So today Hillary says the surge is NOT working...

They just showed a quote from today "clarifying" what she said yesterday. I can't find it on the net yet. I wonder what she'll say tomorrow!

so today she changed her position.

Read it for yourself...

now she's not even saying that.

SHE said it's working in some areas.

But isn't her marketing strategy that she is not a rookie.

but this clearly shows she's not ready for prime time.

It's more fun for them to spout ignorance.

And her husband did not have sex with that woman :eyes:

on TV night & day, in polls, she their gal her they want to run against...anyone who still can't grasp this is either a fool or ignorant....television media has got them so snowed...just ask them Hillary's platform and watch their eyes go glazed, they don't have a clue...but television tells them Hillary will be the winner...and like sports teams they always jump on the winning team, with no knowledge of the game!

Go ahead, enlighten us. I'm all ears.

She was talking about the military portion of the surge...the surge itself was designed to facilitate a political solution...it has not which she pointed out and why she advocated beginning a withdrawal, as did Senator Levin...however the increase in troops has caused localized reductions in violence...which is true.

Whatever you think about the entry into the war, the purpose should have been, once in, to create a politically stable country...which Bush's strategy did not address....had more attention been paid to strategies that would facilitate this, perhaps a better outcome could have been reached...

Look. There was no "military portion" of the surge. There was a military surge, a military escalation. It either worked, or it didn't.

It didn't. There is no military solution to Iraq. It did not bring about the peace to allow the leaders to move forward on governance. It didn't help because there is no military solution in Iraq.

The surge, the "changed strategy", whatever you want to call it, DID NOT WORK. And she was stupid to say it did. Now we're going to have to deal with that for the next month, plus her "flip-flop" on it and I can hear it now.

The thing is, if it was just a slip of the tongue, I'd give her a pass. But it wasn't. It was either intentional pandering or her true beliefs. Biden has true beliefs that I disagree with, but can live with because he doesn't pander. Hillary - god she's just all over the damn place and we get NOTHING out of it, NOTHING.

God she is awful. Support Biden for chrissake. Have some self respect.

But given your proclivities I am not surprised...

You must not be paying attention, but huge chunks of the party are ready to capitulate on the war. So back she scampers to the pro-war stance. Say what you want, but unless there's some dramatic calamity in the next month, you're going to watch her slip slide into pictures with Joe Lieberman before too long.

You are willfully and falsely characterizing her comments...

she was talking about the surge, right?

The entire media is reporting that the Democrats have changed their position on the war, in no small part thanks to her VFW tough-talk pandering. She's the problem the party has had on this war from the beginning. Time and again. Giving Bush a pass on the yellow cake. "stay the course" in Nov 2003. Not wanting to set timelines in 2005. She is why the Dem Party has looked like it's been in chaos. She is afraid if she isn't tough, she can't win the Presidency. Plain and simple.

That's about as adult as flatly denying an accusation with an accompanying nt.

Does she or doesn't she? Only her hairdresser knows for sure...

She agrees: the war is a horrible thing that never should have happened and if elected, the first thing she'll do is immediately start getting the troops out of there, even though it'll take decades.

On this issue, she's had more positions than a Bowflex machine. The dynamic tension is just too much; she'd better watch it or she might just tear some figments.

Somehow I doubt it.

She can do no wrong according to the MSM.

and this time we won't even know if she just bungled a few words, pandered to the VFW, or really believes the military can be bring peace to Iraq if we just put enough troops in.

Even tho you know the truth?

Always get a complete transcript from a speech so you can check for yourself what was said. Don't believe anything that's written or reported by corporate media.

I'm no Hillary fan, but I do know that the corporate media are the one's who are twisting and turning.

"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas -- particularly in Al Anbar Province -- it's working. We're just years too late changing our tactics."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708210008?f=i_latest

She didn't say the surge is working, but she said it's working in SOME areas.

Always one foot on the boat, the other on the dock. She can change her weight from one to the other to fit the current situation, and then change it to the other one again.

One of these days, the boat is going to start up and move away from the dock. At that point, she's either going to have to make a decision, stick with it, or get wet!

And just because she didn't use the WORD "surge" the surge is what she was talking about. That way she can be sneaky if it DOESN'T work and point out that she never used the word, but if it somehow DOES work she'll point to the very statement saying we all know she was talking about the surge.

Her values are whatever she thinks will win her votes today.

Tesha

Please get the facts before posting. http://mediamatters.org/items/200708210008

she said it's working in parts like al Anbar. She DID say that, whether she said the WORD "surge" or not.

It is also interesting that she was talking about success, particularly in Anbar province, with the "change in strategy", while the last quote in the article has Aspel saying the surge is working in Bagdhad, but things are getting worse in the provinces.

Worse or better? "Surge" or "change in strategy"?

Which way is the wind blowing today?

:shrug:

If not the "surge", then what was she talking about?

I'm curious, too.

and will be a Dem capitulation,.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1640119
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1640001

There is going to be a fight in September for sure, and I'm afraid the Hillary wing is already laying the ground work to try to land wherever the polls lead them.

. . . or we just can't hear her very well through the shrink wrap in which she is packaged.

...I would look onward...

I won't go into how Clinton has clashed with Obama on issues that she is on record agreeing with his view in the past. People either know about it or they accuse me of being a "Hillary Hater"...

Whatever...

If your ilk would stop using Drudge as a source, you wouldn't have this problem. :eyes:

I used MediaMatters. :eyes:

well, hey, who needs what she actually said yesterday and today. Let's just call her a flip flopper and discuss it. Should be a great discussion.

and the quote she just put out today isn't up yet.

believe major media regarding politics.

Yesterday she IMPLIED the surge was working in parts when she said, "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas -- particularly in Al Anbar Province -- it's working. We're just years too late changing our tactics." If she wasn't talking about the surge, what WAS she talking about???

Senator Clinton's audience was a military audience. They know the difference and understand the point she was making----it is too late to use the new tactic of reaching out to all iraqis, even though it demonstrates in places like Al Anbar that it can have some success.

You can just google Iraq, Al anbar, strategy surge and tactics.

I expect bs from Drudge--who relies on his readers ignorance (sometimes wilful, sometimes deliberate) and am rarely disappointed.

That's what she said.

I have renewed respect for Clinton and her speech.

You people are priceless.

to notice this recurring problem.

a) We're safer (but I didn't really mean that).

b) It's working (but I didn't really mean that).

c) Obama is naive and irresponsible for agreeing to meet with bad/evil men without pre-conditions(even if I criticized Bush for NOT doing the same thing).

d) Presidents should never make blanket statements regarding the use or non-use of nuclear weapons (even if I took them off the table re. Iran).

It is what it is; the girl can't help it. She already scores low on trustworthiness (in Iowa, twice as many people find Obama to be honest and trustworthy http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_080307.html?hpid=topnews) and she compounds this weakness all the time.

You hit on some major flaws there. Rookie mistakes? Wait-she's experienced, so that can't be it. Must be that she just has no convictions and says whatever sounds popular at the time.

I'm not sorry that I voted for the IWR, I'm sorry (sorta) that I voted for the IWR... I'm a Democrat, I'm DLC, I'm a New Progressive... The woman, sorry... I mean "girl" :eyes:... gives me whiplash.

TC

I don't care who you support, we need to call the media on this shit when they take one of our Dems out of context.

"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."

It's not the surge that's working, it's just the military strategy of the surge policy. No wait, it's the military tactics of the military strategy of the surge policy.

WTF??

She wasn't misquoted, she was pandering to vets or flip-flopping on ending the war next month.

Of John McCain she also introduced him as "a friend of mine and a genuine American hero." :eyes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/20/AR2007082000768.html

of American education or wilful ignorance?

I'm beginning to understand why so many peope did vote for Bush.

"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas -- particularly in Al Anbar Province -- it's working. We're just years too late changing our tactics." Tell me-if she wasn't talking about the surge, what WAS she talking about? Are you really suggesting she's not implying the surge is working in al Anbar and some other areas??? Are you really suggesting she's not trying to position herself so that if the report coming out is that "the surge is working" she can say "I told you so, unlike Obama and Edwards"???

I am not a voter of Bush. I know word games when they're being played. I knoe Kerry did NOT flip-flop when he voted for the first $87 billion funding bill and against the next version of the bill since thw one he voted FOR was going to come out of the tax cuts for the rich, but not the second one. I'm not someone who listens to RW talking points and believes them. I'm just someone who recognizes triangulation and pandering and back-tracking when I see it.

acknowledge this. I believe Drudge is counting on lots of people not even knowing the difference.

Clinton immediately clarified her remarks for people listening to Drudge's clever misinterpretation.

She spoke clearly to her intended military audience and also told them that she believed it too late for the new tactics used in Anbar to work throughout Iraq.

I don't see anything there but a straightforward address to a military audience-and an audience that very likely may not have wanted to hear that she believed it was too late.

I was repulsed by Clinton's vote for the war resolution but I cannot see that her this speech was, in any way, a support of the Surge Strategy or an attempt to deceive regarding her position on the ongoing occupation of Iraq.

I got her original comments from MediaMatters and today's new comments from a reporter who read the direct quote. I don't understand why you guys keep accusing me and others of getting our info. from RW sites!

It was OBAMA who said what the military audience didn't want to hear. Hillary distanced herself from his remarks and put a more pro-surge spin on her remarks. Spin it however you want. Her fans have been doing a lot of that lately.

The tactic--flooding parts of Iraq with U.S. troops in order to try to reduce violence in those areas--does appear to be working in a limited, localized way, as one would expect. The strategy--creating a "breathing space" so the government can achieve national reconciliation--is failing miserably, and there's no indication that the strategic situation will improve, ever, no matter how long or large the surge. The other military reality is that the surge is going to eat up so much equipment, manpower and money that it can only be sustained for a few more months, tops. They had their chance, gave it their best shot, and the Iraqi government couldn't lead its way out of the current chaos. Which ought to come as a surprise to exactly no one. Time to bring the troops home and say we gave it our best shot. It's not a flip-flop, it's an accurate representation of the situation in Iraq.

It's weird--I've been defending Hillary all day from a flurry of completely unreasonable attacks, and she's, like, my third choice at best. I'll stop now.

Any word on whether she still plans to create her despicable "Cold War Medal"?

it's working to achieve some limited tactical objectives, but it's not working so solve the larger problem, which is political.