Daily Kos

Senator Obama: Debate This

Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:59:47 PM PDT

Hillary's my 1st Choice:  Part I: Exiting Iraq

Policy statements are wonky by nature, and questions on policy in debates must be answered in ‘sound bites’ that fit into 90-second frames.  To be both accurate and brief, the candidates can only give a broad outline of what they’ll do. For Obama it’s “we need to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.”

Clinton uses the questions to highlight various points:  

She starts with telling us she’d asked for the exit plan and learned there is none. She says she’ll ask for an exit plan on day one.

She says the Iraqis know that if she’s elected we won’t be staying, and so there will be (1) no occupation, and (2) no long-term protection of Iraqi leaders with American troops or security paid for by Americans.  Therefore, says she, they will know it’s incumbent on them to do what they can to stabilize the nation and to secure their own safety.  

She then speaks of the logistics of leaving – we have troops, we have civilian workers, there are private American owned armies, and there are many Iraqis who’ve helped us, all of whom will need to be removed. We also have essential equipment and arms that must be removed. She states that there must be a plan for removing all of this that will ensure the safety of all involved. She promises the exits will start within two months, and she estimates the earliest it can all be accomplished will be something like fourteen months.  

At the same time Clinton states she will implement the diplomacy plan. She has currently retired diplomats, professionals and experts on each foreign nation on board, prepared on “day one” to begin speaking to Iraq’s neighbors and to European, African  and Asian leaders about the situation in order to give them an opportunity to get involved in stabilizing Iraq at the international level.  But she’s not depending on any cooperation for her exit to go forward, she states, it will for forward as scheduled. She expects the possibility of a bloodier civil war in Iraq when we leave, but while international involvement would probably reduce ensuing violence, she will not make our exit plan dependent on international cooperation, under her watch we will leave regardless.  Her only concern will be the safety of the operation, getting everyone and everything out safely.  

Clinton has a plan for exiting Iraq, she will ask the commanders to start by counting; identifying those Iraqis we’ll need to rescue, identifying all essential equipment and materials, and developing a plan to remove our troops, our good friends, and American owned private armies.   The point for Hillary is that there is no ‘good’ way out, and that although there likely will be an increase in civil violence when we leave, there is violence now, and while we’re there it’s violence with no end.  The violence that erupts when we leave will have an end. And that’s better for all involved.  

So here's one debate question for Senator Obama:  How to you plan to exit Iraq?  

Tags: Iraq, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Plans, 2008 (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 233 comments

    •  Her position seems substantial (4+ / 0-)

      but it's full of generalities everyone agrees with.

      I want to see:

      Jan 20: Blackwater operations ordered terminated, permanent base construction cancelled.
      Feb 5: Local agreements on security takeovers
      Mar 17: Emergency humanitarian aid plan
      July 4: Troops start coming home
      December 21: All troops arrive home

      None of this 'day one' stuff.  I want to see both candidates show more specifics.

      Seek first and final principles at The Mean Free Path.

      by Cream Puff on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:03:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Muzzling Blackwater - easier said than done. (4+ / 0-)

        Their operations are too intertwined with the military's mission.  Pull out Blackwater, and the whole thing falls into chaos because (dirty little secret here) there aren't enough uniformed troops to do the mission without them...

        No politician ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. PT Barnum, paraphrased...

        by jarhead5536 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:06:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  takes hard work (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Gabriele Droz, seattlegonz

          she's experienced in getting legislation passed. american's want this, we're behind her, we've got her back.  

          Hillary - Alternative Energy

          by anna shane on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:08:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'd look out for that (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Cream Puff, seattlegonz

            frontal attack if I were you. It's a doozy!

            •  there' a long diary (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Cream Puff, seattlegonz

              from this morning, listing all her legislation, but he can ask her about that in a debate.  

              Hillary - Alternative Energy

              by anna shane on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:17:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sure. (3+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Bronxist, Cream Puff, badger195

                And they can discuss her and Bill's tax returns at the same time.

                •  You know, I could care less (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  seattlegonz

                  about their tax returns. There isn't anything in there that is going to bring back to life a single one of the human beings that is dead now only because we invaded Iraq.

                  I also don't want to hear any more excuses about how voting for AUMF was not an authorization of the use of military force. I'd like to know on what planet in what universe parsing like that is not bullshit, 'cause on the planet I live, it certainly is.

                  •  If you are interested in candidate money (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Psychotronicman, seattlegonz

                    check out the Chicago newspaper archives on how Barry went to see his good friend Tony Rezko for "advice" on how to purchase a house the Obamas wanted but could not afford on the new Senator's salary.   Mr. Rezko was on the front pages at the time under investigation regarding contracts to build low income housing during Obama's years in the state legislature.

                    The transaction was completed because Mrs. Rezko gave a check for 650,000 dollars to buy the driveway and part of the yard!  She paid full asking price and the Obamas paid 300,000 under asking for the house and rest of the yard.  

                     After the "deal" came to light in Chicago, Barry and Michelle gave Mrs. Rezko 105,000 dollars to buy the driveway. And there is so much more where that came from, glossed over for the primaries but waiting for the general.

                    •  well said (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      itsadryheat

                      I'm interested in that, wonder if his supporters are two. If he's out nom I want al this stuff out pronto so we can at least dismiss it as old news with a straight face.

                      Hillary - Alternative Energy

                      by anna shane on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:41:31 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I care as much about this (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      anna shane

                      as I do about the Clinton's tax returns. Which is to say, not at all.

                      There are real issues facing this country, but all some people want to do is dredge up is dirt like this. You have no idea how much alike you sound to all those rightwingers who hounded Senator Clinton about her cattle futures deal when she was First Lady.

          •  I don't doubt it, but (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Cream Puff, Psychotronicman

            if this is to be done safely, without precipitating a civil war (oops too late I guess), Blackwater can't just be yanked out because the whole house of cards will come immediately crashing down.  That's too many pairs of boots removed too quickly for safety...

            No politician ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. PT Barnum, paraphrased...

            by jarhead5536 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:15:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Love this "she's experienced" fairytale. (0+ / 0-)

            They are all equally experienced and equally inexperienced.

            Experience means nothing. Bush wasn't "experienced" and he's making his friends very wealthy so that seems like he's using his inexperience very well.

            Really, the important question is whether eiter Obama or Clinton are willing to use the veto? That is the president's primary procedural and fair weapon when it comes to legislation.  I want a president who is willing to use the veto to get his/her own party in shape as well as the opposition party.  

            Also, Bush uses the secretive "signing order" to avoid the above-the-board veto.  Will either Obama or Clinton disavow the Bush style "signing order"? Focus on that.

            "The United States will always do the right thing, after trying all the other options." ~ Winston Churchill

            by Gregory Wonderwheel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:40:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually they're (0+ / 0-)

              NOT equally experienced.  He's more experienced.

              Check out this diary by ShadowSD:

              ...it's a sad day when a candidate with twenty-five years at the federal, state, and local level and dealing directly with Constitutional [and civil rights]law is considered less experienced than a former first lady with seven years at the federal level and a corporate law background, simply because she has more national POLITICAL experience in the partisan mudfight; it's kind of appalling that this edge in political experience has been cast as a policy advantage, when Obama is in fact the one with the vast advantage on policy experience.

              When did experience in corporate or trial law become as relevant to the Presidency as Constitutional and civil rights law, considering that the President is sworn to uphold the Constitution, and needs to do so now more than ever?

              When did having experience at the local, state, AND federal level become a throw-away credential in a system of government based on the intricacies and interplay of those hierarchies?

              When did being a legislator for longer and at two different levels of government become a sign of less government experience?

              When did an International Relations major, four years on the Foreign Relations Committee, and years more living unsecluded in Indonesia become negligible foreign policy experience relative to eight years on Armed Services [Committee] and secluded trips abroad as first lady?

              When did the amount of time served in national political food fights overcome all these important questions of relevant policy experience for an office as important and pivotal as the Presidency of the United States?

              The sad answer all of the above is the same: when Barack Obama ran for President, and people got used to believing what the media repeated everyday.

              He has the experience that really counts.

      •  Well, she's the only one in the field (3+ / 0-)

        to offer legislation against permanent bases.

      •  Local agreements on security takovers. (0+ / 0-)

        Hmmm.  Hasn't happened yet, doesn't look promising in the near future.  The whole reason we're still there is because there are no local leaders willing to stand up to their sectarian religious masters and negotiate in good faith with the other side...

        No politician ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. PT Barnum, paraphrased...

        by jarhead5536 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:09:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  About recommitting ourselves to the rule of (4+ / 0-)

        International Law, Just War Theory, and the Geneva conventions?

        The neocon-PNAC Bush Plan violated international law and was done with the required U.N. endorsement.

        Even the Vatican loudly denounced it as a violation of Just War theory, due to its' failure to meet the four minimal pre-requisites.

        To try to oppose it now only because it didn't turn out well, or we didn't find the WMD falls way to short to be able to oppose McCain and gain the backing of those who  opposed it on fundemental principal, and most of the rest of the world, whom have not forgotten the detials.

        El Baredei, put the entire credibility of the IAEA behind the year long plus work of Hans Blix stating in early March, two weeks prior to the invasion, that there was no credible evidence of WMD in Iraq.

        Those that defied the evidence, International Law, The U.N., the IAEA, Just War theory etc, in endorsing this war in the beginning, and supporting it all along need to apoligize not only to the citizens of the United States, but to the rest of the world as well, if they wish to regain the fullest level of backing we could achieve and move in the direction of restoring our international standing and respectability.  

        And promise to re-commit themselves and our nation the Rule of Law rather than the neocon "Might Makes Right" principal we are now pursuing.  And recommitting ourselves to the Geneva conventions would be another step in the right direction.  

        Those who appear now to oppose the war either because it didn't turn out well, or we didn't find WMD are really missing the bigger picture and will find it highly difficult and unnecessarily lonely to counter McCain.

        The Democratic Party' most power retort to the McCain/Bush/Neocon philosophy is at the highest strategic level of our foundation principals of national security and foreign policy.

        Attempting to trivialize this episode as merely a flawed or unread NIE report, or unfound WMD will not regain the confidence of the rest of the world or enable us to gain the support of the smartest and wisest experts, scholars, and advocates of global peace and security who would be eager to help us if we step up to the plate in a serious way.

        This is the core reason I left both the Democratic Party and DailyKos just over a year ago with great sadness.  

        The GOP were not the only one to lose our way on these difficult challenges.  

        On the place side, I've come back in the hope that our party and our nation may be at a critical crossroads where we may have the opportunity to return to a wiser and more respectable path.

        But the rest of the world needs to hear that we are willing to return to the rule of International Law, adherence to the Geneva Conventions, respect for the sovereignty of other nations and peoples, and attempts to exhaust every possible non-violent and peaceful option to dispute resolution before resorting to violence only as a last resort.

        This will also directly help us in the war for the "hearts and minds" of those on the margins of the violent jihadists.  It's their perceptions of the perceived relative legitimacy of us versus the most extreme violent jihadists that represents one of our highest leverage policy options.

        Endorsing the notion of violence first plays into their hands.  OBL quote our Hiroshima justification in his justification of the 9/11 twin towers bombing.

        In what may be remembered as the greatest foreign policy blunder in our history President Bush (and John McCain) endorsed the philosophy of unilateral pre-emptive violence, accross soveriegn borders and has probably contributed to greater recruitment of hte most violent jihadist than OBL had managed up to that point.

        IMO we demolish John McCain and his neocon cronies only if we apoligize for mistakes and recommit to our foreign policy princiapals.

        Good luck.  

        The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

        by HoundDog on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:35:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Have BHO & HRC disavowed preemptive war? (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          HoundDog, hannahlk

          I admit that I haven't researched this well enough. But it hasn't coome up as a direct question in any of the debates that I have seen or heard.

          Any links to the candidate's position on this?

          "The United States will always do the right thing, after trying all the other options." ~ Winston Churchill

          by Gregory Wonderwheel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:42:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Excellent question. n/t (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            HoundDog
            •  yes, an excellent question. I do not know (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              hannahlk

              BHO derserves credit for oppossing the war from the begging but I have not heard explanation of why.

              I've generously given him the benefit of the doubt since he is already in such a minority.

              However, as the Clinton's have pointed out, he did apparently vote along with the rest of the Democratic congress in supporting funds for the war.

              Quite honestly, I really don't feel as strongly about that, as by that time all the politicians are in a sticky wicket.  Cutting of funds while troops are at war on foreign soil would be played by Bush as a betrayal of our troops, and even though it would be at least partially bogus, the first soldier that died from lack of body armour would used by Rove/Bush for PR points against Dems.

              I'm willing to defer to Reid and Pelosi, and even BHO and HRC on how they felt they had to play the  real time political complexities and needs for  compromise.  

              But I would hope we could have a whole series of debates about this.  Although, it might be painful for everyone, and all of us in the short run, and none of us, nor our candidates will come out perfectly.

              But, showing the world the Democratic Party, and our candidates can and will have intelligent and difficult discussions about our core principals could pay rich dividends in the term.

              Especially, if we find ourselves converging towards a consensus about how to go forward.  Which I beleive we would quickly, once we get past the blame game, or who can score the most political points over it.

              Which is another reason I've chosen to stay out of it for the last year.  This is way to important for our nation and our party to jeapordize, distort, or muck up our collective stance here, for short term political debating points.

              The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

              by HoundDog on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:26:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  She has legislation to prevent permanent bases. (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        anna shane
    •  Good diary. rec'd. n/t (3+ / 0-)

      Sometimes, a cackle is the best medicine!

      by ghost2 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:04:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, and Clinton (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      anna shane, Psychotronicman

      will not get her debate on this, unfortunately.  It's too late to pressure Obama into doing anything risky.

      Seek first and final principles at The Mean Free Path.

      by Cream Puff on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:05:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Risky like taking a policy stance? (4+ / 0-)

        How can you not argue that Obama is not a cult of Personality.

        This is crazy

        •  The term "cult" may be hyperbolic, (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          4democracy, anna shane

          but how else do you describe fanatic devotion of this almost worshipful nature?  Whence do his veiled threats come from that his supporters won't support Hillary if not for the fact that their ardor is for him and only him, not the eventual nominee?

          No politician ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. PT Barnum, paraphrased...

          by jarhead5536 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:18:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well, I haven't argued that. (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          linnen

          And politicians avoid taking risky stances all the time.  And they always go into prevent mode when they're ahead.

          But it can be risky to do that too.  Remember the driver's license question?  It exposed what I knew to be Hillary's overcalculating nature to the electorate.  Her numbers started slipping as of then.

          But don't think I'm unable to see Obama's shortcomings.  I find "yes, we can" simplistic too, but hey, if it gets people involved...

          Seek first and final principles at The Mean Free Path.

          by Cream Puff on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:42:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  She has also introduced legislation (4+ / 0-)

      to prevent Bush alone to committing the US to a long-term "presence".

    •  Suggestion, read or listen to Obama's plan (5+ / 0-)

      Hey, here's a novel idea: look up his plan!

      September 12, 2007

      Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama unveiled a new comprehensive plan for Iraq on Wednesday that features a call to pull out all U.S. combat troops by the end of 2008.

      His plan has four key points:

      • Remove U.S. combat troops immediately at a pace of one to two brigades per month, to be completed by the end of 2008. A brigade is about 3,500 troops.

      • Organize a new constitutional convention in Iraq through the United Nations, and don't let it adjourn until Iraqi leaders reach an accord on reconciliation.

      • Step up diplomacy with all nations in the region to forge a regional security compact.

      • Take immediate steps to relieve the humanitarian disaster in Iraq, including allowing more Iraqi refugees into the United States.

      He has stated 1 or 2 brigades per month for a pull out in about 16 months and Hillary took this idea from him after she was criticized for taking too long. Obama too relies on advice from commanders as to how to go about pulling out troops.

      Personally I don't think either Obama's or Clinton's plans are fast enough, and I support Kucinich's plan to bring the troops home.

      There is no lack of plans going around, and Obama has just as much of a plan as Clinton.

      "The United States will always do the right thing, after trying all the other options." ~ Winston Churchill

      by Gregory Wonderwheel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:32:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Clinton's plan for exiting Iraq (11+ / 0-)

    is "developing a plan to remove our troops".

    Excellent.

    •  ie.-MORE OF THE SAME (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      stridergambit, leonard145b, costello7

      And when it's said and NOT DONE, she'll claim to beas "mistaken" on this as she was on her War Vote...

      •  Thats it...Place blame (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Lying eyes, anna shane

        Saying she voted wrong in 2003 will definitely get our troops out and solve the problem in 2008.

        I'm sick of Obama supporters pointing to this like it is the end all argument of the discussion.  Fine, she made a mistake.  So did 77 other senators.  However, judgment from the beginning does not trump preparedness in the end.

        Obama can take the high ground after he shows us how he'll get us out.

        Think your candidate deserves unquestioned loyalty? Join the GOP

        by wils02 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:16:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  and learning from experience (0+ / 0-)

          I'd feel better about him if he'd admit to mistakes because then I'd have the idea that he could learn from mistakes.  Experience is a learning kind of thing.  

          Hillary - Alternative Energy

          by anna shane on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:22:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Does she think she made a mistake? (0+ / 0-)

          I mean, we are talking about her ability to handle foreign policy, and to be the Commander in Chief of our armed forces.

          To this day, she still believes that vote was not a mistake. As did 77 other senators, who are not running for POTUS.

          •  wrong (0+ / 0-)

            she says she isn't apologizing because she made the best call she could at the time. Her mistake was thinking bush would be constrained by prior agreements, that he'd be 'forced' to let the inspectors complete the job.  

            Hillary - Alternative Energy

            by anna shane on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:48:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So her vote wasn't a mistake? (0+ / 0-)

              And it doesn't give you pause that she trusted Bush to use power wisely?

              Last time I looked, the Senate was supposed to be a check on the President, not an enabler.

              It's amazing how you can spin this as a positive.

              •  yes, on a mistkane assumption (0+ / 0-)

                she didn't say it wasn't a mistake, she didn't apologize because it's an honest mistake.  She was never in favor of attacking Iraq, she voted for it to get the inspectors in, she voted for it for diplomacy, which is how it was presented to all of us, it was going to be dependent on whether Saddam allowed inspectors in.  He did, point made.  Then ....

                Hillary - Alternative Energy

                by anna shane on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:02:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Amazing how (0+ / 0-)

              Obama had access to less information than Hillary did, was running for office in IL and managed to come out with this stand:

              I don’t oppose all wars.

              And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

              What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perles and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

              What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Roves to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone thru the worst month since the Great Depression.

              That’s what Im opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

              Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

              But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

              I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

              I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Queda.

              I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

              So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today.

              You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Queda, thru effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

              You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons in already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

              You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

              You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

              Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

              Go read the complete speech.

              That's one reason why Obama supporters are in his corner.  He understood the risks.  He knew what was important and he was willing to stand up and say so in 2002 when he was running for office.

              He demonstrated judgment that Hillary did not.  Hillary, on the other hand, jumped on the Cheney-Bush bandwagon about Iran with her Kyl-Lieberman vote, demonstrating that she still hasn't figured out the judgment thing.  The Iran NIE that came out shortly afterwards demonstrated just how ridiculous her position was and I haven't seen her acknowledge that either.

              Hillary's judgment in these matters certainly fails in comparison to Barack Obama's.  So he has more experience in the areas that count and he has better judgment.  

              It's pretty obvious who the better choice is.

    •  I'm not a Clinton fan, but (5+ / 0-)

      a plan, if it doesn't exist now, ought to exist and it's only prudent to have a real plan with real-time knowledge before starting.

      The old saw about "if you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there" rings true...and many lives will be at stake.

      Your comment is just a jab...without substance...and shows nothing but partisanship.

      The longer I live, the clearer I perceive how unmatchable a compliment one pays when he says of a man "he has the courage to utter his convictions." Mark Twain

      by Persiflage on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:05:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  She has a plan to have a plan. (7+ / 0-)

      Why can't Obama come up with specifics?

      Offshore Oil/NatGas is our Strategic Reserve. Save it for when the rest of the world runs out.

      by Inland on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:06:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  she's not prez yet (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Gabriele Droz

        she has to wait for day one, but on day one they're on planes, they're ready to take off.  She's made promises and she's asked us all to hold her accountable. what more do you want?  It can be a debate question.  

        Hillary - Alternative Energy

        by anna shane on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:11:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You said in your diary: (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          arielle, Inland

          "She says she’ll ask for an exit plan on day one."

          Can't have it both ways.  Which is it?

          •  the plans are (0+ / 0-)

            the list of what she needs to know, she's not just going to say give me a plan, she's going to ask for substantive items, what we have, where it is, what we need to do first, second, with documentation.  She knows what to ask for, and she knows who she'll put in charge of it, who'll be studying it, and following up on it. It's a many tiered process and one she's been working on.  She has ex-generals, ex-career diplomats. she's got a staff in waiting.  Working while in waiting.  

            Hillary - Alternative Energy

            by anna shane on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:26:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  So neither have, and neither should have, plans? (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          arielle, Marinesquire

          What are you asking them to debate, if neither have plans and neither should have plans?  

          Offshore Oil/NatGas is our Strategic Reserve. Save it for when the rest of the world runs out.

          by Inland on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:16:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  the final plan (0+ / 0-)

            needs the job, the preliminary plans are what she has. What does he have?  

            Hillary - Alternative Energy

            by anna shane on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:27:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Um, the same thing? (0+ / 0-)

              Neither have a plan, neither have a deadline, both have (vaguely) promised to pull all combat troops out of Iraq and leave an undefined rump force to protect the Embassy and strike at AQI.  Obama has also pledged to exit plan and anticipates that he'll be able to withdraw one or two brigades per month...  Which is approximately Hillary's "plan."  

              The question is: where do you stop and when do you pull the plug entirely?  Neither has an answer.

              •  are you George Bush? (0+ / 0-)

                There is more than one part to this.  The military must submit the plan, but she must be prepared to know what she needs, know who'll be working on it, who'll be watching, who'll be reading the reports and checking for inadequacies, et al. You think you can just say, hey, give me a plan?  Takes more than that.  

                Hillary - Alternative Energy

                by anna shane on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:51:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  As President, yes, you can ask the Joint Chiefs (0+ / 0-)

                  to put together an exit plan.  

                  Hillary has no demonstrated experience in "reviewing" or "working on" a military exit plan - she will clearly be out of her element and will be relying on her surrogates, just like Obama or anyone else.

                  I'd be frightened if Hillary decided to micro-manage the withdrawal with the same skill she used to botch health care reform in 1993.  

    •  Oh please.. it's not like moving (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Gabriele Droz, anna shane, wils02

      It is going to be complicated and BUsh has refused to even allow a plan to be made.

      You need to do it orderly.

      How did I live without him?

      by Pumpkinlove on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:13:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I Think The Spector Of Choppers Atop The Embassy (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Persiflage

    Is a SURE WAY to insure we lose the 2008 elections...

    Yes, the people want OUT, but they DO NOT want a repeat of the Vietnam experience. And McCain will play that up to THE HILT....

  •  Where's the plan? (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Inland, leonard145b, Marinesquire, haruki

    I thought Obama was the one that talked forever without really saying anything.  Well there goes another disingenuous distinction from the Clinton camp.

    •  Diarist says HRC will have one AFTER elected (6+ / 0-)

      but then demands that Obama say the same thing?  

      Offshore Oil/NatGas is our Strategic Reserve. Save it for when the rest of the world runs out.

      by Inland on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:05:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Here's the paragraph on her website: (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      leonard145b, costello7

      Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary's First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.

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

      Not exactly full of specifics.  You can start bringing troops home in 60 days, but when does it end...

      I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. - Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC

      by Marinesquire on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:11:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  She has a plan (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Gabriele Droz, anna shane

      But part of that plan is requires the military to determine what precisely is there that has to be removed and how to do it safely.   She won't be given that information until she is president.

      How did I live without him?

      by Pumpkinlove on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:15:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, and Obama will do exactly the same thing. (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        leonard145b

        How is "I have a plan to ask for a plan" any different than what Obama is proposing?

        I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. - Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC

        by Marinesquire on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:24:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Obama hasn't said (0+ / 0-)

          I'll do what Hillary would do, has he? Has he asked that her staff in waiting join him?  It would be a good idea, no?  

          Hillary - Alternative Energy

          by anna shane on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:31:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not necessarily . . . (0+ / 0-)

            A lot of the staff that she has in waiting were all gung-ho about getting into GWB's Iraq War, so I'd be careful about listening to some of them about what to do now about getting out.

            •  none were (0+ / 0-)

              no reasonable person was in favor of invasion. Many spoke out, the mantra was 'let the inspectors complete the job.' That''s also what Hillary was saying.  guess who lied and didn't listen (hint: bush)

              Hillary - Alternative Energy

              by anna shane on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:14:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Who said they were reasonable . . . (0+ / 0-)

                Some of the staff she has in waiting, I mean?

                •  but they weren't (0+ / 0-)

                  they were dead set against it, as was she. Why do you need to make up stuff, she has a great staff, why not ask Obama to start planning too, and share with us, at a debate?  He had one with himself this evening he might have asked himself this questions - what are my plans to exit Iraq?  But he's only learned his one line and he's said it over and over and over.  

                  Hillary - Alternative Energy

                  by anna shane on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:32:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  She has great a staff? (0+ / 0-)

                    You mean the one that thought this campaign would be over on 2-5?  The one that thought they didn't have to bother with little caucus states like mine because after Iowa and NH she'd be the presumptive nominee and just roll along to the nomination like Kerry did?  The one that spent money like it didn't matter, and where the boss (Hillary) didn't even know her own financial situation (good oversight skill, NOT)?  The one that thought they could run a general election campaign from the beginning because there wasn't any real competition and so the primaries/caucuses and other candidates were just necessary nuisances to be tolerated?

                    If this campaign has told anything about Hillary that we didn't know before, it might be that her executive skills, management skills, financial skills, oversight skills, AND PERSONNEL CHOOSING SKILLS, aren't what so many might have imaged them to be.

                    •  one must differentiate (0+ / 0-)

                      between the campaign staff, which has obviously poorly predicted the contest, and the professional staff, which is busy working on the  'day one' business. Her professional staff is rich in experience, historical perspective, those who've been champing at the bit to get things done right, and see in her an 'executive' who won't let her own ego get in the way of others accomplishments. She's informed, the wonky girl, and she keeps up, stays informed, that's why her policies on global warming, for just one example, far exceed in knowledge and innovation, any other candidates.  These are some old retired type brilliant people who've been there, seen what doesn't work and what does work. Admittedly she's spent more time preparing herself to be president than she has in running for this office. Her mistake, if you want to call it that, is making the assumption that being the best qualified candidate would be enough.  Obama is obviously a formidable fellow-candidate, and running against him requires more than simply being the best, she also has to beat the second best, who's been able to run a 'generational' divide. Since I also study his campaign and his ideas, I think I appreciate him too.  But he is short on these plans and he admits it, he admits he'll make 'learners' mistakes, ones that she and her professional and expert advisors have learned from already.  The age difference 'shows' as well as the 'taking the knocks' experience.  

                      Hillary - Alternative Energy

                      by anna shane on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:31:07 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

  •  You might want to read it here: (5+ / 0-)

    I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. - Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC

    by Marinesquire on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:04:42 PM PDT

    •  What is wrong with both plans is blaming Iraqis (0+ / 0-)

      Both Obama and Clinton make the ethnocentric error of blaming the Iraqis for our occupation not working.

      That is very sad. I can see how it fits with Clinton's world view but if Obama wants to convince he is really for "change" in how foreign policy is done he needs to quit blaming Iraqis for the disorganization caused by the US occupation.

      Even the US Military's own reports say that Iraqis are agreed that reconciliation wil be possible, but only possible, after the US occupation is over.

      "The United States will always do the right thing, after trying all the other options." ~ Winston Churchill

      by Gregory Wonderwheel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:50:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hillary doesn't (0+ / 0-)

        she blames Bush. She's a realist, we're not making it better we're making it worse, Iraqis don't want to be occupied, they want to fuck things up for themselves.  They want us out and she wants us out, that's not blaming them, although it is blaming their leaders.  

        Hillary - Alternative Energy

        by anna shane on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:04:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The Question is (4+ / 0-)

    how will she get out of Iran? After all she did authorize BushCo to go in...