Is Senator Hillary Clinton pro Iraq War?

[IsItJustMe]

I don't follow Hillary much, except to the extent that she may be the next Democratic nominee, but I was listening to ex Senator Gary Hart today on Democracy Now.

From his statements, I would infer that Hillary, Biden And Lieberman are three of the most pro war Democratic Senators that are currently in the Senate.

He said something to the effect that Hillary's position as it stands now, is to actually send more troops into Iraq and thus escalate the situation.

I don't know, but if true this sounds scarier than hell to me.

[LSK]

1. shes in the "Stay the course" camp

Has not hinted otherwise yet.

[coalition_unwilling]

26. Would that be the "Support our Oops" camp? (n/t)

[Clarkie1]

2. There are no Democratic Senators who are Pro-Iraq War. n/t

[IsItJustMe]

4. If she is wanting to send more troops over there, you may argue that she's

not pro Iraq War, but she sure ain't where I'm at on this situation. I think with the given situation, this would be beyond a catastrophe.

[Yollam]

11. Before the war, a lot of my republican co-workers told me...

"Nobody WANTS to go to war. Nobody LIKES war, but sometimes we just have to..."


Why is it that your post reminds me of that?


Oh yeah, it's because a whole bunch of democratic senators voted FOR that fraudulent war, and it was very clearly and obviously fraudulent back then, too.

[endarkenment]

14. Uh?

Could you please elaborate?

[harpo]

29. I would argue that anyone who votes to fund it is for the war...

the only way to make them stop is to take their money away.

[Generator]

53. Wow the things you learn on the DU!

I would say there are no senators for ending the war. Is that the same thing? Not partially withdrawing when XYZ happens but ending the sham war that is serving no purpose-that's right-none but of course putting off the Iraqi civil war by five minutes. Why is the Iraqi civil war my concern? Why am I paying for that? Just to make MORE terrorists? Just to make George Bush's ego happy? Or just for war profiteering? When I hear ONE senator say end the war I think I'll take notice.

[BuyingThyme]

3. Yes, absolutely. If she wasn't you'd know.

[oasis]

5. Hillary and many other Democrats are "pro-not leaving Iraq in a mess."

Whether or not you interpret that position as "pro-war" would depend on your bias.

[endarkenment]

15. Odd way of stating it.

I'd call that weaseling out of admitting that this is a pro-war stance. The Bush administration's policy is officially "pro not leaving Iraq in a mess".

How about we call a spade a spade. Hillary is a pro war Democrat. Until she makes a public statement refuting her numerous pro war statements, she remains a pro war Democrat.

[oasis]

16. Like to take a crack at answering the question on post #10?

;-)

[endarkenment]

19. That is a non answer, as was pointed out in the reply.

Lets put it this way. Hillary, like a lot of other pro war Democrats, remains in the 'must succeed' mode that they adopted soon after no WMD were found. She is not alone on that boat. This position is, in my opinion, either foolish or dishonest as either one foolishly thinks that success is possible, or one is continuing to lie for political purposes. With the Bush crime family, I have no doubt that they are liars. They may also be fools, but that is beside the point. Hillary and the pro war Democrats? I think they are a mixture of fools and cowards.

[oasis]

20. Only straight answers huh? Okay. Hillary would say "no" . I say "no" and

any elected Democrat would say "no".

[endarkenment]

21. Say no to what?

To getting out of Iraq and to stop pretending that we can 'succeed' in some 'mission' that has never even been defined in anything other than empty platitudes?

Russ Feingold and others have stated that we should set a short time table and leave on that schedule. John Murtha has stated that we should move rapidly to redeploy our forces outside of Iraq. Both of them are elected officals.

[oasis]

23. The OP's question: Is Hillary pro-Iraq war?. I say "no".

Edit to add: Why have a timetable? We should just get the hell out.

Is Murtha less of a hawk than Hillary?I don't think so.

[endarkenment]

34. You are playing word games.

Hillary has said nothing to indicate any belief that "We should just get the hell out", that we should rapidly redeploy outside of Iraq, or that we should set a short timetable and withdraw. Instead she has uttered statements that are mildly critical of the administration's conduct of the war while continuing to insist that we must stay and succeed in some ill-defined mission. She is pro Iraq war by the common understanding of what that term means. Like John Kerry in 2004, her criticism amounts to 'Democrats can run this war better than Republicans'. That is a pro war stance and I think you know it.

[oasis]

37. "word games"? "common understanding"? The bottom line answer to the OP's

question is "no". Hillary is NOT pro-war. I can't make it any clearer. If you e-mail her office they would tell you the same.

You and a small minority of Democrats may disagree, but , there it is.

[endarkenment]

39. Here is what Senator Clinton said.

"It is time for the President to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor – not a rigid timetable that terrorists can exploit, but a public plan for winning and concluding the war. And it is past time for the President, Vice President, or anyone else associated with them to stop impugning the patriotism of their critics.'

http://www.clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/index.cfm?topic=iraqletter
Letter to Constituents on Iraq Policy November 29, 2005


Success and honor. Winning and concluding the war. Sorry but you are wrong.

[oasis]

42. "Concluding the war" means ending it. How is that "pro war"?

[endarkenment]

46. You left out the 'Winning and' part.

'Winning and concluding' is what she said, 'Success and honor' were her words.

Do I have to point out the obvious here? Stupid question. The phrase construct '"a" and "b"' means that both conditions have to be true. Hillary wants to conclude AND win. You cannot remove either condition from her statement and claim that she does not hold the other condition as a requirement, at least you cannot do that honestly.

[oasis]

52. "Concluding" was the key word. Hillary wants our troops out of there.

So do I. Who can honestly define what "winning" would be after it's all over? Or who won?

[endarkenment]

54. Now you are just making stuff up.

I quoted you her exact words from her website and you are reduced to telling me she didn't really mean that.

[oasis]

58. I'm telling you what she means. Let go of you bias for a bit and read

the piece with a little objectivity. Then read post #44.

[endarkenment]

60. The objectivity lacking is over in your court.

"winning and concluding the war" is what her position is. You are retreating into reinterpreting those plain and simple words after first insisting that I and others were misstating her position.

Sometimes it is ok to admit that your position is untenable. As the saying goes, when you find yourself stuck in a deep hole, stop digging.

[oasis]

61. Concluding the war with the most positive results possible, could be

interpreted as "winning". I'm willing to accept that as what she meant. A majority of Americans want this war to end that way and Hillary is in alignment with us.

[endarkenment]

62. More word salads

"Concluding the war with the most positive results possible could be interpreted as 'winning'". However that is not what Senator Clinton said. She used the terms "success and honor" and "winning and concluding the war". You continue to reinterpret her plain words for me. I'll stick with what she wrote. Thanks anyway.

[oasis]

63. You're welcome. (n/t)

[shain from kane]

17. Then send engineers, construction workers, etc. Why more troops?

For more mischief. And for empire.

[oasis]

18. Who's going to keep the construction folks from being shot at?

[shain from kane]

25. So our military should be used to protect construction

workers and sites in Iraq? Strange job for the military. Would that require tanks, helicopters, depleted uranium shells, and cruise missles?
What about over here? Should the National Guard be deployed to prevent muggings, lunchbox thefts, arson, and OSHA violations in the U.S.A.?

[endarkenment]

35. Actually we are doing just that.

Our military is protecting halliburton construction workers who are building huge permanent military bases so our military can hole up in safety while Iraq disintegrates.

[oasis]

38. In the 1800's, railroad tracks were laid across America under the

protection of our military. Our citizens are entitled to any safety measures that their country can provide, anywhere. Construction workers, students, tourists, any and all U.S. citizens.

[endarkenment]

41. So lets get this straight.

We can go invade some sorry assed third world nation on false pretexts and then kill the restless natives when they object to our building huge military bases in their land under the banner of 'protecting our citizens', and you are just fine with that?No ethical problem at all?

[oasis]

45. See post # 17 by Shian 'Kane. He says we should bring in engineers,

construction workers etc. You're the one who brought up the issue of permanent bases in Iraq.

[shain from kane]

43. So our nation's "manifest destiny" is to conquer and occupy Iraq?

And the Iraqis are this century's American Indians. And their buffalo has been replaced by oil. And our frontier forts are to be used as staging areas for further conquest.
You know, this shit has to stop.

[oasis]

50. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

[GreenArrow]

36. "Pro-not leaving Iraq in a mess"

Or, to put it another way, she is pro not leaving Iraq until it is fully under our control.

[oasis]

40. Sadly, Hill didn't have a hand in drawing up the blueprints for the war.

She would have done a better job.

[GreenArrow]

47. but she does have a hand

in continuing to support it.

Better than Hilary helping to draw up the blueprints for the war would have been Hilary drawing up blueprints for not going to war.

[endarkenment]

51. Or a simple no vote.

or a clear statement in opposition to the war. Instead we get:

It is time for the President to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor – not a rigid timetable that terrorists can exploit, but a public plan for winning and concluding the war. And it is past time for the President, Vice President, or anyone else associated with them to stop impugning the patriotism of their critics.

"http://www.clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/index.cfm?topic=iraqletter

[GreenArrow]

57. ah yes, "success and honor!"

The only honor gained from this war will be through a willing pentinence.

[mmonk]

48. Too late

[wuushew]

6. yes

n/t

[hughee99]

7. IMHO, Hillary is "Pro Hillary Clinton"

and will take any political position that she believes will help her run for president. You can be sure that this is the setup for later. We will all be surprised when we hear some news organization refer to her as "an outspoken anti-war senator" closer to the election, forgetting all about the position she has now. They'll do this to help her get the nomination and then turn on her in the general election.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oasis]

10. Leading Dems who want our troops out of Iraq within the next 5 min. are?

Let's have this list.please

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oasis]

13. Welcome to DU. As for Feingold vs. Hillary in the 2008 primaries....

There will be at least a half dozen top Dems to choose from.

[Nite Owl]

9. Far as I know

that was her position and it hasn't changed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. She voted for it and still supports the occupation.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

28. Even if the people of NYS (I amongst them) are against it. She couldn't

give a flying f*ck what we think.

[NNN0LHI]

24. She is smart enough to know she can't win as a peace candidate

No one can. Americans aren't real hip on losing wars. They will never support a candidate who says vote for me and I will lose a war.

Don't kill the messenger.

Don

[shain from kane]

27. What if the war is all ready lost? Eisenhower got elected

under his pledge to go to Korea. Nixon got elected with his secret plan to end the war in Viet Nam.

[coalition_unwilling]

32. Let's see -- Nixon's secret plan to end the war in Viet Nam

was actually to expand the war to Laos and Cambodia, to kill lots more yellow people from the air while simultaneously reducing the deaths of white people on the ground.

The war is already lost -- Iraq is Bush's Stalingrad

[shain from kane]

65. The argument was that no one could get elected running as

the peace candidate. I said that Eisenhower pledged to bring an end to the Korean conflict, and still got elected. Nixon was supposed to have a plan to end the Viet Nam War, and convinced even my father to vote for him in 1968, since he didn't want his boys, me and my brother, to be in an overseas war. Since Humphrey did not repudiate Johnson's war policies until too late in the campaign, Nixon may actually have appeared to be the peace candidate, and he won the election. You know, end war = peace candidate. But it became this "peace with honor" bullshit, which they are halfway preaching now, and another 30,000 soldiers died.

[coalition_unwilling]

70. Sorry about that -- sloppy reading\reasoning on my part. Hillary's

"plan" to end the war, as I understand it, is to "send more troops" to Iraq. She'd better get clear on what her position is soon, or I will be working to derail her nomination. If her "plan" to end the war is to expand it (by either increasing troop levels in Iraq or by attacking Iran and/or Syria), then she's no better on this issue than BFEE.

[coalition_unwilling]

30. I heard that Cindy Sheehan met with Hillary and told her

that if she did not renounce her support for the war, Cindy would try to derail her nomination. Since I plan to follow the Sheehan\Code Pink\Winograd line this time around, I will obviously be trying to derail Hillary's nomination also.

It's too bad Americans "aren't real hip about losing wars" -- if that's the case, they shouldn't support imperical excursions that they can't win. By 2008, I predict U.S. body count will be 5000 KIA and 50,000 WIA, barring the emergence of a "National Liberation Front" of Sunni, Shi'ia and Kurdish resistance fighters. In the case of the latter, expect U.S. KIA to be reaching upwards of 25,000 KIA and 100,000 WIA, not to mention plenty of U.S. POWs without Geneva protections, thanks to RummyDummy and Pinche Gonzalez.

[GreenArrow]

31. yes.

If you want to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs.

[Richard Steele]

33. She is "Pro-Hillary", nothing more.

Turning whichever way the polls tell her the wind is blowing;
Full of sound and fury, signifying NOTHING save her own ambitions.

[Lexingtonian]

44. A misunderstanding

Hillary's aides have said her view- and that of a lot of Democratic folks in Congress- is that Iraq is political disaster that Republicans created and deservedly should take them down.

The idea is essentially to give Republicans all the rope they need and force them to take all the responsibility as it fails. That means yielding on all the money and numbers of troops and such, not giving Republicans a factual and substantive reason to blame the failure of the thing on some middling measure that can be pinned on Democrats. That's why when Republicans tried to cut down troop levels in Iraq and were setting up "not enough troops because of Democrats fomenting domestic opposition" as an argument to their voters, Hillary went and said that she was all for keeping 'enough' troops in the country and that the Bush people could or should send more if there weren't enough. That blew that Republican manouver out of the water.

The high level recognition is that Iraq is not won by military means, no matter the lying Republicans engage in or the killing and torture they mete out out of frustration that Iraqis will not conform to their designs. The Bush Administration inability to form an Iraqi government is the central political fact, that's where they're losing Iraq. Each major failure at forming an Iraqi government costs them support on Iraq from another bloc of American voters and exposes them further as deluded incompetents, liars, and criminals.

Hillary's game is to not let Republicans escape the consequences of what they've done. And what it's doing is destroying the average American voter mythology about Republicans and Democrats on 'national defense' since LBJ shot the Democrats' reputation in Vietnam. Average Americans have believed since 1968 and 1975 that Republicans engage in wars that, while contemptible, always end in victory, whereas Democrats don't win wars- or at least not in ways that gratify the American ego. This has been the Republicans' bedrock political selling point- they fight wars against weak opponents at low cost and win in a way that gorges and sates average American ego/vanity and need for glory. Iraq is doing quite a job on this miserable, stupid, desire and belief.

[endarkenment]

49. HRC's game? no idea. her words are pretty clear:

"It is time for the President to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor – not a rigid timetable that terrorists can exploit, but a public plan for winning and concluding the war. And it is past time for the President, Vice President, or anyone else associated with them to stop impugning the patriotism of their critics."
http://www.clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/index.cfm?topic=iraqletter

Until she changes her position, for whatever reason, she is a stay and die must succeed prowar Democrat.

[Disturbed]

55. "finishing this war with success and honor"

What is the exact definition of "success"? What comprises "honor"?

Is there any time frame for this "success"?

[oasis]

56. Excellent post. (n/t)

[hughee99]

59. That's a good policy IF

you are a pundit or a commentator, but Hillary is an elected official. I would like to think that for an elected official, NO ONE'S policy should be "let's see how bad, bad can get, and then it will be easy to make a change". This shows absolutely no leadership. As the ELECTED representative of the people, it is a politicians duty to speak out for the people, and to fight for what they believe. "Give them enough rope to hang themselves" is fine as a PR strategy, but should not be a political position, especially when the "rope" is human lives.

[Egnever]

67. Hillary's game is .......

to not let Republicans escape the consequences of what they've done.

Yes as if she didnt help them along. When are these people ever going to stop twisting the friggin truth?

[Terran1212]

64. Hell YES she is (prove me wrong)!

I saw her speak at Agnes Scott College and she seemed almost proud of the war and what it is doing.

[Al122]

66. My Answer is A Resounding Yes

My answer to the question of whether Hillary Clinton is pro Iraq war is a resounding yes. She is actually far more of a war hawk and enabler of American imperialism than many rank and file Democratic activists and voters realize. Her rhetoric is at times even more strident than that of the worst of the neo-cons.

There is an excellent article profiling Hillary's hawkishness in the March 27 issue of The American Conservative (available online at: http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_03_27/cover.html), a surprisingly good source of lucid and unsparing attacks on the follies of the Bush administration. In it you will see (or be reminded) of how she threw down the gauntlet to Iran during a speech at Princeton in January 2005. Iran, a country that is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1970 which gives it the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and where there is not a shred of evidence that they are doing anything otherwise (See also former CIA Analyst David MacMichael's must read article An Unecessary Crisis: The Iranian Nuclear Showdown on Counterpunch at:http://www.counterpunch.org/macmichael03222006.html). You will also learn how she badgered Bill to bomb Belgrade in 1999 which resulted in the obliteration of military targets like Serb TV (See Exception To The Rulers by Amy Goodman.)

It is high time for anti-war, anti-imperialist, pro-economic justice Democrats to stand up and shout "Enough is enough!"

Al Ronzoni, Jr.

[newyawker99]

68. Hi Al122!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[WA98296]

69. Of course, since she is a CORPORATIST. Where those campaign $$$ come from.