Hillary on Iraq war: We need to end it "the right way." WTF?!

Just listened to Hillary's victory speech. All 3 speeches can be found here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

In hers, she says she wants to end the war "the right way".

Anyone have a clue what the fudge she means by that? Sounds to me like an excuse to keep our troops there until we get it "right".

I want our troops out as quickly as possible. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it's also politically the right contrast with the Republicans' insane warmongering (especially if McCain is their nominee).

Why would we want to lose our best issue against them AGAIN?! Have we learned nothing from Kerry's idiotic fumbling of this issue?

Of course, Hillary is the only major Democratic candidate left who voted for the war and still stands by that vote. That ALONE should disqualify her from the nomination....

•  "The right way" was Biden's mantra.

  Obama also has used that phrase. It means that they don't want to be accused of "surrendering" or "running" or have the soldiers shot at when they leave. So a convoluted scenario of slow phased withdrawal gets drawn up. I don't think it is realistic. I agree with kucinich that they could leave in 4 months and the Iraqis would be so happy they aren't going to attack.
  But "the right way" is usually taken to mean about 5,000 troops a month so at 160,000 troop, do the math. That takes 30 months depending on how many troops will be left in the four giant military bases he size of towns plus the giant embassy.

  by Gregory Wonderwheel on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:11:14 AM PDT

  •  When the British pulled out of Basra

    The violence went way DOWN. Obama has called for pulling out all our troops much faster than your scenario above.

    by Jim in Chicago on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:13:33 AM PDT

    •  They all originally said not by 2013 then they

      then they all increased their timelines.

      Obama doubled his withdrawal rate from one brigade (5000) per month to two brigades (10,000) per month to draw down in 15 months. I havn't seen if Obama has stated a number that he will leave in Iraq.

      by Gregory Wonderwheel on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:17:53 AM PDT

•  Tips?

  Maybe Hillary should shed a tear for the 3800+ soldiers we've lost in Iraq instead of over how hard it is for HER to get out and face those nasty reporters and other candidates each day!

  by Jim in Chicago on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:12:01 AM PDT

  •  No Tips

    I think you should consider how reckless Democrats look when they make assertions that are ridiculous--like, "we can get our troops out in four months."

    You can't do that and protect the American Troops you will be pulling out, in a logistical nightmare of epic proportions through Southern Iraq across the desert to Kuwait, through unfriendly territory, targets for every jihadist in the world.

    We have to evacuate with a plan, unlike the way that Bush got us in this debacle in the first place. And, you should be proud that a Democrat--who knows damn well what she's talking about because she has been on the Armed Services Committee--is pointing out that Democrats will not just run for the border.

    Jesus. Stop and think for a minute. Do you think it helps those US troops to evacuate them in an environment where they are at INCREASED RISK?

    by SignalSuzie on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 05:39:27 AM PDT

•  Edwards voted for the war, Obama for funding

  Both Edwards and Obama voted for the war when they voted to fund the war. Obama still stands by his funding votes.

  Only Kucinich did not vote for the war authorization and did not vote for the funding. But of course he doesn't get traction because he's not a "major" candidate.

  by Gregory Wonderwheel on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:14:40 AM PDT

  •  He's not running a serious campaign this time

    Not even compared to his 2004 campaign.

    by Jim in Chicago on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:15:35 AM PDT

    •  Well, I disagree on the word 'serious'

      by Gregory Wonderwheel on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:19:02 AM PDT

•  /snark!

  Of course, Hillary is the only major Democratic candidate left who voted for the war and still stands by that vote. That ALONE should disqualify her from the nomination....

  Jim!  You stop that, you mean sexist man!!  

  by Miles in WesternWA on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:20:14 AM PDT

•  Of course it means she's gonna keep them there

  How anyone who actually considers themselves a progressive can support her candidacy just blows my f'in mind.  She's so completely out of line with what we've been fighting for for years now and to give in to another 8 years of Clinton is like surrendering to the DLC and putting our movement to sleep for another decade.

  by Marc in CA on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:41:29 AM PDT

•  Yes, 'the right way'

  jumped out at me, too, when I heard her speech. I didn't hear that caveat in Obama's speech.

  by Libertaria on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:56:22 AM PDT

•  I'm not sure what she meant

  Obama said he would end the war in Iraq. Both candidates gave themselves wiggle room to either exit ASAP or not. Clinton's wording sounded worse, but I haven't heard Obama promise anything about when US involvement in Iraq will end. As far as I know our three top candidates are still acting as if we will maintain an embassy in Iraq.

  Just a general note, politicians try to keep their options open and appeal to the widest possible audience. Also once our candidates make a definative statement about leaving Iraq, the republicans will get their slime machine running. Already the R's are trying to take the stay/leave question and turn it into stay/leave later/leave now then if the breakdown is 40%/30%/30% they will claim the president's policy is the most popular.

  by Sacramento Dem on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:04:12 AM PDT

•  It's basically

  an open-ended dodge that allows her to avoid committing herself.  I am not saying it's necessarily good or bad - I can see the case for thinking that the candidates shouldn't commit themselves before taking office and getting a lay of the land - but that's what "the right way" is.

  by johnny rotten on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:02:13 AM PDT

•  Nixon '68

  "Peace with Honor."

  by Paleo on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:24:49 AM PDT

  •  My thought exactly!

    by irate on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:44:03 AM PDT

•  With All the Boomers Haters

  My how times have changed! Nixon in 1972, his entire " 4 More Years " campaign rested the same mantra Obama and Hilliary use in their reframe in regards the imperialist exploit in Iraq as Nixon did to Vietnam.

  And I see it sells just as well. I worked McGovern's campaign that year and on election night I sat in front of my parents, a little closer to the TV, as they were on the sofa.And as the map grow into this bloody blue monstrosity the tears began streaming down my face becuase of how heartless this country must be to bury him like that.

  My Dad and I nearly came to blows before I could excuse myself without conceding to my parents Nixion's  victory. I only wanted to leave so I could finish crying somewhere else.

  The rub was though my Mother let me believe she was voting McGovern on account of the war and she wanted peace. The next morning she offered to make me breakfast and after we sat I asked what happened.

  Well the way the story goes she voted for Nixon becuase she thought he would negotiate a peace quicker. Which I took as absurd in that was his same claim 4 years earlier.

  Anyways the moral little grasshopper is that war is the biggest lie every politician will tell you. So drive a hard bargain!

  by farleftcoast on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:42:52 AM PDT

•  oh, c'mon

  If Iraq actually had a stable and proper government, you'd be sorta right and the US military would be a force babysitting oil wells rather than a society.

  As it is, it's a rotten and fall-prone government with a country waiting to do the grand finale round of civil war.

  Which is to say, the situation in Iraq is deteriorating to where the situation will resembles that of, yes, Yugoslavia.  US forces departing in a fashion amid a civil war going on, with US forces demanded by the world to act to protect women and children from mass slaughter.  And 'safe haven' zones the operative conceptive rather than holding on to the enemy capital.

  There is a "right way" to act when that situation is at hand, and that is do the duty that saves lives rather than obey an ideal of full withdrawal.

  by killjoy on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:47:30 AM PDT

•  "Right" way

  It means we need to make sure all the defense contractors who are profiteering from the war and contributing to Hillieberman's campaign keep on rolling in the dough.

  by simca on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 05:08:37 AM PDT

•  The Responsible Way

  Because you can't just snap your fingers and withdraw 140,000 troops, billions of dollars in weapons systems, ammunition, and everything needed to prosecute a war for five fucking years--and POOF* It is done.

  Get it? A responsible leader knows that saying "I'm going to end the war" is a pipedream. You can't just "end the war." There are American troops to get out--safely--and there are American troops who will have to remain. We will have troops now in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Just as we did in Saudi Arabia for years after the Persian Gulf War. We cannot just walk out--we have to take our troops and weapons systems through a logistical nightmare to get them all out. It took six months to get them all in there, stationing provisions, troops and armory in Kuwait for months. You think snapping your fingers and saying ABRACADABRA is just going to magically make it over?

  Grow up.

  by SignalSuzie on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 05:30:36 AM PDT

•  We have an obligation to do the best thing

  for the Iraqis, as far as possible. This means no decision on troop withdrawal should be made without consulting the Iraq government; furthermore, in my opinion we are obligated to evacuate the several thousand Iraqis who have worked most closely with the US, since they will under death sentences if they stay ---of course, assuming they want to leave.

  by BoringDem on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:26:04 AM PDT

•  Clinton

  If we nominate Hillary we would have learned nothing from 2004. We will present the country with another election in which there is very little difference between the dems and gop on Irag. I'm not going to mince my words, dems will deserve to lose and i'm voting third party. My only hope is that if nominated Hillary goes down in flames so the dem party can finally free themselves from the Clinton/DLC machine.

  by alexnyc on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:36:30 AM PDT