Article: Hillary says 'New war tactics (the SURGE) are working'......

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

Clinton, McCain split on Iraq pullout By JOHN HANNA, Associated Press Writer
Mon Aug 20, 8:58 PM ET

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.

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.

McCain said he understands that Americans are "sick and tired" of the war, which he said hasn't gone well. Still, he said Gen. David Petraeus and other military leaders deserve patience.

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

conclusion? Who's counseling her?

"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."

... Clinton said new tactics have brought some success against insurgents, particularly in Iraq's Anbar province.

"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."


...


I'm sure her supporters will say this is a shrewd PR tactic to out-Karl Karl and that what she really means (but since we're not in the fan club, we don't have the super secret decoder ring) is that the war is bad and that she's been against it from before it happened. :eyes:


Flip, meet Flop.

Warner's scathing report yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1625970

Tell me again why she is different from a neocon?

Is ol hill talkin' about Iran, now?

The new Iraq war tactic is working with tribal leaders with them leading.

And in Anbar it has worked to greatly reduce violence.

So is there a rule on DU that one can't mention this?

It is a fact that a political solution is the only way out and that the Iraqi government is not serious about compromises that will lead to that type of solution - so we need to get out.

Hillary says this in one sentence - and there is a hissy fit. I expect this type of thing will get worse as we get closer to Iowa/NH/FL/MI/ and Feb 5th.

We will just have to get used to this type of thread for the next year.

and because it is NOT the truth.

n/t

She just said that aggressive wars are just peachy keen if we do them right.

It's a good thing Chelsea was never into beating up second graders and taking their lunch money--Hillary might just have criticized the tactics and not the basic strategic goal.

because they can not help the goal given the force level we can provide. She has noted that the war was started based on lies and if the truth had been known she would not have voted for the IWR (granted Obama had the good sense to read Bush's ethics/honesty better and recommend rejecting the IWR). As for the plan going forward, Obama and Clinton say exactly the same things. The attempt to make Hillary pro Iraq war looks unjustified to me - in my opinion of course.

n/t

Any real democracy in Iraq would insist that Iraqis retain direct control over their oil. The elite interests that she is genuflecting to have no intention of ever tolerating such a thing.

She is foursquare behind the goal of American domination of the rest of the world by military force. If she now thinks that the war was a bad tactic to achieve that goal, the goal is utterly corrupt and vile anyway.

Clinton said new tactics have brought some success against insurgents, particularly in Iraq's Anbar province.

"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."

http://www.goddess-athena.org/Encyclopedia/Athena/Warrior.htm

(The resemblance is pretty good, actually)

We've had ENOUGH problems with the deification of Bush in this country! Jeez Louise! :puke: :puke: :puke:

No.

Honestly, no matter how I squint or look sideways at her I just can't see the resemblance.

Hillary haters love to cut and paste quotes and take them out of context... anything to use against the evil Hillary....!

The full quote is:

"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. We can't ever let that happen again."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200708210008

quoted her, and simply cut out the part in between the two quotes in the article which said, "said Mrs. Clinton, the New York Democrat and candidate for her party’s presidential nomination"

The ellipses didn't cut out any of her words.

mixed signals crosswired.

Interesting.

bashing DUers because so many of us do not like Clinton. They are also complaining that someone started an anybody but Hillary thread earlier and was over the line. In reality, the anybody but Hilary thread was measured and had one line of snark...they are of course focusing on the snark and getting their hackles up about it.

It is all so insular and predictable.

The vast majority on DU do not seem to like Hillary. Hell, I would even say loathe her. How in the world do her supporters think she can win when so many, usually loyal Democratic voters, swear they won't vote for her? lol! can you say delusional?

Hillary is ahead in the polls....probably by sheer name recognition at this point.

I do not see her performance in the polls reflected in the attitudes of my fellow Americans, though. Apparently her support all comes from types of people with whom I do not associate.

But the elephant in the room is....her support is based on what? Her stances on issues? She hasn't really articulated any except that she wants to be the next war hawk, aparently.

My guess is that Hillary's support is a mile wide and an inch deep because it is not based on anything substantive. We all hear the same talking points...she is "smart" and "tough". I have seen precious little of either during her term as a Senator, so I am curious as to where these talking points came up.

The fact of the matter is....Hillary support is bourne of ignorance, media worship, and beltway "common wisdom". Since DUers are not generally vulnerable to those three things, she gets very little support here.

And that is so telling....that our best candidate relies on ignorance and talking points for her popularity. I have had enough of that type of politics in the last seven years and do not care to see a repeat performance with a D after its name.

Not only that, but if she gets the nomination, there will be a HARD push to get the grassroots out of the party and away from power. I ften wonder if the current feckless Congressional activity is designed to demoralize the grassroots into ceding the party to the DLC forever. After all, they were perfectly happy voting for Bush legislation before we common folks raised our ugly unwashed heads demanding that they do their jobs.

And I don't mean Dick "Toesucker" Morris.

advised Kerry in 2004 - to stick to speaking about the economy (Kerry's numbers went up when he spoke more about Iraq and the war on terror? His other great piece of advice was for Kerry, with a 100% record of supporting the rights of any group, to endorse the gay bashing resolutions?

and advised the Democratic party not to have a debate on Iraq in 2006 - when Iraq ended up being the top issue?

Clinton is an extremely charismatic politician - that is why he won, not the issues he ran on.

leaving American troops in the middle of a sectarian war.

I have to assume she's completley lost the plot. Would someone be kind enough to remind that woman exactly who started this war.

:eyes:

"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."

The last line, actually has me considering that if she is the nominee I might sit this one out.

- she's a little war happy isn't she?

I will send a message by voting independent.

:eyes:

She's saying that when you're in a war, you don't fight the previous one, you have to fight the "new" one (the one you're in presently) because it's a completely different situation.

The peace through strength paradigm is dead and discredited, most people politicians don't know that yet. If you're spending your time planning the next war, you will make damn sure there's going to be one.

Look at the context. She was talking about tactics. So she was repeating the (old) "saying" about not fighting the current war with your tactics from the previous one.

I think I'm done with you Hillary.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

it is working... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha :cry:

Bye-Bye Baghdad
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x302840

hey, the "new" tactics R a workin'
have you heard the last 3 days "news"
more to come soon, but they R a workin'

Oh yes it is indeed..

But it's the government of the USA that's on vacation.. Literally in this case.

Isn't that why FISA was so quickly voted up?

So the Congresscritters could vacation?

To beat the hustings for more campaign money..

funerals and bush is planning a wedding.

otherwise, we might as well just bring them all home if they cannot do anything right :-)

short term temporary spot fixes cannot make up for the overall failures which were predetermined by the bush mob.

Msongs
www.msongs.com

People just don't get it. Time to break the chain of Bush, Clinton, Bush,......


Who needs Kings?

Downplaying them and undercutting them. Hillary is who the R's want to run against; they'll put up another 'compassionate conservative' from the same cookie-cutter they got * from (Romney most likely).

Maybe it's the American media's weird jones for the Royals across the pond that we love our dynasties so much. Look at the Medicis who have run this country for the past century and you'll pretty much see the same names throughout the decades.

Edwards, Kucinich or draft Gore.

Hillary thinks she's got the nomination in the bag...in her mind, she's already running against the Repugnicans and is spewing rhetoric that is either supposed to appeal or appease "moderates" who are torn between hating the war, but loving the warriors.

We're against faced with the divide many of us experienced with Vietnam...the post mortum of if we our military "won" or "lost" the war. Politics is cast aside, this is purely drawn in "military" terms...such as how we "won" Tet as the military turned around and slaughtered thousands of Vietnamese and that a similar benchmark is being placed in Iraq. As long as we're still killing and not being killed, we're "winning". Again, politics mean little here. This is the stage setter for a debate I'm certain we will hear for the rest of our lives.

Hillary knows the anti-war and Progressive roots to her left are split three (some will say four) ways and the only roadblock is Edwards still doing well in Iowa. She content on the others attempting to be the most anti-war and let them beat each other up (along with the help of the corporate media) on what that means...and how they plan to end this mess.

In the meantime, Hillary is trying to split the "moderates" or create a confusing message that she's both "anti-war" and "pro-military". When she looks to the left, she's calling for an "end to the war" (yet to present any real plan to do so) while when she looks right she is "puffing up her balls" to show she can run with "the big dogs" (pardon the pun).

Man, Clinton is the master of taking both sides, and in one sentence!

me think she's trying to have it "both" ways once again. People, PLEASE think long and hard about supporting her as our candidate! I recall her cozying up to Kay Bailey Hutcheson (R) TX last year and that's one of the issues that cooked it for me! Between Bill Clinton's relationship with POPPY BUSH, and her middle of the road DLC leaning, my trust in what she may do is sorely lacking. And why all the TEXAS connection here? I'm just not very comfortable with this.

Personally, it's those like Schumer and Emmanuel who are "super" behind the scenes worker bees pushing her candidacy and I simply DON'T like it! They have connections to BIG CORPORATIONS type that will continue to donate whatever they can to her! I did want to support her in the beginning, but as time passes I fear her more and more!

We DON'T need only the Bushies and Clintons running America forever. Just this AM, Rachel Maddow pondered about Jeb Bush actually jumping into the Presidential race because so many Repukes aren't all that happy with the choices they are faced with. IF Jebby were to jump, well then HERE WE GO AGAIN! And as one who lives in FLORIDA... I know the Right Wing Fundies will just go ballistic for Jeb and we ALL should be very fearful!

But, please let's be very careful about what we are being sold!

She promised to bring jobs to Buffalo and all she brought was Tata, an outsourcing firm - how's that for irony?

that perhaps the Clintons somehow made a deal with the Bush's to not support Democratic presidential candidates in '00 and '04 (and to use their clout to quell any Democratic party defense of the Democratic candidates in those elections) in exchange for the Bush family's behind-the-scenes support for a Clinton candidacy in '08.

:tinfoilhat:

If I wanted continuity with the Bush years I would just write in Dick Cheney.

for the IWR, I swore I would never vote for her again (she's "my" Senator). I didn't pull the lever for her in November and will not if she's the Democratic candidate in 2008. If anyone doesn't like this, tough. Flame away. You won't get a response from me. Her actions and words speak for themselves.

"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."

People said - and are still saying - the exact same thing about Vietnam...that Abrams' "clear and hold" strategy in Vietnam(Petraeus's strategy is called clear,hold and build, btw), that came after Westmoreland's strategy of "search and destroy", was working but that it came years too late

So much for "We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war."

LMAO

Is she trying to pull more of the independent/undecided voters or something? I just don't understand why she would give * any kind of leg up.

Could it be that their presumptive nominee finally said something that not even they could spin?

funny they don't come here though...

I've called her a vote pandering populist hawk twice in two popular posts and no arguments.

Maybe they're trying to figure out how they can turn this back into some kind of "you're a horrible sexist" comment.

You used the "her" pronoun in your post, clearly indicating that you noticed that Hillary is a woman. Then, you immediately followed that up with a criticism of her political views.

Clearly, you are a misogynistic pig.

Not to mention insult instead of debate or clarification...

The Iraq-upation waffling and the free trade BS are the back-breakers for me.

And not very well, I might add.

the jumps to many conclusions here is amusing.

She's a politician who knows how to play to the crowd. The next war means keeping our military strong for when they're really needed - but that's not something everyone can get hysterical about so OF COURSE it means she plans on attacking every country in the world :scared:

Gotta love the haters and the amusement they bring.

Drudge or the NY Post say as long as it makes Hillary look bad.

She gave madman Bush a loaded gun to invade Iraq.

I don't trust her judgment.

Strange that she is our "leading candidate", no? Her lead becomes more and more hype with every day...

Then again I've heard that "We at DU not representative of the Democrat base." from her manic supporters here (of which I could name and count on my fingers if I wanted.)...funny that they still post here if that's how they feel...

If she does win, I fear this place will become a ghosttown.

How can ANYTHING work in a war that is totally UN workable and ill conceived in the first place?

Hillary - ya missed the point entirely! :mad:

What do you want to hear today? Hillary will be more than GLAD to oblige.

A politician in every stinking sense of the word.

NOT voting for her.

Your alarm bells should be ringing.

Says Anbar. The "surge" is in Baghdad. I notice you left that out of your fake "quote".

That would remove the wiggle room she so carefully crafted into that statement.

Various people have pointed out that American presence in Anbar did NOT increase, we lowered our profile there.

Kerry has been saying since at least 2005 (and probably 2004) - to skeptical Bush administration people and pundits - that the Sunnis will push Al Qaeda out of their areas if we are not there. He said this again at a hearing early this month or late July. This had nothing to do with the surge.

Also interesting is that she, even saying this got a tepid reception. Kerry in 2004 did not get as warm a reception as Bush, but at the end he got a standing ovation - even though that was in the middle of the highest period of SBVT garbage. That should signal some concern.

That promise is long forgotten, it seems. Sounds as though she not only likes the war, but she also approves of *'s "new" strategy.

whatever, she does not mean to leave Iraq. Period.

On the other hand, the devil won't give to this kind of ambiguity.

It sounds like she'll enjoy the opportunity to answer the question: "if it's working, why should we change parties?"

DINO

Remember this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12762092/

Does she have any idea how idiotic this makes her look? Every week another bombing with high civil death tolls and Hillary is practically reading from the administrations talking points. This is absurd. How does she manage a lead saying stupid things like that in a democratic primary where over 60% of the American people oppose the war and support withdrawl.

And then the NEXT new war. I can see it now. Sheesh.

It's a goddamned clusterfuck, and she's delusional.

It's working??? What. A. Sellout.

Dem nomination unless she screws up. It only took her a day to do so.

It is obvious that the power center of the Dem party will not end the US Occupation. Sure, there will be a draw down but at least 60K US Troops will remain along with at least 140K Mercs. Sen Clinton is trying to please the Dem Left, the Center & the RWing Dems all at once. The Rethugs want her to be the nominee & she knows it. The deal with the Bush Crime Family is this: If she gets elected she will not advocate prosecuting Busholini or any of his partners in the many crimes commited & keeep the US Occupation of Iraq in place.

This will be stated as "moving forward". Unless she keeps screwing up the Dems will nominate her. Only six months left.

For her to say that the surge is working is absolute madness. Hillary is the establishment candidate. The entire mainstream media is behind her. For most her nomination is already decided. But for her to claim as she did in a recent debate that she would define herself as a progressive - ought to make progressives all sick - and in desperate need of another way to define themselves. I'm at a loss as to what though. The term "righties" is taken already. (In this case I would mean right as synonymous with correct... Well, you know what I mean.)

For her to say that the surge is working is absolute madness. Hillary is the establishment candidate. The entire mainstream media is behind her. For most her nomination is already decided. But for her to claim as she did in a recent debate that she would define herself as a progressive - ought to make progressives all sick - and in desperate need of another way to define themselves. I'm at a loss as to what though. The term "righties" is taken already. (In this case I would mean right as synonymous with correct... Well, you know what I mean.)

Hillary says against her, we are supposed to use the DU spin that's being put on her comments to insure that she is our candidate. Stop believing your lying eyes and ears, she never said the "surge" was working, she said the "new tactics" are working. Big difference you know.

Not "the surge is working." And she said we need to start bringing the soldiers home.

Thanks, I had no idea that there was some other plan in effect. And if you think she didn't make a mistake saying what she did then how do you justify all the attention she got because of it? Look, I'll vote for her if she's my "lesser of 2 evils" but for once I'd really like to vote for someone I actually like instead of someone I dislike less than the republican candidate.

you know: a crime against the sovereignty of the state of Iraq. "New Tactics", a nice way to say new crimes, to pile on the heap of all the other ones we've committed and will commit in raping Iraq.

she will always be a warhawk.

this claim is false.

Bush's hand at a recent event.

is a warlock... he put the stink palm of defeat on the *Resident. Be thankful.

Or maybe he was just trying to rub some of his Koochliness onto the *Resident... you know, good vibes!

:shrug:

To those who take offense at the HRC threads here criticizing her, this is exactly why.

The war is a tragedy and prolonging it is even worse.

Why?

Oh, and btw, the Iraqi people want us out. What's that about democracy? I guess Hillary and the entire Republican Party are the "deciders."

we already know that the surge worked for the neo-cons