Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Hillary is changing her position on the Iraq War (again)

Old 12-01-05, 02:20 PM
  #1  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
Hillary is changing her position on the Iraq War (again)

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...-top-headlines

Hillary fine-tunes message on war in Iraq

December 1, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, like President George W. Bush, is repackaging her Iraq War pitch to soothe worried supporters.

In an unusual 1,600-word "Dear Friend" letter sent to constituents and campaign contributors on the eve of the president's Iraq speech, the New York Democrat reiterated her support for the war while backing off her previous reluctance to setting withdrawal timetables for U.S. troops.

The missive was composed after Clinton received thousands of letters and e-mails on the war, many asking her to justify her October 2002 vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq, according to Clinton's campaign and Senate staffers.

"I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end," wrote Clinton. "Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately."

Clinton's campaign communications guru Ann Lewis e-mailed copies of the letter to supporters and donors as the former first lady prepared for a frantic two-week, six-state tour with stops in Manhattan, Kentucky and Michigan, raising funds for herself and other candidates.

Clinton - who had long resisted using public benchmarks for troop reductions - now says she'll back a gradual withdrawal starting next year if this month's Iraqi national elections aren't scuttled by chaos, fraud or bloodshed.

"We are at a critical point with the December 15th elections that should, if successful, allow us to start bringing home our troops in the coming year," she wrote, adding her continued opposition to a "rigid timetable."

The former first lady has tried to chart a middle course on the war, defending her vote while attacking Bush for "false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war."

That hasn't spared her the ire of anti-war Democrats, including Cindy Sheehan and Steven Greenfield, a New Paltz peace activist who is collecting petition signatures to challenge Clinton in the 2006 Senate primary.

In recent weeks, Clinton has rejected calls by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) for a quick withdrawal from Iraq.

She even refused to endorse a more moderate approach, favored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), that would have required the White House to set internal withdrawal benchmarks.

But Clinton tacked to the left on Nov. 15, joining Senate Democrats in voting for Levin's amendment requiring the White House and Pentagon to create a "campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased redeployment" of U.S. forces contingent on political and security stability. That amendment failed in a party-line vote.

The pressure on Clinton has intensified as the war debate has heated up. Anti-war protesters have become a fixture outside Clinton fundraisers, while inside, the senator has had to fend off questions about the war, according to recent attendees.
Myster X is offline  
Old 12-01-05, 02:39 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Capitol of the Empire! Center of all Commerce and Culture! Crossroads of Civilization! NEW ROME!!!...aka New York City
Posts: 10,909
Where's Hillary on Iraq?
Jimmy Breslin
November 30, 2005

Beautiful. I am in receipt today of a mailing from the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign. This is different from the letter she sent out by e-mail in a rush. I don't know who got the e-mail. She announces it is 1,600 words long. That much of her sentences could end reading. The letter I got is more than a dead dry political mailing. I found it such compelling reading that I drop everything and share with you promptly and thus prominently.

It is a four-page questionnaire with the headline, "2005 Critical National Issues Survey." I thought that this was about the more than 2,000 dead in Iraq. Not even close. I read on, thinking that the pamphlet might tell me what Hillary stands for, as she is pretty much a blank thus far.

The questionnaire begins with a statement that we can't let Republican political attacks distract Hillary from her efforts in the Senate to address the critical issues our nation needs to address. Then there is the normal space for contributions by check or credit card. The amounts are from $25 to $100 and "other." Fine so far.

Here are the critical issues:
"Economy/jobs. Environment. Social Security/Medicare. Education. Homeland Security. Health Care. Tax Cuts. Reproductive Rights. Separation of Church and State."

Absolutely marvelous. Nothing about Iraq. Or the life and death of young Americans in Iraq. Or troop withdrawals from Iraq.

I go through the rest of the pamphlet.

"How concerned are you that President Bush is not doing enough to get Americans back to work, create more jobs and get the economy moving again?

"How concerned are you that the massive budget deficits caused by Republican economic and tax policies will inevitably result in drastic cuts in Social Security, Medicare, education and social services?"

Absolutely beautiful!

There are, as stated earlier, now more than 2,000 young Americans who have died in Iraq. She wants to be a candidate for president and she doesn't even mention our dead, or our next dead.

Wait. Here is question 9:

"How concerned are you that the administration's unilateral policies have reduced our number of allies and endangered our national security?"

How absolutely marvelous!

"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is," her husband said when he was questioned about rolling around on the office carpet with a young office worker.

And she not only copies, but clearly surpasses. She deals with something important.

Hillary Clinton today holds the new North American record for fakery.

She copies. She sneaks and slithers past you with her opinion on a war that kills every day.

Hillary Clinton is in favor of the war and of executions. Sensational!

The other day, when Rep. John Murtha of Johnstown, Pa., called for a withdrawal from Iraq, and obviously did so with half the Pentagon behind him, Hillary said, no, we shouldn't pull out at this time. Oh, it would cause so much violence.

We must stay. It takes a national Alzheimer's for her to be able to try to get away with things like this.

If Hillary Clinton wants this war to go on, then she should send her daughter to fight in Iraq.

We have had in New York as United States senators, Robert F. Kennedy, Jacob Javits and Daniel Moynihan.

We now have Hillary Clinton blowing on her fingers as she goes about cracking the combination to another safe. If the one hand glistens, it is from the wedding ring that she has used to hypnotize the public so far. Beautiful.



http://www.nynewsday.com/news/column...2Cprint.column


BTW...I beieve Breslin is a crotchety old prick
Tommy Ceez is offline  
Old 12-01-05, 02:56 PM
  #3  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,513
It's not easy positioning yourself for a Presidental run in '08. Where's all the compassionate conservatives out there?
VinVega is offline  
Old 12-01-05, 03:49 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Should everything go well, she will tout her vote. Should things go in the crapper, she will claim she was misled. Politics 101.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 12-01-05, 03:58 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Hillary hasn't endorsed the Murtha plan.

As a matter of fact, I don't know of any Democratic senator who has endorsed the Murtha plan.

Harry Reid did come pretty close.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 12-01-05, 03:59 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Originally Posted by kvrdave
Should everything go well, she will tout her vote. Should things go in the crapper, she will claim she was misled. Politics 101.
Exactly. And the reason I won't vote for her in the primary. Not that the primary in PA means anything. Its obvious that states like Iowa, NH, and South Carolina should pick our nominees, isn't it?
CRM114 is offline  
Old 12-01-05, 04:01 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Originally Posted by classicman2
Hillary hasn't endorsed the Murtha plan.

As a matter of fact, I don't know of any Democratic senator who has endorsed the Murtha plan.

Harry Reid did come pretty close.
Murtha's plan makes a lot of sense when you listen to it. He just wants the troops out of the civil war. Put them on the sidelines in case the shit hits the fan.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 12-01-05, 04:02 PM
  #8  
Moderator
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,141
Murtha's plan makes a lot of sense when you listen to it. He just wants the troops out of the civil war. Put them on the sidelines in case the shit hits the fan.
I don't think we are to the point of civil war yet, if we "put them on the sidelines" that will ensure it does go to civil war IMHO. Additionally I don't think Murtha's plan makes sense. To pull troops out takes time, to put them back in takes time and you need some place to put them "over the horizon" in the meantime. All of these complicate the logistics and frankly from that point it's just easier to leave them in place were they can be more effective. Again that doesn't mean they should be there forever. As the Iraqi security forces spin up, we can start pulling ours out. In fact if I heard on CSPAN today correctly this is already happening in some cities. The local security forces are starting to take over control of some of the cities and our forces are moving to bases that are further out/away from population centers. This still keeps the men/equipment local so they can really react when needed.

Last edited by nemein; 12-01-05 at 04:06 PM.
nemein is offline  
Old 12-01-05, 04:13 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Originally Posted by nemein
I don't think we are to the point of civil war yet, if we "put them on the sidelines" that will ensure it does go to civil war IMHO. Additionally I don't think Murtha's plan makes sense. To pull troops out takes time, to put them back in takes time and you need some place to put them "over the horizon" in the meantime. All of these complicate the logistics and frankly from that point it's just easier to leave them in place were they can be more effective. Again that doesn't mean they should be there forever. As the Iraqi security forces spin up, we can start pulling ours out. In fact if I heard on CSPAN today correctly this is already happening in some cities. The local security forces are starting to take over control of some of the cities and our forces are moving to bases that are further out/away from population centers. This still keeps the men/equipment local so they can really react when needed.
I believe he thinks a great many should remain in Iraq. But on the sidelines and not in Baghdad fighting Iraq's insurgency. Murtha believes it is a civil war already. I don't disagree.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 12-01-05, 04:19 PM
  #10  
Moderator
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,141
Originally Posted by CRM114
I believe he thinks a great many should remain in Iraq. But on the sidelines and not in Baghdad fighting Iraq's insurgency. Murtha believes it is a civil war already. I don't disagree.
I do. A civil war is about two sides contesting control of territory and the running of the gov't/society. So far the insurgency hasn't really shown any interest in that sort of thing. Maybe I'm missing something though...
nemein is offline  
Old 12-01-05, 04:29 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by CRM114
Murtha's plan makes a lot of sense when you listen to it. He just wants the troops out of the civil war. Put them on the sidelines in case the shit hits the fan.
It makes sense for humanitarian reasons, I guess it can be argued.

It makes no sense for foreign policy reasons.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 12-01-05, 06:27 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Originally Posted by classicman2
It makes sense for humanitarian reasons, I guess it can be argued.

It makes no sense for foreign policy reasons.
How do you know the insurgency won't subside if we move to the outlying areas? If you are saying that the US-preferred goverment will prevail in elections, then what are you worried about?
CRM114 is offline  
Old 12-01-05, 07:18 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
If you are saying that the US-preferred goverment will prevail in elections, then what are you worried about?
I don't remember saying that, and what has that got to do with the argument that it's a bad foreign policy move?

I believe that if the insurgents realize they're facing a force less than they faced before, they will increase their activities, not decrease them.

And Murtha's quick reaction force idea is ridiculous - just as his statement yesterday about a draft would be necessary to moibilize 100,000 more troops.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 12-01-05, 08:43 PM
  #14  
Moderator
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,141
Originally Posted by classicman2

And Murtha's quick reaction force idea is ridiculous - just as his statement yesterday about a draft would be necessary to moibilize 100,000 more troops.

Well what do you expect from someone who thinks the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth,"[1]. I appreciate his service but I think it's valid to question that attitude/POV.

[1]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051202/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_murtha_4
nemein is offline  
Old 12-01-05, 09:48 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by nemein
Well what do you expect from someone who thinks the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth,"[1]. I appreciate his service but I think it's valid to question that attitude/POV.

[1]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051202/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_murtha_4

Murtha looked a little lost today while he and another congressman were being interviewed.

The question is - did the Democratic leadership in the House ask him to do this?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 12-02-05, 07:51 AM
  #16  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Fox News:

Dems Split on Iraq War Approach

WASHINGTON — President Bush and his 2004 presidential opponent seemed united for a moment Thursday at the White House. But the event was not about the war in Iraq and the appearance of unity was short-lived.

Click in the video box to the right to watch a report by FOX News' Carl Cameron.

A day after his latest speech detailing progress in Iraq, Bush stood next to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who wants U.S. troop withdrawals to begin before the end of this year.

"You don't need 160,000 people to be doing what we are doing in Iraq today. This is not World War II, this is not Korea, this is not Vietnam," Kerry said after the White House ceremony commemorating the late civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks.

Kerry is using his Web site and billboards in New Hampshire and Indiana to push his proposal to bring 20,000 troops home before Christmas and "bring home most of our combat troops in 2006." He seemed to contradict himself, however, when speaking with reporters Thursday at the White House.

"The truth is, yes, it is going to take a lot longer and many of us believe that, in fact, that goal is not the most realistic one in the short term, that you're going to have a longer-term struggle in that regard. Now, what we need to do is provide a sufficient level of security and stability so that American forces can begin to come home," Kerry said.

That is in essence what the president argued Wednesday and for the last two years. Reinforcing that the White House already had that in mind, spokesman Scott McClellan said Thursday that some troop withdrawals could come after the Dec. 15 election in Iraq.

"We fully expect, as the Pentagon has indicated, that we're going to be able to reduce some of the troop levels that we increased heading into the elections after the elections take place," McClellan said. "I think some have talked about how next year could be a period of significant transition."

While that might seem to be what Kerry wants, the Massachusetts senator said he and his fellow Democrats are largely united in their opposition to Bush strategy.

"There is much greater agreement between all of the Democrats, then there is a difference between all of us," Kerry said.

But Kerry's assertion doesn't follow the recent call for troop withdrawal in six months by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said two weeks ago that Murtha did not speak on behalf of the party, but on Wednesday, she reversed that comment, saying most House Democrats agree with his proposal. She also offered her support for his remarks.

Pelosi's deputy, Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., disagrees. He has suggested that a precipitous withdrawal would be dangerous. Other Democrats, like Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., share that view.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 12-02-05, 08:01 AM
  #17  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,513
Pelosi is a piece of work man.

Even Chuck Schumer came out today and said he didn't favor an immediate withdrawl and he's a liberal with a big L. He wants basically 3 seperate countries with maybe some loose form of confederacy between the seperate states. That's his grand plan. He doesn't think that the current Iraqi government will find ligitimacy from the population and it's one reason why it's so hard to get an army to fight for it. 3 seperate states would have more loyal people down religious lines and they would be better able to function in his opinion. I'm just paraphrasing here from what I heard on the radio this morning.
VinVega is offline  
Old 12-02-05, 08:07 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
As I posted in another thread, I don't know of a Democratic Senator who supports Murtha's plan. The Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, came pretty close to endorsing it, but you know Harry.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 12-02-05, 08:10 AM
  #19  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di Salò
Posts: 32,736
How has Senator Clinton's position changed on the war, ever? Didn't she vote for it? Doesn't she still support our involvement there? Whether or not she supports the way the involvement is being implemented isn't particularly relevant.
wendersfan is online now  
Old 12-02-05, 08:12 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
I don't think her position has changed.

Her husband is out and about telling some of the Democratic faithful it's changed - good politics.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 12-02-05, 03:12 PM
  #21  
Political Exile
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,286
Hillary did indeed vote for the Iraq War.

It's funny that Bill wants to bring the troops home from Iraq, but not from Bosnia.
grundle is offline  
Old 12-02-05, 03:31 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Everyone wants to bring the troops home from Iraq.

There is a difference of opinion as to whether a time-table is wise.

I haven't heard Bill Clinton endorse Murtha's plan.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 12-02-05, 03:32 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Originally Posted by grundle
Hillary did indeed vote for the Iraq War.

It's funny that Bill wants to bring the troops home from Iraq, but not from Bosnia.
Remind me how many US troops died in Bosnia again, please.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 12-02-05, 03:35 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by CRM114
Remind me how many US troops died in Bosnia again, please.
That's not the issue.

The issue is whether it's wise in a foreign policy sense for the world's only super power to cut and run as Murtha would have us to do.

BTW: Clinton promised to have the troops from Bosnia by Christmas. Of course we didn't know he meant this Christmas - 10 years later.

Last edited by classicman2; 12-02-05 at 03:47 PM.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 12-02-05, 03:47 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Originally Posted by classicman2
That's not the issue.

The issue is whether it's wise in a foreign policy sense for the world's only super power to cut and run as Murtha would us to do.

BTW: Clinton promised to have the troops from Bosnia by Christmas. Of course we didn't know he meant this Christmas - 10 years later.
I'm not aware of any place that Murtha advocated cutting and running.

Can you please answer the question of how many US troops died in Bosnia? 10 more Marines died today in Iraq. How many in Bosnia?
CRM114 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.