Well, Hillary said it herself tonight

She will be keeping troops in Iraq to guard our embassy, train Iraqi troops, and to go on missions against AlQuaeda. So much for getting us out of Iraq. Those eighteen bases are going to require a lot of troops to staff and guard them, as does training Iraqi troops. Wonder how many troops will continue to get eaten up by these missions that Hillary has in mind.

Hillary won't end the war, she admitted that tonight.

her on everything, even when they stood there one by one and said they disagreed with her!

Pay attention.

will be able to get a months rest or so, before they are sent to Iran.

zxillion $$$$$ embassy..what a fucking tragic joke..assholes.

She stated that she would be drawing down the combat troops. Well, from what I understand talking to friends and family who've been over there, every troop is a combat troop.

Hillary is simply trying to weasel her way through this, trying to act like a dove when what she's really clutching is a sword instead of an olive branch.

Just give the drivers licenses....or not. Which?

I wouldn't be surprised to read in the fine print that
acceptance of those licenses includes a committment
to serve the empire with promise of citizenship.

Wanna bet?

BHN

ad infinitum..they will all be COMBAT TROOPS..IN IRAQ(UNLESS ALL THE TROOPS COME HOME)... Who's advising her on foreign policy? They need to keep her up to speed.

They think everything's going to turn all flowery in Iraq all of a sudden? Who do they think is going to buy this shite they're peddlin'?

It, hook, line and sinker. Sadly, given our track record the past few decades, they might.

Stinkers.

Time to do a 180 on our heinous track record.

Butbutbut Sally said that if mothers ruled the world, there would be no god-damned wars !

I saw an article recently that said there's no more Al Quaeda in Iraq!

I am so confused!

Bush can count on Hillary Clinton to continue and sustain his legacy of failure in Iraq.

Any candidate who says he/she will remove the troops 10 minutes after taking office is a liar. You just don't give 'em all tickets and tell 'em to come home. Removing troops will not be easy...and the goal is to get as many of them out of there as soon as possible as safely as possible. Any candidate who doesn't take that into consideration shouldn't be elected...PERIOD.

The question was phrased (again) by Timmeh to make it sound like an endless war and again the point was made that without having intelligence and knowing exactly what's going on, it's hard to determine how to get the troops out. She did say she wanted our troops out, but can't nor couldn't say how...cause she doesn't know. In '68 Nixon claimed he had a secret plan to end Vietnam...a lie that led to thousands of more dead soldiers. Is this what we want in a candidate?

The first thing any new administration will have to do is restore a lot of broken diplomatic ties around the world. This is the ticket out of Iraq...we need the cooperation of other nations (especially those in the region) to enable our troops to exit safely rather than having to shoot their way out.

And in the end, a lot of what she says may never come to be. We have no control over the future fate of Iraq...other than adding to its misery. What type of regime or government takes hold in the future will dictate where we go. If its one of national reconciliation, then we work with this government to set up and embassy and assist in helping the country establish a police force/army. However, I have extreme doubts this will be the outcome...I see a bloody partition that will only be overcome by another Saddam-like strong man taking control...and probably based on anti-Americanism. Embassy? Support staff? We'll be banished from there like we were from Southeast Asia.

This is truly a QUAGMIRE. You just don't pull yourself out and tap dance away. Whomever takes over on 1-20-09 will have a lot of cleaning up to do...and this will be job one.

I don't think she just plans on just trying to withdraw in an orderly manner because her plan doesn't reflect that.

I'm not proposing just lining up the humvees and have the troops shoot their way out. I'm saying that if she were serious about withdrawal being the only goal she would be proposing having all of the troops out in 6 months to a year, maybe two years, not "There will still be troops left in 2013".

Training Iraqi Security Forces, Fighting Al Qaeda, and protecting the embassy means that she wants to deescalate but keep troops there to continue an attempt at stabilizing the current government.

You know that trying to prop up the current government is futile and that it will likely be overthrown by militants. I know that trying to prop up the current government is futile. Hillary is either a moron (unlikely) or she knows full well that propping up the current government is futile.

The truth is that there isn't anything that we can do anymore. Whether we pull out 6 months from now or 10 years from now, the current regime will not stand. Our attempt to spread democracy was a miserable failure and it will end with a dictator that is likely worse than Saddam. The sooner our policy starts reflecting this fact, the fewer soldiers will die for a mistake.

Hillary and most of the other candidates aren't willing to admit this. Although you contrast her to Nixon, I don't agree. She is essentially proposing his "Peace With Honor". Nixon knew full well that Saigon's fall was inevitable. Yet instead of pulling the troops out ASAP he deescalated at a snails pace to make it look like he was still trying to win the war.

Hillary IMO is doing the exact same thing. She knows full well that Baghdad will fall, but she's going to deescalate at a snails pace because she doesn't want the political fallout for "losing" the war. The only difference, IMO, is that this time the Republicans aren't even proposing deescalation. If at all possible they will put more troops in Iraq.

50,000 troops fighting for a mission that the commander-in-chief knows full well will be a failure is better than 150,000 troops fighting for that mission, but it still sucks.

Just checking here. Originally I had hoped that this country could find an honest broker...a member of the Arab League...like a Turkey or Eygpt or some other Moslem nation that would replace our troops with theirs while a government transition takes place. I've long given up on that concept as I agree with you that this mess is a lost cause...it's now trying to work the best deal. Thus, there's no way any candidate can say for sure either when they will withdrawl troops or how they will accomplish it.

Yes, in many ways Hillary is looking for the "Peace With Honor", but she has also said that she wants to remove the troops...not some, like Nixon, but all. It's just the logistics...where do you withdraw them? To Afghanistan? To Kuwaiit? And then there's the sad state of the military. It's already stressed and stretch to its physical and emotional limits...a sudden withdrawl would be chaos. Even though we're withdrawing from Iraq...it will also be perceived as a major defeat for this country and a quick withdrawl puts the blame on the military, not the criminal politicians who got us into this mess.

Then there's also the problem as to what to do about the 100,000 plus mercenaries...many American nationals...as well as the millions of Iraqi refugees. Do we open our doors and bring 'em in...only some of them?

At least Hillary knows there is no "win" to this war...it's how to get out of the mess with as much national pride as possible. Vainglorious? Possibly...but there's no way she or any candidate can win the general election if they favor hanging the military out to dry.

I think that's an irrational policy to say the least.

in October of 1968, the No Vietnamese were offering a peace plan that Nixon and Kissinger turned down.

We let *Co get us into this mess and now SOMEBODY needs to clean it up.

However, I do not agree with maintaining 18 permanent bases in Iraq, the most expensive embassy the world has ever seen and we have got to do a better job of protecting Iraqi citizens, especially those volunteering as police and soldiers.

I won't pretend to have the answers, but we've been f-ing up for five years already, it's time to start doing SOMETHING right.

work cutout for them. On the saying they won't be home that same day that is quite true even if given the orders to leave. The orders can be given on day 1 and we can leave in a short order measured in days or weeks as we still have our mercenary forces there and Iraqi forces can also help cover our exit. No we wouldn't have them all at home as Afghanistan I feel differently about that we can do some good there, but we certainly won't need 100,000+ troops there to do it and we'd still have the ability to give the Iraqis some support if absolutely needed, but not with ground forces.
As to Al Qaeda we could now never irradicate them from the country even in 10 years with 3x the troop levels and our presence does make things worse in general for Iraqis. I do dissagree that it takes until 2012 to get us out of there. We (bush and company) did mess things up and the international community can help in that area, but nothing will be possible until we are gone from that country that we should never have entered in the first place.
I'm rambling more than I should be on this and please don't take it wrong as a rant on you or anything personnal against you because it isn't, but I just had to throw my 2 cents into it

NOBODY is saying "10 minutes". But every one of them SHOULD be saying "6 months". IMO, that's overly generous. If we really wanted to leave we could be out in 6 weeks.

Sure, that means abandoning a lot of equipment, the bases we've built, etc., but the cost of leaving them is a fraction of the cost of staying there another year. All we have to do is give the collaborators a couple weeks warning, so they can get their families and stolen loot out, then pile onto the trucks, go to the airbases and ports and get the fuck out. Is that so hard?

One of the best points in the debate.

and ya don't have to turn back the police state!

Send Chelsea too, to relieve my cousin so he can come home.

she planned on sending Bill to now do you?

blazes to the left of DK, leaving hundreds of millions/billions of people following this like this::wow: ?
I've got some problems w/ Hill on some issues and she's got a lot of baggage, but the only thing that really matters is seating Supreme Court Associate Justices; I've read some of the flames back and forth regarding that, but it would suck ass for another, any Repig to be making those appointments.
I remain unconvinced Hillary is a Repig, though she was impure in her youth. She was such a whore before the Big Dawg came along!:evilgrin:
I've already read 100 times how she's a Manchurian Nazi Repig. I'm not buying, so save it.

Frankly, given how the Dems have already given the court away, I think preventing the further loss of innocent life is a higher priority than anything concerning the Supreme Court. However, be that as it may, getting out of Iraq doesn't require blazing a trail to the left of Kucinich, it simply requires pulling out the troops. There is no reason to be leaving troops behind, other than to guard the embassy. Anything else is simply prolonging the war, which is what it seems she wants to do. And that is utterly wrong.

She's playing warmonger for the idiots in the red states. Who cares if a few extra troops die if it means she carries an extra swing state?

You're presuming to have the inside-track on what AQ is feeding Hillary, and that just seems patently ridiculous. With any due respect, of course.

Pfft. :eyes:

Ghouliani should he get the pug nomination. No amount of pandering by Hillary will get them to vote for her. The pugs are just chomping at the bit for her to be the nominee.

Get ready to see more of Lucian Goldberg and Monica Lewinsky!!! The pugs will run as much against BILL Clinton as they will Hillary.

his record stacks up after 2 terms twice as good as theirs.
The nominees for Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court will be made by a Democratic President, and confirmed by a Democratic U.S. Senate.
The Pugs are a non-factor, look @ the trends.

in this effort?

Hillary ignores progressives because she and her handlers know people will vote for her because she does not have an R after her name. She has an R in her heart but not after her name.

The Iraqis will do that once the US Occupation ends.

she has no intention of deviating from the neocon/aipac plan for the mid east.

That she would finally come out and so bluntly state her intentions in public. Usually she's much better at doing the non-denial/denial two step than this. I think she got rattled and just blurted out what her real plans were concerning Iraq.

including an attack on Iran..... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2169139&mesg_id=2173054

She hasn't been hiding her ideas. You knew them. So did I. For all the talk about how she doesn't take a position and how she panders, the truth is she has been very clear abour her position even though she knows many do not like it and has stated this opinion many times on the campaign trail

Every Dem. who thinks they are a progressive should be ashamed to vote for her in the primary.

:sarcasm:

How dare you repeat what she said!! :rofl:

I wonder what else she's brewing up for the ME!


:kick: & Recommend # 20 (I like even numbers) :P

The trouble with Hillary is that she so rarely tells the truth. Last night was one of those rare times, and it really hurt her, especially since a moment before she was trying to paint herself as a "peace" candidate. Now we know where her true position lies, and as we suspected all along, it isn't on the side of peace.

You may not like her position, but she has been very clear about it on numerous occassions. It's just not true to say last night was "rare". And it's not "now we know"; You knew all along. We all did.

Biden three times and everyone else another Two. Msnbc poll is in from viewers and Hillary lost.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/

and never had a military before.

The ''training'' will never be over because they are being trained to obey us, not protect the interests of their own people.

Since that is their goal, the bulk of the recruits will always be half-hearted at best, and sociopaths at worst.

I think would have called for the removal of the bases. The candidates of course are not in the office making the real decisions but I think the sense is that this is a giant, senseless step back from the measured stance of Kerry to full acceptance of the Bush legacy. Seeing the bases as the key to ME policy rather than as a key problem and useless trap will dishearten the majority of Americans who MIGHT consider giving the presidential nominee a try after the dismal performance of the 2006 Dems. Oh yes and who owns the oil and how will the spigots be controlled? More fun and games for the super wise and all powerful corporate president to worry about, you just fight and die in streets of the exploited natives?

"We can’t be fighting the last war. We have to be preparing to fight the new war.”

She's not saying anything new here.

There are a few, like Kucinich, who want all of the troops withdrawn on a specific timetable and have advanced plans to do so.

Besides, just because a bunch of people want to do something doesn't necessarily make it right. After all, isn't it that sort of thinking that got us into this mess to begin with?

Properly said, this is what has appeared in Iraq legislation that has come up for votes.

Thanks.

Well, so long as Blackwater knows what side their bread is buttered on when they're called in to take down the red states.

It's not like the facts stopped you the first time

Obama / Edwards / Biden / Dodd. Richardson and Kucinich are the only ones who suggest to get everyone out all at once.

in the White House, for women & minorities of all persuasions. The unfortunate truth is that to break ceiling, a woman who first cracks the glass has historically had to be twice the man as any male competitor for the same job.

That's the history. This is today. I think what we need now is a little less adrenaline and a lot more oxytocin in our domestic and foreign policy. Reject fight or flight - it's time for mend and befriend!

...will leave the office the same way Lincoln and Kennedy did. Feet first.

Hillary is just making sure that they know any such loss won't be because of lack of trying on her part.