Hillary In Response To Bush Drivel This Morning: "Start Getting Out Now"

[kpete]

This is a statement from Hillary Clinton, just released, in response to Bush's drivel this morning.


WASHINGTON, DC – “Our brave troops have been doing everything asked of them for four and a half years. And they have been doing everything asked of them since the Administration announced the surge. The surge was designed to give the Iraqi government time to take steps to ensure a political solution to the situation. It has failed to do so. The White House's report in September won’t change that. It is abundantly clear that there is no military solution to the sectarian fighting in Iraq. We need to stop refereeing the war, and start getting out now.”

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26096

[acmavm]

1. Here are the reader's comments

<SNIP>

Comments
But how will she and the other dems, especially the blue dogs(republicans posing as democrats), vote. Bet their conscious betrays the troops and america again.
w is the luckiest criminal in the history of the world that I can think of and the house and senate are just a bunch of corporate lackeys that just want to get re-elected once again.

samosamo | 08.22.2007 - 12:50 pm
she's not being truthful..

If the surge was designed to give the government time to work, why was the government on Vacation for most of the surge?
Hillary Murdoch | 08.22.2007 - 12:53 pm

[Stephanie]

4. Hllary Murdoch!

:rofl:

[acmavm]

8. I was wondering if anyone else would see that.

[William769]

2. She's right on the money again as usual. NT

[dmallind]

3. b..bb...bbut she's a warmonger! She's just like Bush!

I know - I bet she's triangulating for her corporatist masters to only pretend she wanst to get the troops out!!!

[kenny blankenship]

6. Start getting out now - but never leave.

[dmallind]

7. Dammit no matter how hard I try

to encapsulate all the denail and tin foil hattery I always seem to miss some aspect of it.

We have never left Germany or Korea or Japan, or even England. Is that warmongering? Is that just like Bush? I mean personally I'd take a long hard look at closing those bases too, but it's hardly the equivalent of Alexander the Great to have them there.

[kenny blankenship]

11. So you admit she's not going to actually leave Iraq. THANK YOU!

Present US policy is splitting Iraq into partitions: divide and conquer style. Occupation of Germany and Japan was the result of THOSE COUNTRIES STARTING WORLD WAR II. Give me a fucking break. We didn't occupy those countries for their oil. Today after having invaded Iraq and having failed at creating a loyal client state, we are now splitting Iraq into a Sunni West and arming them against the Shia Government because that Shia majority is too friendly with Iran. We will play these factions against each other for years and decades. Playing "Divide and conquer" is absolutely worthy of comparison to history's worst empires. The people who will do most of the dying in our game will be the Iraqis, for as long as we stretch this game out.

Now you can oppose this policy, or you can go along with it and fund it. And if you go along with it, you share in Bush's guilt. He is going down in history as a mass murderer. And you will be his helper.

I don't hear Hillary Clinton opposing ANYTHING about this war. Her objection seems to be that the murder up to now has not been efficient enough. Of course she has a problem in that the grass roots of the Democratic Party wants us out of Iraq yesterday. So she speaks out of both sides of her mouth, as politicians do. "Start leaving now!" she says and you hear what you want to hear. But she also says "leave a residual force!"
No US forces "residual" or not (whatever you think that means) have any legal business being in Iraq. But put that aside - do you know who else will start drawing down forces soon in Iraq? George W. Bush and his Generals. That's right slappy. Heading into the Summer of 08, forces will "draw down" for the simple reason that the Surge cannot be sustained. That's not news and it's not debatable, the Surge has always been temporary by its nature. Brigades that would be now held in reserve and rotating in at that time have instead been rotated in already. There are no replacements. So older units will leave Iraq and the overall numbers will decline, conveniently ahead of the elections. Bush's stated goal is for the Iraqi Army to strengthen itself to the point where it can shoulder responsibility for security and stability. At which point, the United States forces will "stand down" and become a -yes- residual force. Hillary's "plan" is Bush's plan. She even praises the new tactics Bush's top General has deployed. Unfortunately, since this involves taking the Sunnis side and arming their tribal leaders against the Shia dominated government, those new tactics are driving the country to secession and civil war.

I guess we'll have to stay in Iraq to separate the warring sides and prevent that civil war from spilling over borders, huh? Meanwhile, we'll just help ourselves to a little oil which is only right and just since we are doing SO MUCH to help the poor childlike Iraqis who can't manage without us.

[dmallind]

12. I neither agree nor disagree

I suspect it depends on what happens in the region and if anything can be gained by having some troops there. What rational person would completely rule out any people staying if they can be of use? That's the trouble with ANY of these "absolute" litmus tests. Nobody can rule out the use of force against Iran for example. What happens if Iran attacks us or our allies? Do we not respond because of some absolute guarantee the partisans wanted in the primaries? Similarly we cannot sensibly rule out ANY US military presence in Iraq. If (by some strange miracle) a functional country or more than one - after all Iraq is a fictional country created out of thin air by the Brits just a few decades ago - can come out of this mess and can be assisted in that by US troops why would we not do that?

My personal stance is irrelevant to HRC's of course but I doubt they are that far apart - and that is we end this silly occupation as quickly as we safely (for us and those helping us) can, then see what happens and if troops - which we could station elsewhere in the region for quick deployment - are necessary for any peacekeeping or support/training role.

[kenny blankenship]

13. I see now: we can't leave Iraq because we are actually at war with Iran.

I guess we've always been at war with Iran.

You're probably right. Iran needs us to "do some good" for them too.

[dmallind]

15. Huh?

At least try to make sense in tin foil hatting.

Surely you can handle two examples without conflating them?

[kenny blankenship]

16. EXCUSE ME! YOU are the one who justified our presence in iraq by the threat of Iran

At least try to show you are familiar with what you just wrote not half an hour ago.
(Don't bring that weak shit in here)

[dmallind]

17. Huh again?

Nope not at all. Not even implied. I used Iran as a real example of the silliness of asking for absolute guarantees that option X is off the table or that we can predict everything that will happen. No more no less.

I quote myself: "That's the trouble with ANY of these "absolute" litmus tests. Nobody can rule out the use of force against Iran for example"

Note the introduction of absolute litmus tests in general (of which pulling everybody out of Iraq regardless of further developments is just one). Note the "for example". Not the complete lack of connection to any statement about Iraq.

It's made even more clear by a subsequent sentence "Do we not respond because of some absolute guarantee the partisans wanted in the primaries? Similarly we cannot sensibly rule out ANY US military presence in Iraq. "

Notice the "similarly". Notice the absence of causal or even correlated connection.

[Stephanie]

10. that's the plan

never leave, just stop doing all that nasty police work. continue to man the enduring bases and the world's largest embassy, forever.

[sandnsea]

5. Wish she'd said that in front of the VFW

Better late than never though.

[YOY]

9. "but keep all the same numbers on the speed dial...we'll need them."

n/t

[BuyingThyme]

14. What about the "tactics"?

:rofl:

[ThomWV]

18. How does that compare to what she said yesterday or may say tomorrow?

Depends on who's in front of her face at the moment I suppose.

[Disturbed]

19. The Grand Game

The majority of Dems support the US Occupation of Iraq for an indefinite time frame; that includes Sen. Clinton. . There are various reasons for this. You can speculate as to those reasons. The US Occupation will continue & the Dems will keep funding it. There will be a draw down but at least 60K US Troops & 140K Mercs will remain in Iraq. US presence in Iraq will continue for decades.

[DCKit]

21. Is that enough to defend against an all-out attach from Iran? Just asking. n/t

[Faux pas]

20. She sure shifts with the wind. Hitlery is too far right for me. (Sung

to the tune of the Doobie's "Jesus Is Just Alright By Me".)

[fightindonkey]

22. She Hasn't Shifted Anything

People need to read what she's saying fully. The Bush Administration wants our troops to make something out of a shithole. They even blame them for not making it into something.

[Faux pas]

23. Ahem, just a few days before she made the get out statement she

made a statement saying how the surge was working. She speaks with forked tongue out of both sides of her face.