Reply #6: her aides later related what she REALLY meant... [View All]

[leftchick]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/washington/04cong.html?em&ex=1178424000&en=759110b78a00b3e8&ei=5087%0A

<snip>

Talking to reporters after her floor speech in a mostly empty Senate chamber, Mrs. Clinton indicated that her view was that rescinding the original vote would mean that troops would be out as of October. “They have no authority to continue,” she said. “That is the point.”

Later, however, her aides said Mrs. Clinton was not seeking a total withdrawal of troops from Iraq, or a quick pullout that could put troops at risk. They said she had called for a phased pullout that would leave a reduced American force to pursue terrorist cells in Iraq, support the Kurds and conduct other missions — a position she continued to support, her aides said.

<snip>

So her pro-war, keep the troops in Iraq policy has not changed at all? How is this any different than the neocons dreams of permanent bases?