Clinton's Moderate Tone on Iraq Troop Withdrawal

[laststeamtrain]

Clinton's Moderate Tone on Iraq Troop Withdrawal
by Jason Horowitz | January 2, 2008

While John Edwards is staking out a more anti-war stance in these last days before the Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton has, if anything, gone back to striking a more cautious tone on the subject of removing troops from Iraq.

She still says that her goal is “bringing our troops home as quickly and responsibly as I possibly can,” but she is not as emphatic about it as she was, for example, in May, when she delivered the line, “If President Bush doesn't end the war in Iraq before he leaves office, when I'm president, I will.”

<more>

http://www.nyobserver.com/2008/clinton-takes-more-cautionary-tone-iraq-troop-withdrawal
*

[David Dunham]

1. Hillary has a better position for the general election.

[jakem]

2. lame. nt

[Sparkly]

3. But true.

They all have basically the same position, but I think she'd have an easier time defending hers because she's been so careful with her wording.

[jakem]

4. now lame and ridiculous. nt

[Sparkly]

5. Still true, though.

Wait and see. No matter who our candidate is, the GOP will go after them with "doesn't support the troops" and "cut and run" and "national security" and "terror terror terror."

Our candidate needs to say that withdrawing troops from the civil war in Iraq can be done in a way that doesn't endanger the troops (= carefully), that there's a diplomatic, multi-national plan for the aftermath, that our embassy will be guarded and that permanent bases aren't needed as there will be enough troops left to jump into action against Al Qaeda if necessary.

They will be looking to pick out any statements that look like our candidate said they want to withdraw recklessly, etc.