Hillary Clinton: New military tactics in Iraq are working

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070821/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_iraq_6

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - New military tactics in Iraq are working but the best way to honor U.S. soldiers is "by beginning to bring them home," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told war veterans Monday.
ADVERTISEMENT

Clinton, seeking the Democratic nomination for president, praised the work that soldiers have done in Iraq but described the government there as "on vacation," leaving American troops in the middle of a sectarian war.

Later the Veterans of Foreign Wars were told by Sen. John McCain, who is seeking the GOP nomination, that withdrawing from Iraq would be a historic mistake — far worse than previous U.S. missteps in the country.

I can see that Hillary is repositioning herself (again!) on Iraq. Can we predict that she won't be insisting on troop withdrawals to be completed by spring?

She spoke in front of war veterans. Don't forget she is a chameleon.

Why won't she speak to Veterans for Peace? Or are we lesser veterans than the gung ho ones in the VFW and American Legion?

BTW, several of the Vietnam vets I know do not belong to any veteran organizations or belong to any support groups for veterans. They bear their inner demons alone, and that is something of great concern.

Go take a look for yourself instead of relying an an inflammatory post that grossly distorts the truth of what she said...

regardless of which way she should be standing. Triangulating DLC @ its worst.

*whimpering* please run Al, please please oh please! RUN!!!!

bring them home to honor their sacrifice by surging.

She's as confused as McCain.

HRC has no intention of bringing the troops home. She's already lambasted the Iraqi parliament for failing to pass the blackmail known as the Hydrocarbon Law, one of the "gun-to-the-head" benchmarks. That tells me all I need to know, I'm afraid. Troops may be "redeployed" under a Clinton administration, but the U.S. will still be occupiers.

The naysayers were right: It was about oil.

ummmm, could we also work to avoid the next war? could we, huh? pretty please, Hillary?

I guess actually using the word "peace" is just a little too "left wing" for Hawky Hillary ...

BTW, I wonder if by "the new war", she's thinking about Iran ...

And we should be happy that every day that passes we get to know the real Hillary more and more.

Think for yourself...look and see what she actually said...and look and see what Carl Levin said...

I highlighted the fact that Hillary makes this gossip-monger happy. I disagree with her view of the surge.

Thing today...

Levin - Warner



http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/aug/20/warner_and_levin_surge_producing_tangible_results_but_we_are_not_optimistic


And what Hillary said...



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070821/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_iraq_6

He was drinking the Kool-Aid and repositioning his political ass for yet another cave in.

measurable results can be interpreted in different manners.
Plus the expectations we have of Hillary are huge.

I obviously think the surge is not working (not that if it worked I'd change my mind about withdrawal). But you haven't said anything about your position. What is it?

It is failing in that...as both Hillary and Levin point out...

She was speaking militarily in terms of a reduction in violence in areas where additional troops have been stationed...and that is true...

She was trying to make a distinction between the political purpose of the surge and the job the soldiers are doing...

I know this kind of truthful nuance is not conducive to sound-bite debates on DU, but that is the fact of the situation...

I don't buy that often repeated argument. It's like the Chinese invading us and stopping violence in New York, while Oregonians kill each other.

She is pointing out that the political goal failed, as it was destined to do...while the soldiers have done the job they were asked to do, which is what she wanted to make sure the VFW understood...

All they are doing is playing insurgent wack-a-mole with thousands of civilians caught in the middle.

How about preparing for peace?

Hillary is right - the military effort was planned for the sole purpose of allowing the Iraq government a little more time to get their shit together. That is all she is referring to. So, once again our military did their job.

However,the political part of the equation was a totally screwup. The so-called Iraq government took a month off and is completely failing in every possible way - so fuck 'em. And bring the troops home.

Exactly the point was making, and that Senator Levin was making...

The soldiers are doing a good job as far as what they are being asked to do, it is the politicians that have failed...

I think it was very brave of her to speak to that bunch of fools. I honestly thought they would boo her or stand up and turn their backs to her. I think the members were instructed not to do that - knowing full well it would cause her numbers to rise. At any rate, she absolutely did not pander to that audience. The same can not be said of McCain.

It will be interesting to watch BO's speech to that same group. It is either tomorrow or Wednesday.

P.S. I wish the children would go to bed.

The VFW is made up of mostly WWII heroes, as well as heroes from other wars. Not "fools". Sorry, but you're dead wrong on this one.

(And though she was certainly not pandering, she was speaking like no pacifist dove either. Far from it.)

now they have their panties in a wad because their puppets can't put the pieces together fast enough.

Reality bites.

Lick your finger

Meet Mr. and Mrs. Napoleon!

And that sucking sound you hear is the surge reaching a climax!

Wouldn't it make sense that if the tactics are working to expand them further?

It's late and I'm crazy,so someone set me straight on this. :)

Why stop what's working? She wants to pander to Democrats, moderates and conservatives at the same time.

Those that stand for everything, stand for nothing!

She is saying...militarily speaking, in terms of reducing violence where they have been stationed, soldiers have cut down on the violence...in other words have done what was asked.

However, as she also points out(as did Senator's Levin and Warner today), the point of the surge was to give time for a political solution...which has not happened...as many, including Hillary predicted...which is why she opposed the surge from the beginning...

And therefore, though the soldiers are doing a good job, it is time to start bringing them home, as what they were sent there to help happen, has not happened...

That sounds logical enough for me.

Why couldn't she just say what she means and mean what she says? Is that too much to ask for?
She obviously didn't do it here. I'm not impressed.

It is people here that are reinterpreting it to support their anti-Clinton attitude

interpretation..

i know what i heard and i didn't like it one bit!

fly

It was quite clear...not surprised though

Editor&Publisher: Military Responds To 7 Soldiers' Critical Op-Ed in 'NYT' On Iraq
Military Responds To 7 Soldiers' Critical Op-Ed in 'NYT' On Iraq
By Joe Strupp
Published: August 21, 2007

NEW YORK Military officials responded Tuesday to a unique New York Times Op-Ed column by seven U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq that had raised concerns about the operation there, saying they had the right to voice their opinions -- but urged readers to take other viewpoints into account.

"The individuals' perspectives expressed in the New York Times reflect their unique 'boots-on-ground' experience," the statement from the Multi-National Force Iraq press command in Baghdad, sent to E&P this morning, reads, in part. "While they are in their own right valued and important, each perspective is going to be different based on an individual's assignment. Ultimately, it is context in such a historic and monumental effort which remains paramount in conveying the significance of their contributions, service and sacrifice."

Military officials gave no indication in their statement that any disciplinary action would occur, and appeared to support the soldiers' right to express their views. "We offer soldiers a variety of means by which they can express their personal views, provided they don't compromise Operational Security or Army regulations," the statement declared. But it also pointed out that their perspective was only one viewpoint.

The statement is in reaction to the Op-Ed, published Sunday, which raised troubling questions about the U.S. actions in Iraq, as well as press coverage.

The bylines and blurbs at the end identified the authors as follows: "Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant."

Among the column's statements: "In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a 'time-sensitive target acquisition mission' on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.)"

The soldiers, with the 82nd Airborne Division, concluded: "In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal."...

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_di...

:puke:

Why??? Why should we put up with 8 years of "Klintoon" for this triangulating bullshit.

As it is the exact same thing that Levin-Warner came out with today...with nary a whimper of protest...

It is quite simple...

1. The surge was invented by Bush to reduce violence to give time for Political leaders to begin to take charge

2. Said surge was implemented...

3. Militarily speaking, in terms of what the soldiers were asked to do, there has been a drop in violence where they have been present...that is a fact...

4. However, the political solution that Bush was counting on has not materialized...

5. Hillary opposed the surge from the day Bush announced it, predicting this would happen.

6. Said the same thing today....

So to recap...soldiers doing a good job, political leaders failed...therefore...surge failed...

She's the Party leader. She's responsible for this triangulating shit, afraid of her own shadow, afraid to just flat out say Bush has misused our troops too, and they're dying for nothing. We need to get out, completely out of that country for them to believe we aren't going to be occupiers. I am so fed up with her and all these Clinton centrists.

What did she say that was incorrect?

It's whack-a-mole. Something quiets down in one area, the violence moves to another. You move there, and the violence starts back up in the first locale. It is not working. It will not work. We need to get OUT so that they can decide what to do with each other. We can help contain border skirmishes if they come up, from Kuwait. We can train all over the ME, we do not need troops IN Iraq to do that. And if we can't maintain an embassy with minimal troops, we can just close that damn thing and leave it too. OUT. We need to get out.

Imagine if this was Obama saying this.

And don't be so sure he won't...the whole thing is being willfully misrepresented here...as it usually is...

So take a look at what was actually said, both by Hillary and Levin-Warner...Obama may very well agree with it...

And I won't be thrilled about it either. He could really make his mark if he would just buck party leadership though, he really ought to do it right here and now.

"It's working. We're just years too late in changing our tactics," she said. "We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war. We have to keep preparing to fight the new war."


:wtf: Is she planning a NEW war if she takes office?

After all, Hillary says that she will do a better job as Warmonger-in-Chief than Bush.

Go sell that bullshit to the republicans.

This is the main thing keeping me from pledging support for Sen. Clinton in the primaries. Her war stance is hypocritical, IMO.

Not without a political solution on the ground.

Shame on Hillary for giving the administration more justification to stay in Iraq.

And oh yes, they'll use this statement as justification. She's just uttered their biggest talking point.

Hillary can't realistically claim she's anti-war any more.

DUMB FUCKING BITCH!







P.S. If she really said this.

Can anyone tell me why a Democrat would vote for again?

You might be feeling really proud of your self.

:wow:

:puke: