FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING HILLARY'S RECORD ON IRAQ IN A SERIOUS AND INFORMED WAY
read her interview, in full, with the NY Times from March 15, 2007 and get back to me
Here is the link: Transcript of Interview With Senator Clinton
One of the things she addresses in greath length in the interview is the HUMANITARIAN CRiSIS - AND POSSIBLE COMING GENOCIDE - in Iraq as a result of American withdrawal. This is, naturally, not something she takes lightly and the answers she gives in the interview are sobering, tragic. Her assesment is wide-eyed and realistic.
Excerpt and analysis after the flip.
A longish glimpse:
Q. You had a front-row seat on Bosnia, on Kosovo. When the Dayton accords happen, many Americans felt a good approach was set upon. They supported NATO troops there. If the troops are outside of Baghdad and the killing was still going on, what would it take as president to convince Americans to have the patience to deal with Al Qaeda in Iraq as all of this killing and bloodshed was going on?
A. Look, I think the American people are done with Iraq. I think they are at a point where, whether they thought it was a good idea or not, they have seen misjudgment and blunder after blunder, and their attitude is, “What is this getting us? What is this doing for us?”
No one wants to sit by and see mass killing. It’s going on every day! Thousands of people are dying every month in Iraq. Our presence there is not stopping it. And there is no potential opportunity that I can imagine where it could. This is an Iraqi problem — we cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. 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, all of which you outlined in your book.
But we didn’t do it. So I’m just saying, let’s look at the situation we have right now. One of the things we did in Bosnia, we went in with enough troops. We went in with an international force. We divided up the country in a way where people had to take responsibility. We had a tripartite resolution that was not perfect, in any textbook sense, but has kept the peace and has led to a certain accommodation among the parties.
Even the partition idea that Les Gelb and Joe Biden and others floated, well that’s not for us to do anymore. They’re a sovereign government — we can’t walk in and say, O.K., divide it up, we’re going to move the Shiites here and the Sunnis there.
If that was ever an option, that is long gone. And so we have no good ideas. But I think a fighting chance is to make it clear to the Iraqis that we are not going to interpose ourselves in their sectarian violence. We’re going to look out for American interests, for the region’s interests, because ultimately that is our basic responsibility.
And we’re more than happy to continue to support them. As I said, I wouldn’t do away with a support role for us, I would be more than willing to do that. I certainly, if they are moving in the right direction, I would continue aid, and I would try to get the neighbors to behave and support them.
And if we have a track with Syria and a track with Iran, we might be able to create some momentum for some more stability.
It’s hard to talk about this in the abstract because what we have is a failed policy, and an administration that has been slow to learn and slow to change.
And so we’re all playing catch-up, and there are no good options. So, is it a good option that we continue to lose dozens and dozens of our young people? I don’t think the American people are enthusiastic about that. Nobody wants to see innocents die. But at some point it is their people and their country, and they’ve got to step up.
And they are making baby steps but we need to concentrate their mind on taking some bigger steps. And making it clear that if they want to fight it out, we regret it, we wish they wouldn’t, we still think there’s a chance to avoid it, but we’re not losing one more American life.
We didn’t lose a single American life in Bosnia, not one, nor in Kosovo. And a lot of what we learned there was rejected by this administration. Now they’re scrambling around trying to figure out how to do what they totally rejected. And it’s heartbreaking, this whole terrible situation is heartbreaking, and I think we have to be much more supportive of the refugees.
We have to help Syria and Jordan and all these countries that are taking in hundreds of thousands of Iraqis so that they don’t get destabilized.
There is a lot of work for us to do to try to be helpful and influential in dealing with a lot of the consequences that have sprung from the intervention that we made.
But I just don’t believe that — if we’re there 10 years, Pat, if we don’t resolve the basic disagreements between the parties — which may be irreconcilable, the Sunnis do not believe they should have to give up power, the Shiites do not believe they should have to share it — if we cannot resolve that, then we can stay 10 years or 20 years, and we will still have a slow bleed, we’ll have thousands of Iraqis dying, we’ll have hundreds of American soldiers dying, and I think that is an unacceptable stalemate.
THIS IS WHAT A PRESIDENT SOUNDS LIKE.
This is why experience matters. She had a front row seat to the wars of the 1990s. She lobbied Bill to intervene in Rwanda, and he didn't take her advice. I just can't imagine Barack reasoning out a situation with this kind of complexity, sharpness, clarity, and sense of tragic realism.
yes, she would be a stronger candidate if she had voted against the resolution in 2002
but she is also more than a single issue candidate
which Barack basically still is since she trumps him on every other issue hands down
at this point this campaign is about so much more than that vote in 2002
we are more than a single issue party
last night Hillary answered the Iraq question directly, truthfully, succinctly
while good ol' Wolf tried to trip her up by asking her to say it was a mistake
"nice try, Wolf"
going forward
the policy will be the same at this point no matter who the Democratic president is
personally I think Hillary is much more capable of leading internationally on this issue
this is not a domestic issue about which people need to "feel inspired"
she will have to be very tough with some seriously scary world leaders
and not give an inch while getting what is best for the US -
- and seeing how befuddled and tongue-tied Barack is in the debates - and yes, he was -
he is NOT a quick thinker
I just don't see him being tough enough or articulate enough
on the spot in the moment
sitting around the conference table in the situation room assesing the scene and possibilities
or while sitting across from other world leaders
not being glib, but he won't be able to start talking about hope and"healing" just then
as for his argument that we need someone who opposed it from day one in order to repudiate
the Bush mentality
well, the Bush mentality has already been repudiated by just about everyone with a brain by this point
that is NOT what 2008 is about
yes, Barack was better in last night's debate and he got to correct some of his previous debate befuddles
but he was still a bit befuddled and tongue-tied
though he can toss the jokes out fast
and with regard to his jokes:
this is a man who obviously wants to be liked and admired, and dare I say it, adored
he soaks it in like juice
that is what all those jokes are about -- they are NEVER self-deprecating
rather, his jokes are always cast to set himself in a good light
at the expense of the other person
that is so odd to me
it is adolescent
Hillary was the most comfortable she has EVER been in public and she was MINDBLOWINGLY great
I have the feeling that after a certain point she doesn't really care what people think as long as
the people's agenda is accomplished
she SHONE
she'll lock it up on Tuesday and it will be good to have this primary behind us