Parsing Hillary Clinton on Iraq (5 Letters)

[ProSense]

Parsing Hillary Clinton on Iraq (5 Letters)

Published: March 17, 2007

To the Editor:

I read with alarm and dismay that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton stated that if elected president, she would continue a military presence in Iraq, albeit on a smaller scale (“Clinton Says Some G.I.’s in Iraq Would Remain if She Took Office,” front page, March 15).

<...>

This was an interview awash in contradictions. Mrs. Clinton correctly believes that the “American people are done with Iraq.” If so, how would a continued, open-ended military presence enable the United States to extricate itself from Iraq?

<...>

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton says that if she is elected president, she would keep a reduced military force in Iraq “to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.” What if most Iraqis would prefer that the United States military leave?

<...>

According to your article, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would not try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence even if it descended into ethnic cleansing. It is comforting to know up front that as president she would do no more to stop genocide in Iraq than the current president is doing in Sudan or the previous one did in Rwanda.

Apparently even though she knows now what she didn’t know then, she still would do nothing.

Let’s have a conversation.

more...

[mtnsnake]

1. GWB will never be the leader Hillary is if she's elected president

When push came to shove, Bush avoided the draft and Hillary fought against the war, just like she'll do if elected. She'll back up her promise to end the war if the war is still going on when she takes the oath in Jan '09.

BTW, how many times are you going to post the same exact subject matter as a thread? Isn't this like 5 times already?

[ProSense]

2. U.S. troop casualties March 11 - 17 (one week):

28

[IndianaGreen]

3. Hillary also told the NY Times she will stay in Iraq because of the OIL and ISRAEL

There is no parsing and no nuances in what she said.

There is no disputing the fact that if elected President, Hillary will continue the war in Iraq, turning Bush's war into Hillary's war, turning a Republican war into a Democratic war.

The result of keeping US troops in Iraq will be that the war criminal Bush will be suceeded by Hillary, the new war criminal!

Published on Thursday, March 15, 2007 by the New York Times

If Elected... Clinton Says Some G.I.’s in Iraq Would Remain

by Michael R. Gordon and Patrick Healy

WASHINGTON — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0315-02.htm

[SOS]

4. Two other troublesome aspects from the NYT article:

"The idea of repositioning American forces to minimize American casualties, discourage Iranian, Syrian and Turkish intervention, and forestall the Kurds’ declaring independence is not a new one. It has been advocated by Dov S. Zakheim, who served as the Pentagon’s comptroller under former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Mr. Zakheim has estimated that no more than 75,000 troops would be required, compared to the approximately 160,000 troops the United States will have in Iraq when the additional brigades in Mr. Bush’s plan are deployed."

Zakheim is a PNACer and a Heritage Foundation guy, as well as Rummy's former comptroller. Zakheim seems to be less maniacal than PNACers like Kristol, in favor of splitting the difference between ending the quagmire and Bush's escalation. This approach may appeal to Clinton's "third way" instincts, but it's going to alienate alot of voters in our primaries. The Democratic primary voter is not going to be happy with the promise of 75,000 US troops in Iraq in 2009, 2010, 2011....Not to mention that 90% of non-Kurdish Iraqis want the US out now, not in 2011.

Then this:

"She acknowledged that under her strategy American troops would remain virtual bystanders if Shiites and Sunnis killed each other in sectarian attacks. “That may be inevitable,” she said."

Why did Hillary "urge him (Bill) to bomb" in Serbia in an effort to prevent another Rwanda on his watch, while being content to watch the Iraqi civil war from the sidelines?
Makes little sense.

[IndianaGreen]

5. Dov Zakheim reprogrammed money earmarked for Afghan reconstruction to Iraq

Money was spent on the Iraq war buildup. Congress should have looked into this, for only Congress can reprogram funds, but they didn't. A subsequent DOD IG "investigation" went nowhere!