Clinton: Troops Perhaps out in a Year

[Brrrp]

Source: Juan Cole

Reuters says that Iraq made a comeback as a campaign issue on Wednesday through Friday of this week. On Wednesday, Senator Hillary Clinton told a voter that she could get all US troops out of Iraq by early 2009. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who has called for an immediate and complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq, accused Clinton of changing her position. Clinton's aide, Harry Wolfson, responded, "Governor Richardson knows that Senator Clinton has been clear and consistent: If George Bush has not ended the war in Iraq, she will . . . As she has said, she would accomplish that by beginning to withdraw our troops within 60 days after inauguration at the rate of one or two brigades a month. This would mean that nearly all troops could be home within a year."

In the past, Clinton has declined to pledge that all troops would be out of Iraq by the end of her first term if she were elected (i.e. by 2012). She has also spoken of keeping a US base in Kurdistan, apparently for the long term. But perhaps she is changing her mind about all that, and if so it is an excellent development. Of course, as Richardson implies, it may not be so much a commitment as the expression of one possibility among others.

Read more: http://www.juancole.com/2007/12/clinton-speaks-of-having-troops-out-in.html

---

I think Hillary is starting to feel the anti-war pressure of the Iowa voters, who are responding to Edwards' promise to get all combat troops out of Iraq during his first year in office.

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. She has been consistent in her goal to get the troops home

More parsing of words by the media--and more buying the media lies and distortions by the public.

[saracat]

2. Yeah.Everyone lies but Hillary. She is perfection, and everyone is out to get her,

:sarcasm: Her words don't meed to be parsed.They are stand alone.She is the Traigulation Queem.

[Evergreen Emerald]

4. Really, your nodding in lemming like fashion at every distortion

gets old.

She has been consistent in stating that she would end the war--unequivocally. And yet, these lies and distortions persist. And they persist because of people who are unable or unwilling to see the truth.

[rockybelt]

5. Then why the hell

does she keep voting to extend the war? She votes for every round of funding. She voted to make part of Iran's government "terrorists". You tell me how that morfs into getting the troops out. She even said that she would not guarantee removing troops. Wake up and smell the coffee. She is as much a corporate shill as bush is.

[Toots]

23. When was her last vote to extend the war?

You are aware I am sure that she did not vote for the last Iraqi war funding bill nor the one before that.So please tell us how she keeps voting to extend the war..

[rockybelt]

24. Obviously you can write.

How do you do that without being able to read?

[merwin]

25. Obviously you aren't able to answer direct questions.

:evilgrin:

[saracat]

6. They persist because some of us can research, remember and decide for ourselves!

We have a disagreement as to who the people are that are "unable or unwilling to see the truth." Clinton's voting record is the same as that of Lieberman.That says it all.

[sendero]

8. End the "war".

.... with 500 ifs and and buts for our continued presence. You either understand English or you don't.

Continuing a troop occupation under any other name is NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER, but it does fool FOOLS apparently.

[tabasco]

26. Hillary thinks we're stupid.

She thinks the sound bites will fool us.

Bill and Hill have become full of themselves and consider themselves part of the elite.

The rest of us are just the mob, easily fooled and manipulated.

[saigon68]

29. Well she did marry the king of

the draft dodgers

And like Cheney another Chicken Hawk draft dodger, some of these corporatists are following the lead of their masters

[fenriswolf]

17. i remember her stating

---that she would get the troops out, but that she could certainly not see withdrawing all combat troops by 2013 or before her first term ends. like the nice poster said before you she is the triangulation queen. If your gonna play in the pool you gotta drink the water.

[merwin]

22. It's ridiculous to think that all of the troops will be out before 2013.

That's an impossibility. We still have troops every country that we've gone to war with. Not many, but they're there.

[emilyg]

7. Please find a new line

this is boring.

[niceypoo]

27. Ah, but I bet she can spell.....

[humbled_opinion]

15. LOL .. ... Take the Blinders Off Please....

Obviously the Clintons don't need to be in the WH to get a BJ they can just look you up on DU...

[Capn Sunshine]

30. Especially consistent regarding a permanent presence there with combat troops

One thing about Hillary, Consistent could be her middle name.

[hughee99]

3. Sen. Clinton has been consistent!

She has consistently said whatever she thinks will help her in the polls... So her position is that she could (not WOULD, but COULD) get them all out by early 2009, but won't promise to get them out by 2012.

One question about her timetable...
If Hillary gets elected, she'll be inaugurated in Jan, 2009. According to Wolfson, she'll begin to withdraw troops 60 days after (staring in March), at the rate of one or two brigades per month. So she's not going to START this withdrawal until March '09 (assuming she even does it). How the hell is it going to be DONE by "early 2009"?

Is sounds to me, if this report is accurate, that Hillary promised an almost immediate withdrawal to this voter, while her plan, quoted by her aide Wolfson, is a much slower withdrawal.

[leftchick]

9. she has been consistently WRONG on IRAQ!

from her IWR vote to this bullshit "withdrawal" plan. Notice the weasel wording: "nearly all troops"? Now does that mean she still intends to keep 50,000 to 70,000 "support" troops in our Iraq Forever bases to protect our "vital national security interests (Read OIL) in the Mideast? Most definitely. She is following the neocon plan of eternal war in the Mideast.

[niceypoo]

28. How did Edwards vote on IWR?

How about Kerry? Other Dems? I am curious as to your source of your, "Hillary's neocon plan," claim.

[K Gardner]

10. Here's what Hillary said in the debate, and other snippets

CLINTON RECORD
Refuses to Pledge to Get Our Troops Out by 2013, the End Of Her First Term
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, Democrats all across the country believed in 2006, when the Democrats were elected to the majority in the House and Senate, that that was a signal to end the war, and the war would end.

You have said that will not pledge to have all troops out by the end of your first term, 2013. Why not?

CLINTON: Well, Tim, it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term. But I agree with Barack. It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting. You know, we do not know, walking into the White House in January 2009, what we're going to find. What is the state of planning for withdrawal?
-- From 9/26 DNC Debate at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire.

Clinton: up to 60,000 Troops?
Clinton has stated that, "she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military."
-- From: "If Elected... Clinton Says Some G.I.'s in Iraq Would Remain." By Michael R. Gordon and Patrick Healy. The New York Times. 15 March 2007.

The kind of residual force Clinton describes is similar to that elaborated upon in reports by the Center for American Progress, and the Center for a New American Security, both that describe a residual force of 60,000 or so troops.
-- "Strategic Redeployment 2.0: A Progressive Strategy for Iraq." The Center for American Progress. By Lawrence Korb and Brian Katulis. May 2006.
-- "Phased Transition: A Responsible Way Forward Out of Iraq." Center for a New Ameican Security. By James N. Miller and Shawn W. Brimley. June 2007.

Additionally, Senator Clinton voted on September 21st in support of the Levin Amendment 2898 that Senator Levin himself estimates, if enacted would only, "cut troop levels in Iraq by more than half."
-- From: "Senate Blocks Bill on Iraq Combat Tours." By Anne Flaherty. Associated Press. 19 September 2007.

[leftchick]

12. "protect the Kurds"???

omg! Is she even aware the US has been letting Turkey Bomb them these last few weeks? Including today? This is all pure and utter FICTION!


BRING EM HOME!!!!!

[ProudDad]

11. How can you tell hillary is blowing smoke up your ass?

her lips are moving!


Manipulated, doubtless, by her corporate capitalist masters... :shrug:

[Robbien]

13. Perhaps, maybe, if it suits her at the time, troops will come home

Don't dare ask her to get them out now, wouldn't be good for the campaign.

Troops being in harm's way for another year or two is just a cost of a Clinton election.

[stillcool]

14. Again?

:rofl:

Reduction in U.S. Troops Eyed for '04
Gradual Exit Strategy Tied to Iraq's Stability
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 19, 2003; Page A01
U.S. military commanders have developed a plan to steadily cut back troop levels in Iraq next year, several senior Army officers said in recent interviews.
There are now 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The plan to cut that number is well advanced and has been described in broad outline to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld but has not yet been approved by him. It would begin to draw down forces next spring, cutting the number of troops to fewer than 100,000 by next summer and then to 50,000 by mid-2005, officers involved in the planning said. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46852-2003Oct...


India News Sun, May 30, 2004
Saturday May 22, 4:28 AM
U.S. troop presence sparks Shi'ite fury beyond Iraq
MANAMA (Reuters) - Shi'ite Muslims took to the streets in three Middle Eastern capitals on Friday in sometimes violent protests against the U.S. military presence in Iraq's Shi'ite shrine cities, witnesses said.
U.S.-led forces have been battling followers of radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in and around Najaf and Kerbala.
U.S. forces have vowed to capture or kill Sadr, who has taken refuge in Najaf since launching an anti-U.S. uprising in April. Sadr's Mehdi Army militiamen have clashed daily with U.S. troops near the shrines in Najaf and Kerbala.http://in.news.yahoo.com/040521/137/2d8ka.html

Last Update: Sunday, June 27, 2004. 6:32pm (AEST)
Iraq attack 'shows troops must stay'
Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson says an attack on Australian forces in northern Iraq this weekend is another reminder that Australia must keep its troops in Iraq.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200406/s1141382.ht...

8/20/04
Iranian Concern about American Troop Presence in Iraq 'Unwarranted,' says US
David Gollust, VOA, State Department - 19 Aug 2004
The United States said Thursday Iran should see the American military presence in Iraq as a stabilizing, rather than threatening presence. The comments followed remarks by Iran's Defense Minister that some Iranian generals favor striking U.S. forces pre-emptively if they sensed a threat. http://www.payvand.com/news/04/aug/1190.html


Commander Sees Shift In Role of U.S. Troops
Force Would Focus On Training Iraqis
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 7, 2004; Page A01
CAMP AS SAYLIYAH, Qatar, Dec. 6 -- Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the commander of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf region, raised the possibility Monday that U.S. forces in Iraq could start to be reshaped as early as next year to reduce the number of combat troops and concentrate on the development of Iraqi security forces.

The Boston Globe
House report proposes troop withdrawal plan
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | January 22, 2005
WASHINGTON -- A new congressional report lays out a step-by-step argument for withdrawing ''the vast majority" of American troops from Iraq within 12 to 18 months, adding to a growing chorus of members of both parties for President Bush to abort the occupation.
The report, scheduled to be released Tuesday, was drafted by Representative Martin T. Meehan, a Lowell Democrat and senior member of the oversight panel. The plan calls for reducing the American troop presence in Iraq from 150,000 to as few as 30,000 by the middle of next year.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/20... /

Posted 3/28/2005 8:33 PM Updated 3/28/2005 8:39 PM
Iraqi troop training: signs of progress
By Peter Grier, The Christian Science Monitor
Due to missteps and a misjudgment about the strength of the insurgency at its onset, the U.S. really did not begin a concerted training effort until 10 months ago, said Cordesman. "The Iraqis actually involved in shaping Iraq's new forces are not pessimistic," he noted. "Most believe that Iraqi forces are growing steadily better with time, will acquire the experience and quality to deal with much of the insurgency during 2005, and should be able to secure much of the country by 2006."
Enough progress has apparently been made that U.S. officials are becoming more explicit about when American troops might start coming home. On Sunday, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, Army Gen. George Casey, predicted on CNN's "Late Edition" that the U.S. should be able to make a "very substantial reduction" in the number of forces within a year.
Copyright c 2005 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights


U.S. army commander predicts reduction of Iraq troops
3/28/2005 12:20:00 PM GMT
General Casey predicts "very substantial reductions" in U.S. troops in Iraq will be made.
The top U.S. military commander in Iraq predicted Sunday that the U.S. would make "very substantial reductions" in the number of troops there by March 2006.
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=7643


House Passes Inslee Amendment to Lift Funding Limit on Iraqi Troop Training
Accelerates Replacement of American Troops with Iraqi Security Forces
20 June 2005
In an effort to bring American troops home sooner, U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee offered and successfully passed an amendment today to help fully fund the training and equipping of Iraqi and Afghan troops. Inslee's amendment removes the $500 million cap that had been placed in the Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations Act to train, equip and provide assistance to security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The DOD bill includes $45.3 billion for military operations in Iraq, yet placed limitations on the amount of money that could be spent on training a viable Iraqi security force. The House passed Inslee's amendment by a voice vote, without any objections.http://www.house.gov/inslee/issues/iraq/iraq_troop_trai...

Posted 7/11/2005 6:24 PM Updated 7/11/2005 8:19 PM
U.S. may begin Iraq troop drawdown in '06
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Major reductions in U.S. troop levels in Iraq next year appear increasingly likely, although Pentagon officials said Monday it is too early to predict the specific size and timing.
Michael O'Hanlon, a defense specialist at the Brookings Institution think tank, said the training of Iraqi forces has progressed to the point when they will be capable of taking on a greater part of the responsibility.
O'Hanlon said he is hopeful that the 135,000-strong U.S. force could be cut by as much as 50% by mid-2006.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-11-troo...

Drastic troop cuts are in the Pentagon's secret plans.
Defense decision: Casey and Rumsfeld look to scale down the number of U.S. troops in Iraq
By Michael Hirsh and John Barry
Newsweek
Aug. 8, 2005 issue - Donald Rumsfeld doesn't like long-term occupations. He's always made that clear. After U.S. forces took Baghdad, the Defense secretary had plans to reduce the U.S. presence in Iraq to 40,000 troops by the fall of 2003. Then the insurgency struck. Now Rumsfeld is quietly moving toward his original goal_three years late. The Pentagon has developed a detailed plan in recent months to scale down the U.S. troop presence in Iraq to about 80,000 by mid-2006 and down to 40,000 to 60,000 troops by the end of that year, according to two Pentagon officials involved in the planning who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of their work. Their account squares with a British memo leaked in mid-July. "Emerging U.S. plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006, allowing a reduction in overall U.S. and Coalition forces from 176,000 down to 66,000," says the Ministry of Defense memo.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8770418/site/newsweek /

All Things Considered, September 29, 2005 · Top U.S. military commanders are revising assessments of how soon U.S. troops can begin withdrawing from Iraq. Gen. George Casey said before a skeptical Senate Armed Services Committee that U.S. troops may be able to return home next year. But he also said there is currently just one Iraqi battalion capable of combat.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=49...

Huge Progress" Made In Training Iraq Troops : US General
Washington (AFP) Nov 07, 2005
"Huge progress" is being made in training Iraqi combat troops, and 24 homegrown battalions have now taken control of assigned territory, the general formerly in charge of the massive program said Monday.
Petraeus said that according to latest declassified figures, 40 battalions of Iraqi soldiers were capable of leading counter insurgency operations with the help of US or coalition troops.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-28-Iraq...


Defense official: Rumsfeld given Iraq withdrawal plan
Plan calls for troops to begin pulling out after December elections
Saturday, November 19, 2005 Posted: 0434 GMT
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq, according to a senior defense official.
Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early next year.http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/18/iraq.plan...

Officials more hopeful on Iraq draw down
Posted 11/24/2005 12:19 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) _ The Bush administration and military leaders are sounding optimistic notes about scaling back U.S. troops in Iraq next year, as public opposition to the war and congressional demands for withdrawal get louder.
Lt. Gen. John Vines, chief of the Multi-National Corps-Iraq, said Iraqi security forces _ which number about 212,000 now _ are making excellent progress, an oft-cited precondition for removing U.S. troops. He said 36 Iraqi battalions are responsible for their own areas of operation.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-24-admi...

White House lays foundation for US troop withdrawal
Monday November 28, 2005 3:20 AM
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House for the first time has claimed possession of an Iraq withdrawal plan, arguing that a troop pullout blueprint unveiled this past week by a Democratic senator was "remarkably similar" to its own.
It also signaled its acceptance of a recent US Senate amendment designed to pave the way for a phased US military withdrawal from the violence-torn country.
The statement late Saturday by White House spokesman Scott McClellan came in response to a commentary published in The Washington Post by Joseph Biden, the top Democrat of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in which he said US forces will begin leaving Iraq next year "in large numbers."
Copyright c 2005 AFP.
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/051127/afp/051127192003top.h...


Friday, December 23, 2005; Posted: 2:13 p.m. EST (19:13 GMT)
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- President Bush has authorized a reduction in U.S. combat troops in Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Friday, talking before troops at Camp Falluja, Iraq.
"At the recommendation of our military commanders and in consultation with our coalition partners and with the Iraqi government, President Bush has authorized an adjustment in U.S. combat brigades in Iraq from 17 to 15," Rumsfeld told 400 to 500 U.S. troops.
The adjustments will reduce forces in Iraq below the base-line level of 138,000 -- which has provided the guideline for most of the year -- by spring 2006. There were 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq as elections approached, Rumsfeld said.
About 3,500 soldiers are in each brigade, the statement said.
This adjustment is an indication of the remarkable progress Iraq is making," the statement said. "It clearly demonstrates the dramatic increase in capabilities of the Iraqi security forces. This move would not have been possible without the dedication, bravery and sacrifice of your Iraqi security forces."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/23/iraq.main/ind...

[focusfan]

16. she has also said if she was president they would have a patrol

over there in Iraq so i don't believe her

[RedSock]

18. "feeling the anti-war pressure"?

Before the invasion, calls to her New York office against the invasion were running 3 or 4 to 1.

At least 75% of her constitutents (of which I was one) wanted her to say NO to Bush.

She said Yes.

[dbt]

19. Perhaps?

JESUS, Hillary. Is the sky BLUE? Or did it USED to be before the chemtrails? Is gravity a LAW? Can you give a straight answer before you talk to your damned FOCUS GROUPS?

Why does Poppy want YOU for President?

[FreeStateDemocrat]

20. Who cares what she says now it's what she has done in authorizing the Iraq war that disqualifies her

Too late the damage is done through her support and faulty judgement, there is blood on her hands. Case closed, she cannot morally be the Democratic Party nominee.

[boricua79]

21. "PERHAPS"

this is pandering to the left base

and we will always remember, "if I knew then what i know now", Hillary. You don't fool us.

[humbled_opinion]

31. She'll be the first President to go and christen

One of the new Bases in Iraq.. Mark my words she has no intention of getting us out of this debacle... :crazy:

[Ladydawnelle]

32. Madame President

You have always taken care of the troops.

I know a 4 star General that would NOT be endorsing you if you were NOT a great advocate of the military.

When DEMOCRATS slam YOU they are also slamming all the stellar individuals that are supporting you. And that list is HUGE and VERY Experienced!

NO MORE fake cowboys


NO more (spoiled) pretty boys pretending to care for the troops when they never served themselves.

[IndianaGreen]

34. Like all chicken hawks, Hillary uses the troops as a backdrop to her speeches

while she votes to send more troops to yet another war in the Persian Gulf.

[IndianaGreen]

33. This is the same Hillary that opposed John Kerry's troop withdrawal resolution

At this point in the campaign, the Clintons will do and say anything to get their sorry asses back in the White House. They are as credible as the Bushes!

[Ladydawnelle]

35. wah wah wah

are you gonna cry like a baby when she's President??? or maybe flee? lmao.

The Hillary haters just all may explode at the same moment - 11/08

[IndianaGreen]

36. I will be joining millions of progressive Americans in the following Hillary-era activities

I will be joining millions of progressive Americans in the following Hillary-era activities:

March 2009 - National antiwar marches on the 6th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War.

October 2009 - National antiwar marches on the 7th anniversary of Iraq War Resolution.

March 2010 - National antiwar marches on the 7th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War.

October 2010 - National antiwar marches on the 8th anniversary of Iraq War Resolution.

March 2011 - National antiwar marches on the 8th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War.

October 2011 - National antiwar marches on the 9th anniversary of Iraq War Resolution.

March 2012 - National antiwar marches on the 9th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War.

October 2012 - National antiwar marches on the 10th anniversary of Iraq War Resolution.

[eridani]

37. Reading the fine print

How can anybody consider supporting a candidate who supports the existence of a slave-labor built embassy bigger than the entire country of Kuwait?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/the_fine_print_in_hillarys_pro_1.html

It is only when you examine the details--like the fine print in an insurance contract--that you discover that Clinton's pledge to "get out of Iraq" is far from iron-clad. There are numerous conditions attached. She enumerated some of them in the June 19 Democratic debate when pressed by Chris Matthews. Read the full transcript here. Clinton's list of "vital national security interests" in Iraq turns out to be quite lengthy:

"We cannot let Al Qaeda have a staging ground in Iraq."
"We have made common cause with some of the Iraqis themselves in Anbar province."
"We also have to look at the way the Kurds are being treated."
"We also have to pay attention to Iranian influence."
"We will have to protect our interests. We'll have an embassy there."
"If the Iraqi government does get its act together, we may have a continuing training mission."

Here are a couple more reasons cited by Clinton for a continuing deployment of American troops to prevent Iraq degenerating into a failed state "that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda." They come from an interview she gave to the New York Times back in March.

Iraq "is right in the heart of the oil region."
Leaving Iraq altogether would be "directly in opposition to our interests...to Israel's interests."

Somehow that doesn't sound like a firm promise "to get out of Iraq" or, even less, a guarantee to "end our involvement there."

[olddad56]

38. PERHAPS is politicianspeak for NO WAY.