Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Sen. Clinton, just because our military occupies ground in Iraq doesn't mean the 'surge' is working

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 01:44 PM
Original message
Sen. Clinton, just because our military occupies ground in Iraq doesn't mean the 'surge' is working
Edited on Tue Aug-21-07 01:44 PM by bigtree

. . . and it's not just because "we're years too late in changing our tactics"


Mon Aug 20, 8:58 PM ET

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.

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.

In Iraq, she said, the government must take responsibility for itself and its people.

"I do not think the Iraqis are ready to do what they have to do for themselves yet," she said. "I think it is unacceptable for our troops to be caught in the crossfire of a sectarian civil war while the Iraqi government is on vacation."

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


Even if the Iraqi government comes back -- in whatever form -- it would still be "unacceptable for our troops to be caught in the crossfire of (their) sectarian civil war"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. WE invaded. WE bombed their cities. WE (let's be honest) had their leader hanged.
WE BROKE IT.

And Hillary has the UNMITIGATED GALL to declare, "I do not think the Iraqis are ready to do what they have to do for themselves yet,..."????!

Edwards/Kucinich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. I think some people are waiting for an apology from Hillary Clinton they aren't going to get.
She apparently still thinks that the biggest problem with invading Iraq wasn't the decision to invade, but how that invasion was carried out.

If the invasion had been managed well, it would have been a success - hard to argue against that (because it's a big what if, isn't it?). But of course it is hard to argue that the facts after the invasion justified our use of force (no WMDs no terrorist ties).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Yes, if something is "done well", then it is "done well". But we committed a crime, and she abetted
it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. she clearly doesn't see it that way. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
4. I'm with Gravel.
She scares the living shit out of me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. this is worrying
"We have to keep preparing to fight the new war"

'The New War'???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnpaul Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I second that
especially when they are talking Iran(the new war???)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obama_girl Donating Member (52 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
8. HIllary would be 8 more years of illegal wars
millions more dead

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Actually, that would be 4 years --
the repukes would take it away from her in 12.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC