to be president.  Period.

  by weasel on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:19:38 PM PDT

  •  50% won't vote for Hillary (new Harris poll)

    Including more than one in five Democrats!

    Fifty percent of adults would not vote for Clinton
    By Kelly McCormack
    March 27, 2007
    Half of voting-age Americans say they would not vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) if she became the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, according to a Harris Interactive poll released Tuesday.

    More than one in five Democrats that participated in the survey said they would not vote for Clinton. Overall, 36 percent say they would vote for the former first lady and 11 percent are unsure of their top choice.

    Forty-eight percent of Independent voters also said that they would choose another candidate over Clinton, the poll, which surveyed 2,223 potential voters, states.

    Fifty-six percent of men said that they would not vote for Clinton, while 45 percent of women said that she would not be their pick. In addition, 69 percent of those 62 and older said that they would not vote for Clinton.

    Nearly half of the respondents said that they dislike Clinton’s political opinions and Clinton as a person. Fifty-two percent of people also said that "she does not appear to connect with people on a personal level."

    by Sharon Wraight on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:43:26 PM PDT

•  Just another "nuanced"...

  ..position from our DLC/centrist candidate. Way to continue the neo-con agenda, Hillary!!

  by lams712 on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:21:22 PM PDT

  •  Why oh why

    Why do you hate the triangulationists? Bob Shrum says this is exactly what the focus group wanted to hear. What more can you ask from a candidate?

    What steams me is that she says she wants to keep troops in Iraq to fight "the terrorists", but we'll not get involved if there's any ethnic cleansing going on.

    Let's elect a liberal instead.

    by aggressiveprogressive on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:36:35 PM PDT

•  To be extremely fair

  Its kind of like Korea, we ened the invasion decades ago but we still have troops in bases there. We just recently left Okinawa Japan after that war ending long before Korea.

  So, we're going to have troops in Iraq for ages. Theres still bases, no one has ever talked about evacuating from all our bases.

  by bobbyd100 on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:21:26 PM PDT

  •  thats too bad, isn't it

    we invaded a country on false intelligence.  what fucking right do we have to keep bases there?   How is that the right thing to do?  

    by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:24:28 PM PDT

    •  Yes, unfortunately

      Who knows if its the right thing to do, but its whats going to happen regardless who is president. Its not just Hillary who would do this, Obama and Edwards would assuredly follow...they just haven't been grilled on it.

      Do I want us to stay there? No. Is it right to keep bases? I can't answer that, only our military or their military has the authority to really tackle that. With tension in the middle east, I don't see any President giving it up.

      by bobbyd100 on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:33:24 PM PDT

      •  If we're losing 2-3 troops a day

        just for the sake of occupying the country, then a strong leader will bring our troops home. Regardless of how many contractors need us there. Nobody's shooting us in Korea. They like the money our military bases spend there.

        by aggressiveprogressive on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:39:22 PM PDT

        •  excellent point

          Nobody is shooting us in Korea

          by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:44:06 PM PDT

      •  we disagree

        if you invade a country that didn't attack you, you have no right to be there in the first place, and you sure as hell have no right to stay.   That is wrong.  I'm sure you'd feel that way if the terms were flipped and you were living near a new Iraqi base right here in America.  

        Does it make sense from a military strategy?  Sure, if you want to go to war with Iran and have PNAC style dreams of a global empire.  

        Does it make sense if you want to stop the all the casualties?   Sigh.

        by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:43:29 PM PDT

      •  That is False.

        You said John Edwards "would follow."  FALSE  

        From his Iraq Plan email in late January or early February:

        Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq within the next 12-18 months without leaving behind any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

        No permanent bases.  

        by TomP on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:45:08 PM PDT

        •  edwards

          I did not know that.   one more reason to vote for Edwards (I'm a big fan of his people before corporations approach).  Obama better step up and separate his Iraq policy from Hillary's or he is going to be in trouble.  Two months ago I was in the Obama camp and wasn't even considering Edwards.

          And I'm surprised i haven't seen this anywhere else, perhaps i've missed it.   But of the top three dem candidates Edwards is the only white male.   I'm not a statistician but i believe there have been a significant number of white males as president of the US and I'm surprised that isn't being considered as more of a plus for Edwards.    

          by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:51:29 PM PDT

        •  a fine position, but

          the problem I have with Edwards is that I have almost zero confidence that he won't "grow" into a new position once in office. My gut says that there are going to be permanent bases in Iraq, regardless of who gets elected. Can you offer me reasons (other than promises) that Edwards is going to be able to get around leaving bases?

          by heartofblue on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:58:47 PM PDT

          •  at least he isn't starting there

            I have little hope that any candidate who can raise enough money to win will be a candidate i'm very happy with.   However, I'm not going to vote for Hillary and then say, "i wish i had known she was such a hawk...I can understand Iran but did we need to go into Syria?"  Like all the people i know who admit to voted for Bush the second time and now regret it.  Or all the people who elected lieberman based on this outright lies.  

            Will Edwards be able to get universal health care?  I dont' know.  Is he saying he will try?  Yup.  Is Hillary?  Nope.   Once you've been on the board of Wal*Mart, I'm sure you just can't get back to that point.

            by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:03:33 PM PDT

            •  she has promised UHC n/t

              nt

              by heartofblue on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:05:35 PM PDT

              •  link?

                I just read (here or on MYDD) that last week she said it wasn't going to happen in her first term.  

                by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:11:19 PM PDT

                •  they are twisting her words

                  she gave a speech where she said she promised UHC would be in place by the end of her second term---folks with a desire to do so twisted this into: she wouldn't start on it until her second term.

                  Her UHC is a standard part of her stump speech, and major campaign promise for her. She has said she will do it incrementally, rather than one grand plan. She has already started by introducing legislation that she intends as "first steps towards universal health care."

                  Here are a couple of videos of her talking about coverage for children, she has recently proposed significant expansions of programs that cover children

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

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

                  I didn't find an ez link that just is a simple statment of her promise, but if you google it you should find it. It is a standard part of her stump speech at this point.

                  by heartofblue on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:23:53 PM PDT

                  •  well

                    edwards has said its a priority in his first term.   I prefer that.  

                    by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:36:08 PM PDT

                    •  it's not about first vs. second term

                      After all, if it's a race then Hillary wins, cause she has already started making it a priority.

                      But that is not the issue, it's about incremental versus all at once. She has taken the position that incremental changes will work better. Edwards has said, let's go for it the second I get into office.

                      I like his enthusiasm, but my opinion is that she is more likely to be successful.

                      by heartofblue on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:40:30 PM PDT

                      •  so

                        on all the big issues edwards is starting at a better place.  

                        If she can't even start there, I'm not looking forward to where she will finish.

                        by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:47:52 PM PDT

                        •  Edwards is giving us rhetoric

                          untethored to a plan, or realistic considerations. Maybe it's just me, but I say talk is cheap. Hillary has given me evidence that she is aware of the world that she is working in, and has a plan to navigate it. To me, this is a far better starting place.

                          I don't need to overstate my case, I know that Edwards does have some plans, and good ideas. But I look at his record of governing, and I see someone who adapted to his circumstances. And now, he is running a progressive campaign, and he has progressive rhetoric, he's adaptable, not an entirely bad trait. But it does mean that his rhetoric means very little to me.

                          There are obstacles to executing a progressive agenda, I want evidence that he (and every other candidate) is aware of the obstacles and has a realistic plan to get around them.

                          by heartofblue on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:57:15 PM PDT

                          •  then

                            vote for hillary.  At least you can be sure of what you are getting (if you don't buy her talk about ending the war and bringing home the troops).  

                            if, if, if.....this could've been a great war.

                            by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 02:13:43 PM PDT

              •  And we know how well she's deliverd on that

                in the past....

                by hardleft on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:32:23 PM PDT

          •  You ask for certainty.

            I can tell you Clinton wants bases and Obama also is keeping troops there.  

            As for your "confidence" level, that's up to you. I have confidence that Clinton will have bases.  Obama looks like it also.

            by TomP on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:05:02 PM PDT

            •  Don't need certainty, but it seems that the

              fates are stacked in one direction. If Edwards wants to go against that grain, he should offer some substantive explanation of how he is going to get around a need for permanent bases.

              Ending the war is crucial, and must be done ASAP, but it isn't exactly a solution to our middle eastern problems. There has to be an after-strategy, and everyone I've ever head talk about post-war scenarios has talked about a US presence in Iraq.

              I am certainly open to alternatives, I would LOVE to hear alternatives, but there needs to be more than just one liner rhetoric.

              by heartofblue on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:10:38 PM PDT

              •  did we need permanent bases in iraq 5 years ago?

                would that have stopped 9/11?  

                What is the basis for this "need" other than to protect the oil extraction process.  Because Hillary makes it clear it isn't to protect the Iraqi's.

                by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:12:50 PM PDT

                •  no, but that was before we went in

                  and fucked everything up.

                  The U.S. has an interest in preventing all and out collapse of civil order in the middle east. We are doing a crappy job of protecting that interest so far, but nonetheless, it would be nice to minimize ethnic cleansing, civil war, the growth of terrorism, etc, if at all possible.

                  by heartofblue on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:27:37 PM PDT

                  •  they want us out

                    it might be nice to listen to the iraqi people who want us the fuck out of their country.   They didn't invite us an they don't want us to stay.

                    that might be nice.  Before we kill another 600,000 of them.

                    The iraqis want us out.  Can you blame them?   If you are scared of iran, float the carriers where you are currently floating them.  The fish won't mind.

                    If you are just in it for the oil.  Dig in and stay.

                    by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:50:08 PM PDT

                    •  I really can't blame them n/t

                      nt

                      by heartofblue on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 02:05:19 PM PDT

  •  lie

    the lie has been repeated, often, that we have no designs on permanent bases there. HRC is helping to expose the lie.

    by essexgreen on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:52:30 PM PDT

•  Too close to the PNAC

  for me.

  No permanent bases.

  by TomP on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:22:36 PM PDT

•  what bothers me the most

  upon thinking of it is her last line in the article

  If we had a different attitude going in there, if we had stopped the looting immediately, if we had asserted our authority — you can go down the lines, if, if, if — "

  No wonder she won't apologize for the vote for war.  She is still saying it would've been a good idea "if, if, if"

  by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:23:22 PM PDT

  •  She still supports an illegal invasion

    You must admit, Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein, isn't it?

    The only acceptable answer to the question is...

    NO, IT ISN'T!

    - Albert Einstein

    by Walt starr on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:50:45 PM PDT

    •  I just heard a piece on alternative radio

      today.  It was on Iraq's healthcare.   20 years ago they had top notch health care for everyone.   Apparently we've taken to bombing their hospitals and much of the money to rebuild the hospitals has disappeared.  the reported said he actually had seen instances where hospitals got nice new paint jobs and that was it.   They still had no equipment or supplies.  

      i wasn't there before, i haven't been there lately but from what i've heard and read, they have been a lot better off that they have been in the last year.

      by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:54:22 PM PDT

•  Unacceptable n/t

  - Albert Einstein

  by Walt starr on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:24:52 PM PDT

•  I want to hear from Clark and Webb

  Saying "get all of the troops out now" may be the best rhetorical position, but we still have troops in Germany. I guess we probably have a few troops teaching colleges and working at research labs in the United Kingdom. Maybe there's a U.S. soldier somewhere in Canada.

  So, if HRC is simply saying that "No troops" really means "500 troops that the Iraqis and/or Kurds actually want to stay," well, OK, maybe that's a sensible position or maybe it's not. I'm not really equipped to evaluate that position.

  If you're a true, absolute pacifist: for you, "all troops out" might really mean "all troops out." But maybe even you would consider leaving a few troops to help the Iraqis with things like dealing with floods and forest fires (if the Iraqis themselves wanted those troops to stay). Regardless, I'm not as pure as you are, but I respect your position, and I'm not trying to change your mind here.

  If you, like me, are a "shades of gray" kind of person: It seems as if Eric Shinseki, Wesley Clark and James Webb would probably be good people to look at the question, "Should we be prepared to have some troops stay in Iraq even after "all of the troops are out," and, if so, what troops are clearly in Iraq for a sensible reason and achieving a sensible goal in a sensible way?" from a pragmatic perspective.

  Two possible outcomes:

  A. If Shinseki, Clark and Webb say, "All troops out should obviously mean all troops out yesterday," then that would make me think HRC's position on this issue is foolish.

  B. If Shinseki, Clark and Webb say, "Clearly, we at least have to keep some troops in the field to protect the Kurds, and we have to have some Navy Seals stationed on aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf in case we notice a tall mass murderer with a kidney problem wandering around Iraq," then that would make me think that HRC sees the question differently than a lot of us just because she knows more about the topic.

  by sclminc on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:50:30 PM PDT

  •  permanent bases

    carriers in the area are very different that troops on permanent bases.

    We currently have between 700-800 military bases in something like 150 countries around the world.  The empire is vast.   Its not a new concept.   However, the iraqis want us out, by all accounts.  

    by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:56:54 PM PDT

    •  What you're writing makes sense

      but I think the main thing is we should plan the withdrawal with a lot more professional input than we had when we carried out the invasion.

      At least let's listen to the professionals and take them seriously before we assume we know what's best.

      And I'm not saying anything about what the professionals think. Maybe they'd say exactly what you say. But the point is that we have to call them up and make them give us their best analysis.

      by sclminc on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:22:25 PM PDT

      •  sure thing

        all the military officials i've heard recently, even active duty have said there is no military solution to the current situation in iraq.

        by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 02:27:37 PM PDT

        •  But, if they were really looking at this with a

          microscope, they might give a more nuanced answer.

          Example: maybe what these guys really mean is, "There's no military solution for the Iraqi part of Iraq, but, of course, we still have to protect the Kurds, the same way we did under Clinton."

          And maybe Clark, Shinseki, etc. wouldn't say that, but I'd like to give them some time to look at this specific issue in a serious, considered way and give the real answer they'd use if they were really in charge, not a glib "everybody out" answer just because we folks in voterland want to hear "everybody out."

          by sclminc on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:38:21 AM PDT

•  "iranian aggression"

  iraq seeks to become iran's ally.

  what she means is, to provoke iran in israel's interests, never mind the blossoming iraq-iran alliance.

  by essexgreen on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:50:47 PM PDT

•  Nuance

  I'm for Obama, personally... but I will not totally condemn Hillary for this.  A couple points:

  (1)  The US will still have a role in a final peace settlement, and will need to have some force in the region. Not sure if troops need to be in Iraq, but there will need to be some in Kuwait or within a reasonable distance in the event massive ethnic cleansing or genocide occurs.  

  (2)  Hillary is the only Democratic candidate who has been saying something that is close to my heart - that the US has a responsibility to the Kurds, after having encouraged them to rebel in 1991, to assure that there is an end state in Iraq that preserves their autonomy.  Kurdistan may remain part of Iraq, but without some security guarantees, there will be yet another civil war over Kirkuk.  The US does have a role in assuring some degree of protection for the Kurds.  

  Should the US maintain a network of permanent bases in Iraq?  Of course not.  Should the US begin withdrawing combat troops?  Absolutely.  

  For the last 15 years, unrecognized by most of the rest of the world, a reasonably peaceful and open Kurdistan has some into existence.  The population is double and the land area is three times the size of Lebanon.  It is a virtual country, and one of the very few reasonably democratic governments in the Middle East should not be forced out of existence. Hillary gets this, and credit is due to her for her position on this issue.

  by ivorybill on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:50:54 PM PDT

  •  if the kurds ask us to stay

    and they aren't killing us, then i think its a fine idea.

    That is much different from what hillary is saying.  Is this 2007?  Fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq?    

    by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:59:21 PM PDT

    •  The Kurds want us to stay

      I work there, and I know that with certainty. Generally, Kurdish public opinion is in favor of some degree of international protection.  They will not want a massive US troop presence, but they will want a small US presence and some diplomatic assurances that Turkey will not invade, at least until a reasonable government comes to power in Baghdad.

      If a reasonable government does not come to power - if there is another one-party state, or if a hardline fundamentalist party runs things and tries to reassert military control over the Kurds or require Sharia' law throughout the country - well then the Kurds will not rejoin Iraq and there will need to be some intense negotiation to make a Kurdish state palatable to the neighbors.  The US and also the EU will absolutely have to be part of that discussion.

      by ivorybill on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:04:36 PM PDT

      •  that sounds like a sound approach to me

        I don't see that as HRC's main point based on this interview but i'm certainly not opposed to that.

        however, you must've seen the polls that say most iraqis want us out of the rest of iraq and that a majority think its ok to kill american troops?    

        by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:15:49 PM PDT

        •  yes

          And we need to start the withdrawal.  Unfortunately, the security situation in Iraq needs to be internationalized somehow.  Most of the violence in Iraq today is sectarian in nature.  Some people who wanted us dead no longer want us to leave - Sunni enclaves in Dura, for example who are frightened of ethnic cleansing.  

          I work with many Iraqis from throughout the country, from a number of political parties (including Tayyar al-Sadr).  They are angry at the US.  They are also frightened of the prospect of massive violence.  Most of the Shia' want us out, because they see us as protecting the Sunnis and as irrationally attacking Sadr or other Shia' politicians.  Most of the Sunnis want us out because they see us allied with the Shia'.  Either side may want us back in if they are on the wrong side of an ethnic cleansing campaign or a massacre, which is what may well happen once the US withdraws completely.  The only rationale for a continued US presence is to prevent massive killing - which is a real possibility.  However, responding does not require 140,000 soldiers on the ground, and it does not require 13+ military bases.  I think that most Iraqis, at least the ones I've spoken to, would be supportive of a step-by-step withdrawal of US forces rather than a precipitous withdrawal.  

          by ivorybill on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:27:33 PM PDT

          •  agreed

            i'm not for everyone out tomorrow.  Obviously there needs to be some thought put into this for all the reasons you mention.  I'd be interested if the iraqis you speak with like what hillary is saying.

            by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 04:06:19 PM PDT

•  This position is not any different than

  Obama's or Edwards's. It was even endorsed by the Senate Iraq war resolution which is supported by Feingold.

  She is just being more explicit on her position.

  by PhillyGuy03 on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:51:41 PM PDT

  •  this was on the FP of NYT online yesterday

    that is why it is getting attention today. Frankly I am surprised it took this long, and and that it hasn't sparked more of an anti-Hillary fest. I guess I just need to be patient, it will come.

    by heartofblue on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:02:46 PM PDT

    •  There has already been a couple of diaries

      already.

      by PhillyGuy03 on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:03:56 PM PDT

      •  sorry

        I missed them.

        I find it really odd that no Front Pagers would be writing about this.   However, I wasn't at that Clinton lunch for all the bloggers.  Perhaps the chicken was that good.

        by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:17:10 PM PDT

•  This Is Why

  She sucks, really sucks.

  You might as well elect Joe Lieberman.  

  by vetman on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:52:10 PM PDT

  •  I'm no fan of Hillary

    But to be fair, Hillary is much less objectionable than Lieberman.  There's more to politics than Iraq alone.

    I'll not vote for Hillary in the primary, but I will support her in the general election if she gets the nomination.  She is better than any Republican.  

    Lieberman?  He's dead to me.

    by ivorybill on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:59:41 PM PDT

•  If Elected....

  
  
  If Elected.....I will:
  
  

  1. Keep Joe Lieberman and John McCain in Iraq
     (new U.S.-Iraq residence program).

  
  

  2. I will keep Dick Cheney permanently locked away in Abu Grahib.

  
  

  3. And I will turn George W. Bush over to the citizens of Iraq
     (those still alive) whom he 'liberated' to do whatever
     the heck they wish with him.

  
  

  4. And I will force Rudy Guiliani to wear a whig and a dress all the time.

  
  

  5. Finally, I will send Hillary Clinton on a perpetual "listening tour"
     as the U.S. ambassador of Iraq.

  
  
  That's my platform.
  
  
  
  

  by LiberalWithBalls on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:54:22 PM PDT

•  It's the Hillary Two-Step

  She (1) tried to woo out-of-Iraq Democrats by promising to the bring the troops home and then (2) tried to assuage liberal hawks and the DLC crowd by saying that she'll bring some, but not all, the troops home from Iraq.

  That kind of inconsistency eventually catches up to you.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:07:53 PM PDT

  •  let's hope so

    because she has been doing it for years and it hasn't completly caught up with her yet.

    by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:18:43 PM PDT

•  What do you propose?

  Do we gt out completely and not have anyone there to destroy any terrorist groups that do pop up?

  by Mike S on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:42:17 PM PDT

  •  I propose

    responding to the wishes of the iraqi people who want us out of their country which we invaded for absolutely no reason.  That is the first step.

    Terrorist groups have a wide variety of countries to choose to pop up in.  For instance, pakistan, where the government harbors them.   If you were a terrorist who wanted to attack the "Homeland" of America, would you go to Iraq?   Or would you perhaps choose another country a bit less on the radar?   Now, if you just wanted to have an easy way to kill american soldiers where would you go?

    I propose getting the troops where the iraqi people want them.  out of iraq.  

    by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:52:51 PM PDT

    •  Isn't Hillary right though?

      She said that would draw those conclusions from the advice of the military and not some arm-chair theorist on a blog.

      by ConservativeDemocrat on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:56:27 PM PDT

      •  sure thing

        the military has been wrong about everything so far while i predicted the war would be disaster from the get go.  

        Let's give 'em another chance.  

        You want to put her in charge of the military, good luck.

        I just want people to wake up and understand what they are getting.   Hillary has been saying she would end the war.   Just like Lieberman talked a good game.   She will say what she needs to say.  If you agree with continued occupation and fighting terrorists in iraq, by all means vote for her.

        by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 02:18:20 PM PDT

    •  Look.

      The fact that a failed state of Iraq will be a terrorist magnet is hard to dispute. One only need look at Afghanistan to see that. So be honest and deal with that issue in an honest way.

      Hell, even Murtha isn't talking about pulling every troop out.

      by Mike S on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 02:08:46 PM PDT

      •  iraq is a failed state

        now.  There are many more terrorists there now than there were.  They are there because we are there.  

        the people of iraq want us out.  We are killing many of those people.  Daily.  We invaded them.

        But you think that is just fine because you are worried about some potential terrorists training there.  

        How many iraqis can die a day and it be ok with you?   Let's just talk kids.  How many iraqi children should be be ok killing every day in order to prevent possible terrorists from training in iraq when those same terrorists have a long list of places they can train?

        How many?  My answer is zero.   I won't kill civilians in another country to make me theorectically safer.

        by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 02:21:03 PM PDT

        •  Must be nice to live

          in your world. But in the real world not all of the Iraqis want us to leave and there is an actual terrorist threat in the country of Iraq that will only get worse if there isn't some small force there ready to engage them.

          by Mike S on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 02:30:49 PM PDT

          •  it is nice

            i don't support the killing of children.  Period.  That is what we are doing and have done in large numbers along with alot of their parents.  why?  to make us "safer".

            in 2004 82% of iraqis wanted us out.  I can't find a more recent poll but i imagine the number is higher.  What percentage would be enough for you?

            I'm not foolish enough to think what we have done in iraq, and continue to do does not breed a huge number of new terrorists who hate america.   I don't recommend continuing that.  

            most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, as i'm sure you know.  Saudi Arabia is one of the leading state sponsors of terrorism.  I'd worry more about them myself.  

            You want to keep a small reactive force there, fine.  Do you need 14 bases and 75,000 troops for that?  Remember, everyone agrees there is no military solution.

            Why not let the iraqi's engage them?  Or other UN nations?  

            I'm not saying abandon the country.  I'm saying let them run their own country and we can support them.  Or perhaps a UN force could do that.   That isn't what HRC is saying.   Stay the course.  Four more years.   If you are willing to let your kids and friends sign up to occupy iraq, than I'm more than happy to let you do that.  The world i live in includes some history on occupations and how they end up.

            by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 04:01:10 PM PDT