Hillary’s “nuanced” position on Iraq

If Hillary Clinton doesn’t think US troops should be in Iraq, and wants to cut off funding to force the President into “changing course” in Iraq, why won’t she commit to a complete pullout if she’s elected president?

C’mon Hillary – you either want us to withdraw, or you don’t.

Once again, I guess asking for a little honesty from the Senator is just asking too much.

11 Responses to "Hillary’s “nuanced” position on Iraq"

Fat Tone says:

September 24, 2007 at 2:50 pm

Hillary will NOT be saddled with a percieved defeat. She does not want to have Nixon Vietnam Syndrome.

Cut n run while Bush is president, but not if she side saddles the oral office.

Has anyone noticed her answer to Steph, was literally the same conclusive points made by Petraeus aned Crocker.

Literally The ….SAME. After she slammed their testimonies.
TedintheShed says:

September 24, 2007 at 5:28 pm

Indecision on withdrawing is the main cause of abortion among liberals.
NC Cop says:

September 24, 2007 at 6:27 pm

Oh, make no mistake, Hillary is just as good as Slick Willy at talking out of both sides of her mouth. She recently even managed to make people believed that she voted for the condemnation of the Moveon ad, even though she voted against it.

Clinton pretends she voted against Moveon ad

Notice:

I don’t condone anything like that, and I have voted against those who would impugn the patriotism and the service of the people who wear the uniform of our country. I don’t believe that that should be said about General Petraeus, and I condemn thatâ€¦

So you didn’t vote against it before you voted against it after not condemning although you’re condemning it now? Does that about sum it up, Hillary?
NC Cop says:

September 24, 2007 at 10:33 pm

I’ve read this article before, with great interest, however there are several problems with it.

On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal — not a
drawn-out, Vietnam-like process —would be the most responsible and effective course of action.

Richardson does not say HOW this would be the most responsible. He does not say what “facts” he is referring to.

I am convinced that only a complete withdrawal can sufficiently shift the politics of Iraq and its neighbors to break the deadlock that has been killing so many people for so long.

Unfortunately, almost every Middle East and terrorism expert in the field disagrees. Most of them are convinced that a quick withdrawal would be a disaster. Now who am I going to believe, Bill Richardson or terrorism experts?

So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the steps to end the violence.

This indicates a failure to understand the reality of Iraq. Iraqis are killing each other more than they are killing Americans and Richardson will have us believe that it is BECAUSE the Americans are there? The fighting in Iraq are by 3 main groups:
1) Al Qaeda: Al Qaeda is attemtping to gain a significant foothold in Iraq so they can use Iraq’s oil revenues to finance it’s terrorism

2) The Baathist Party that was overthrown in 2003. Many of the former Army/Police/Govt. workers are attacking U.S. forces as well as trying to stir up sectarian. Why? Because they know the more violence they stir up, the more there will be cries for withdrawal, just like Richardson is doing.

3) Shiite/Sunni militias: These groups are fighting for power in this country, plain and simple. The Sunnis are afraid of retribution and the Shiites do not want to back to the ways of Saddam.

None of these groups are going to go home and become potato farmers if the U.S. leaves. They will become even more violent and will be encouraged by a U.S. retreat.

And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.

So, Richardson thinks that as soon as the U.S. leaves there will be other nations clamoring to get their people into an Iraq that has almost no protection for them? That’s ridiculous.

The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq’s oil and repressing Muslims.

Also, ridiculous. May I remind you that Al Qaeda struck us on 9/11 before we ever set foot into Iraq or Afghanistan. There will always be Muslim outrage at perceived “oppression” whether it’s the Danish newspaper printing a cartoon of Mohammed, or the Pope’s comments, or the alleged “abuse” of the prisoners in Cuba.

Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border — not in Iraq.

So Richardson will attack Pakistan? As usual, nobody gives an idea of what they will do, they just trash the current administration. Also, Al Qaeda is IN IRAQ, I don’t know how many times this has to be said. You can argue as to whether they were there before we invaded all you want, the fact remains that they are there NOW. Running away would only strengthen their resolve and their propaganda that the Americans will run rather than staying and fighting.

We could redeploy even faster if we negotiated with the Turks to open a route out through Turkey.

Indeed, because a hasty retreat sends the right message.

Iraqis will start seeing us as brokers, not occupiers.

In case Bill missed it. The Iraqis have been working with the Americans, including Sunni sheiks who have seen Al Qaeda for what they are, a real threat to their country. They don’t see us as occupiers. There are over 6 million Iraqis in Baghdad alone, if they wanted to they could quadruple the number of U.S. soldiers killed in a week.

Iraq’s neighbors will face the reality that if they don’t help with stabilization, they will face the consequences of Iraq’s collapse — including even greater refugee flows over their borders and possible war.

Iraq’s neighbors, particularly Syria and Iran, are jockeying for power, they couldn’t care less what happens in Iraq as long as they benefit from it. Such a “concern” would require a great leap from their thinking that they have had for the last 20 years. They are getting the refugee flow NOW and they couldn’t care less. This is about POWER.

It is foolish to think that 20,000 to 75,000 troops could bring peace to Iraq when 160,000 have not.

Nobody said that the surge would bring peace to all of Iraq, just Baghdad. And I hate to tell you, Bill, but it’s working.

All this death and destruction accomplished nothing — the communists took over as soon as we left.

I see. So leaving Vietnam did not accomplish anything, yet Bill thinks that leaving Iraq will suddenly create a huge diplomatic push from the entire planet, a sudden reconciliation of all the peoples of Iraq, and a defeat to all terrorists in Iraq. Now who’s foolish.

If Congress fails to end this war, I will remove all troops without delay, and without hesitation, beginning on my first day in office.

Which is why Iran, Syria, and Al Qaeda are all praying that you win the election Bill. Your victory will be their victory.
NC Cop says:

September 24, 2007 at 10:36 pm

Ok, ST. Am I crazy? I just wrote a response to that guy posting Bill Richardson’s plan for Iraq. Did you move it? Tell me I’m not cracking up.
Sister Toldjah says:

September 24, 2007 at 10:40 pm

LOL – yeah, the guy’s a spammer, he’s been essentially posting the same message every time he posts, and putting him on moderation doesn’t work as his IP number changes everytime he visits.
NC Cop says:

September 24, 2007 at 10:45 pm

Ah, Ok. You can take down my post regarding it then. Sorry!
Sister Toldjah says:

September 24, 2007 at 10:51 pm

It’s too good to take down If he comes back, I’ll let him respond.
Great White Rat says:

September 25, 2007 at 2:23 am

It’s too good to take down

I’ll second that. Great job, NC Cop!
Lorica says:

September 25, 2007 at 10:18 am

Excellent Post NC!!! – Lorica
Tango says:

September 25, 2007 at 3:13 pm

Hillary gets a pass from the media, but it remains to be seen whether she’ll get the same pass from the voters. I’m by no means ready to concede she’ll even get the nomination, let alone win the White House.

Comments are closed.