HuffPost OpEd - Hillary's War: How is the Surge "Working"?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-dwyer/hillarys-war_b_61291.html

Hillary's War
By: Frank Dwyer

Hillary Clinton addressed a group of veterans in Kansas City yesterday and proclaimed that "we've begun to change tactics in Iraq," and those changed tactics are "working." "We're just years too late in our tactics," she lamented.

(Note: The first report I read, on Huffington Post and from the New York Post, quoted Hillary as saying "the surge" is working. Now that I have seen the full speech, I can quote her exactly. "We've begun to change tactics" . . . But what else is she talking about except George W. Bush's Hail Mary surge? What other "new tactics" have we begun to try? The surge is the story. She was, of course, talking about the surge. Arguing about how she characterized it misses the essential and crucial point. It obfuscates, as in Karl Obfuscate Rove, which is exactly what every Republican argument is meant to do.)

What does Hillary mean by "working"? How is the surge working? What is it accomplishing? What is it meant to accomplish? What, in the war gospel according to Hillary, is the goal of the surge? Is it the same goal she had in mind when she voted to allow Bush to go to war in Iraq if he wanted to? Is her only regret now that our "tactics" were flawed, i. e., we did not send enough Americans to accomplish whatever the Bush/Clinton goal is right from start?

I suspect all she meant to do in Kansas City yesterday was pander a little to the Vets, be enough of the Hillary they want to get some of their votes, you know. But her declaration that the surge is "working" and that we're just "years too late in our tactics" goes beyond standard politician-pander to reveal something terribly wrong in her thinking. She has given us a glimpse beneath the mask -- there's the real Hillary. Years too late in our tactics? How many more Americans and Iraqis should have died under her leadership, with her superior tactics, to achieve her unspecified goal ("victory"?)? Does she think the American people have turned against this unwinnable, unconstitutional, criminal war only because Bush didn't surge from the beginning?

but it was a really dumb thing to say.

and the use of the word "is". She would have been wiser to say "the surge appears to be working" or "the surge may be working" but using "is" suggests a fact she can not prove. I doubt it will hurt her much but I will bet she would like to have a 2nd chance at her wording.

What she doesn't seem to understand is that the Republics she's going after will NEVER EVER NEVER vote for her because she's married to Bill and she's a woman. Nothing else matters to these freaks.

Hillary didn't really mean it . . .

when the rest of the country thought otherwise.

you of 1) being a pug plant, 2) aiding/abetting the enemy 3) being a lousy dem. They will also let you see the door of this place because obviously O'Reily's place is where such quizlings really belong. :(

He should have redacted the whole essay.

Instead, he digs in his heels and goes off on what he "suspects" she "meant to do."

Absurd.

I have no idea how to parse the last sentence.

"We’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it’s working,” said Mrs. Clinton, the New York Democrat and candidate for her party’s presidential nomination. “We’re just years too late changing our tactics. We can’t ever let that happen again. We can’t be fighting the last war; we have to be preparing to fight the new war."

Iraq is still the same war - we need a new policy, but that won't be a new war." The ill named war on Terror is not new either. What does she mean? It's almost like she skipped a line in the speech.

I just do not understand anybody who opposes the war supporting Hillary.