Hillary Clinton: I don’t believe our men and women should stay and fight Iraq's civil war.

[bigtree]

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton used a campaign stop in Charleston to tout West Virginia, Gov. Joe Manchin and issues like clean coal technology in front of hundreds of supporters who could possibly play a role in selecting the Democratic presidential nominee in the state.

"Go ahead and sit down," Clinton said to the jubilant crowd that continued standing for her a few minutes after appearing in the gym. "Everyone take a deep breath."

"The primary in West Virginia could not be more important," she said. "It will put West Virginia on the map of the world.



The senator said she approved of investing in clean energy jobs and mentioned Manchin's plans for clean coal technology and becoming independent from foreign oil.

"We're not doing it fast enough because we don't have a plan," Clinton said. "I think we could create five million new jobs in the next 10 years with clean energy."

She received a standing ovation when she called for an end of the Iraq war.

"The president's just going to run out the clock, isn't he?" she said about Bush's plan for the war.

Clinton said she would rely on military experts on advice for a withdrawal, and placed part of the blame for lingering war on the Iraqi people.

"They've done so little to resolve all of their disputes," she said.



On the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, Hillary Clinton re-emphasized her plan to withdraw U.S. forces from the country and said “we won’t protect” the Iraqis if the their government fails to make meaningful political progress. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/19/clinton-we-will-not-protect-iraqis-without-political-progress/)

The New York senator was asked by an audience member here, on her first campaign stop in West Virginia, about her strategy to end the war.

Clinton explained that her three-part plan begins with finding the best way, in consultation with top military advisers, to withdraw American troops in 60 days. Iraq’s future, she said, should be up to Iraq’s political leaders.

“The Iraqis have not done what they had to do to secure their own future,” she said. “And I have said I don’t believe our men and women should stay there to fight their civil war.”

“So we will start bringing them home and we will tell Iraqis the ball is in their court,” she continued. “Now, we will help them, we will support them, but we will not protect them if they refuse to do what we want them to do.”

Clinton said that she is “of course” worried that Iraq could disintegrate if U.S. forces withdraw, but stated: “If the Iraqis are not ready to take responsibility for themselves, it’s not going to make a difference.”

[AX10]

1. K/R

[scheming daemons]

2. Well then... maybe next time she'll vote AGAINST an ill-conceived war...

...

[Kittycat]

3. Maybe she should have read the NIE then, and not propted up Betray Us.

Sorry, this is one major issue I have with her. IWR, Clusterbombs, Kyl/Lieberman - and now Betray Us.

[EFerrari]

7. Look, it's Iraq's fault that we've killed a million of their people

and destroyed their infrastructure. They aren't trying hard enough!

[Muttocracy]

10. funny how that works. nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

11. Exactly - "Now that we've killed a million of you, you have to stand up for yourselves."

she makes me sick.

[zabet]

4. Bring'em Home Hillary!

:patriot:

[babylonsister]

5. Conversely, she applauds Petraeus. She cannot have it both ways.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3034942&mesg_id=3034942

[bigtree]

16. Look, if you want to take that one comment in isolation that's your business

But, don't try and act like that represents the totality of her attitude toward Petraeus and his occupation. She was clear in thes statements against the occupation and she was clear in her opposition to Petraeus when he testified about his 'surge.'

Playing the media game of cherry-picking quotes is cute politics, but it does nothing to actually inform folks about where these candidates stand.

Here's what the press said then of Clinton's remarks:


September 13, 2007 -- Sen. Hillary Clinton yesterday found herself positioned firmly to the left of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi regarding that disgusting New York Times/MoveOn "General Betray Us" attack on Gen. David Petraeus' integrity.

That's not an enviable position for a woman who's trying to convince the American people that she's fit to be president of the United States.

Further complicating her life was the position former Mayor Rudy Giuliani took yesterday on the general, the importance of victory in Iraq and . . . the truth. You couldn't ask for a more stark contrast at this stage in a possible Giuliani-Clinton presidential face-off.

At issue was the MoveOn ad, published in Monday's Times, attacking Petraeus' honor as a man and as a soldier.

How disgusting was it?

Even Pelosi, one of the most left-wing speakers ever, said she'd have "preferred that they won't do such an ad."

But Clinton not only couldn't bring herself to criticize it, she also attacked Petraeus' honesty: "The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief," she huffed to the general Tuesday.

And she slammed him (and Ambassador Ryan Crocker) as "de facto spokesmen for a failed policy," pointedly refusing to criticize the ad - which called him an outright liar who'd "betray" his nation.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/postopinion/editorials/sen__clintons_slur.htm

[Forkboy]

6. We've had 2 partisan replies, so here's one in the middle

I doubt either of them will be able to do much in their first year, and that, despite their words, there's very little difference between how either one will handle it.

[EFerrari]

8. Exactly. n/t

[Muttocracy]

9. agreed

unless I hear "we're going to implement the Biden-Gelb plan", I think they're both promising earlier pullouts than are physically possible, and that they haven't been convincing about how they will not leave a disastrous mess behind.

[Zhade]

12. "clean coal" is an oxymoron. What a joke!

It's right up there with her "replace the mountaintops" stance on strip mining - laughably ignorant.

[PetraPooh]

14. Hey I always wash my coal before I burn it! Don't you? :0

[IrishBloodEngHeart]

13. why wasn't Hillary calling it George Bush's war 5 years ago?

Why this change in language?

[LulaMay]

15. Thanks for the great pictures.

[Ordr]

17. I loathe her but I agree with her on this.

(I'm still in pain from typing that.)

[tekisui]

18. 50 years?

Yet she says this:

Clinton told a group of young veterans in Lancaster, Pa., on Tuesday that one lesson of the war is to not commit troops “unless you are prepared to go all the way and are prepared to be successful.”

Questioned about her plans to begin withdrawing troops within 60 days after taking office, Clinton said U.S. forces already have fulfilled the mission they were assigned.

She said the Iraqi government has failed to create a stable political system despite the U.S. effort. “Does that mean we stay for 10 years, 30 years, 50 years? And if at the end of it the Iraqis still haven’t gotten their act together, we’re going to be facing the same tough questions.”


That's chimpy/mcsame talk.

http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=289124

[bigtree]

21. no it isn't

she's saying that there's nothing for our troops to do in Iraq and that we can't just prop them up indefinitely. She's calling for a relatively quick withdrawal.

There's NOTHING she's said here which resembles Bush or McCain's positions, in the least.

[tekisui]

22. Why did she float the 50 years out there?

Why even bring that number up? It seems to me she wants to open that door a little. Why?

When McCain said something similar, granted more direct, he was rightfully raked across the coals.

[bigtree]

28. you're misinterpreting the statement as support for some 50 year involvement

She's clearly rejecting that notion, in reference to McCains statements that he sees us militarily engaged in Iraq for 100 or more years.

[tekisui]

29. Another poster pointed out that is probably what she meant.

I think it was a poor choice of words, and muddy her message more than anything.

[bigtree]

32. well, I understand what she's saying.

It's not a bit muddled to me.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

19. she's sending out mixed messages

I guess that's the idea - to cloud the issue.

[bigtree]

23. she's clear on Iraq, despite her general views expressed on use of force.

She says whatever mission our troops were on in Iraq, it's finished. Nothing more out troops can or should do there.

[Exilednight]

20. Today it's a civil war? Yesterday she said the Iraqis were given the gift of freedom.........

which is it?

[bigtree]

25. She's clear Iraqis have to make that a reality, apart from the continuing support of our military

And, that, the U.S. can't continue to fight their civil war.

[Exilednight]

26. That's the most muddled message from Democrat I have ever heard..........

The other day she spouts off about how the Iraqis have been given the "precious gift of freedom". Now she says they are in a civil war. For a person who claims to be so smart, that's one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. Maybe she needs to take a look at what is happening in Iraq. Since when did the word freedom include such things as ethnic cleansing of communities?

[bigtree]

31. It makes perfect sense if you're not just picking off parts of her statements on Iraq

. . . and opportunistically presenting them with your own view and bias.

Are you arguing that Iraqis won't have an opportunity for 'freedom' *unless we remain? Clearly, her intention to withdraw our troops from Iraq says all it needs to about how she feels about our involvement there.

Do you think Iraqis were 'free' under Saddam's regime? They're locked in a civil war, but there's no denying that a U.S. exit will allow Iraqis to pursue the opportunity that removal of the U.S. sponsored dictator provides them in the way of taking charge of their destiny.

[Exilednight]

34. Here's the sad facts, Hillary authorized this war with her vote, and now she is having buyers.......

remorse. She took a political gamble, and it failed; in fact it failed miserably.

You can't give the keys to a guy who drank a six pack of beer and act surprised when he gets a DUI, no more than you can vote for a war resolution and act surprised when we invade.

To be honest with you, neither candidate has an executable plan for Iraq. I am for redeployment of US troops, but we also have a responsibility to the people of Iraq. You can't claim we delivered liberty while people are being killed because of their religious belief. That goes against everything that liberty is.

The only way to solve this problem is to get other countries in the region involved, but Hillary doesn't want to meet with the leaders of Iran.

Yes I want my military brethren home, but I also want the people of Iraq not to fear whoever is left in charge after we leave.

[bigtree]

35. she does have a credible plan which includes diplomacy as the integral component

Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary's First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As President, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration. She would also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a comprehensive plan to provide the highest quality health care and benefits to every service member -- including every member of the National Guard and Reserves -- and their families.

Securing Stability in Iraq as we Bring our Troops Home. As President, Hillary would focus American aid efforts during our redeployment on stabilizing Iraq, not propping up the Iraqi government. She would direct aid to the entities -- whether governmental or non-governmental -- most likely to get it into the hands of the Iraqi people. She would also support the appointment of a high level U.N. representative -- similar to those appointed in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo -- to help broker peace among the parties in Iraq.

A New Intensive Diplomatic Initiative in the Region. In her first days in office, Hillary would convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq. The- mission of this group would be to develop and implement a strategy to create a stable Iraq. It would have three specific goals:

* Non-interference. Working with the U.N. representative, the group would work to convince Iraq's neighbors to refrain from getting involved in the civil war.
* Mediation. The group would attempt to mediate among the different sectarian groups in Iraq with the goal of attaining compromises on fundamental points of disputes.
* Reconstruction funding. The members of the group would hold themselves and other countries to their past pledges to provide funding to Iraq and will encourage additional contributions to meet Iraq's extensive needs.

As our forces redeploy out of Iraq, Hillary would also organize a multi-billion dollar international effort -- funded by a wide range of donor states -- under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to address the needs of Iraqi refugees. And as we replace military force with diplomacy and global leadership, Hillary will not lose sight of our very real strategic interests in the region. She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2354

[Exilednight]

36. It's not executable. It sounds nice, but we are all going to be ......

highly pissed off when it can't be done.

The plan hinges on one key element, and that is the UN. The UN is going to look at how we fucked it up, and then tell us, you broke it, you fix it.

This war is unpopular, not only in America, but throughout the world. What makes anyone think that the French, Germans, or anyone other industrialized country is going to send troops in?

[bigtree]

37. Bush gone.

neocon agenda ended.

Those states have more of a stake in a successful Iraq than we do. With the heavy hand of the U.S. off of Iraq, there will be more opportunity for these other nations in the region to exert their own due influence and help repair their destiny.

[workinclasszero]

24. Then why did Hillary give King George the power to invade Iraq??

Hillary's words once again conflict with the reality of her actions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSu0zXCR9sE

Anyone that believes this DLC neocon war hawk will get us out of Iraq is living in a fantasy world.

[bigtree]

27. she didn't. That 'power' is not original or inherent in the Iraq resolution she voted for

That 'power' Bush used to mobilize and deploy troops to Iraq is contained in a loophole in the War Powers Act which allows him to deploy troops for a time without prior congressional action. Bush preemptively deployed troops to Iraq, forcing UN inspectors out, and set up a junta.

In fact, the FIRST opportunity Congress had to exercise the ONLY significant lever they have to influence the Executive's control over these deployments presidents have committed for decades, the power of the purse, was the first $87 billion 'emergency' funding bill, with most of those who voted against the WORDS in the Iraq resolution voting in favor of the MONEY Bush needed to remain in Iraq . . . including Barack Obama, who, upon arriving in the Senate, supported EVERY funding bill for Iraq, some $300 billion….until he started running for President. 2005 Vote # 117, HR1268, 5/10/05; 2005 Vote # 326, S1042, 11/15/05; 2006 Vote # 112, HR4939, 5/4/06; 2006 Vote # 239; 2006 Vote # 186, S2766, 6/22/06; HR5631, 9/7/06

As a Senate candidate in November 2003, Sen. Obama said he would have 'unequivocally' voted against war funding because it was the only way to oppose Bush on Iraq. "Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars, I said 'no.' I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance." Obama remarks, New Trier Democratic Organization forum, 11/16/03; Video

[tabasco]

30. Hillary was for the war before she was against it.

That should fly well in the general election.

[bigtree]

33. Actually she was for the reintroduction of UN inspectors

. . . backed up by the threat of force.

She did not support Bush's preemptive invasion.

[tabasco]

38. Anybody who actually thought Bush would use diplomacy first is a damn fool.

I don't give her the benefit of the doubt on that one. She knew Bush was going to attack but cravenly voted in what she thought was her political best interests. I laugh when someone says they thought Bush was going to use diplomacy when the neocons were banging the war drums. That either exposes them as a fool or a liar.

[bigtree]

39. the inspectors were allowed more access in Iraq after the passage of the resolution

Everybody heard Bush say he intended to invade, no matter what Congress decided. He asserted before the vote that he already had the authority under the War Powers Act that he ultimately used when he committed forces. The introduction of the inspectors was an attempt to find the pretext (a declaration of no WMDs) to stymie Bush's push to invade. Bush still had the means to deploy, no matter what Congress decided. And, he knew he had the vast majority who would codify his invasion and occupation by providing the money for him to continue, as the majority ultimately did . . . Obama included.

[tabasco]

40. Really, then what happened?

The inspectors found nothing and Bush bombed anyway.

Like I said, anybody who thought Bush would let the UN or diplomacy get in the way of his war was a fool.