Hillary's War

Hillary Clinton addressed a group of veterans in Kansas City yesterday and proclaimed that "we've begun to change tactics in Iraq," and those changed tactics are "working." "We're just years too late in our tactics," she lamented.

(Note: The first report I read, on Huffington Post and from the New York Post, quoted Hillary as saying "the surge" is working. Now that I have seen the full speech, I can quote her exactly. "We've begun to change tactics" . . . But what else is she talking about except George W. Bush's Hail Mary surge? What other "new tactics" have we begun to try? The surge is the story. She was, of course, talking about the surge. Arguing about how she characterized it misses the essential and crucial point. It obfuscates, as in Karl Obfuscate Rove, which is exactly what every Republican argument is meant to do.)

What does Hillary mean by "working"? How is the surge working? What is it accomplishing? What is it meant to accomplish? What, in the war gospel according to Hillary, is the goal of the surge? Is it the same goal she had in mind when she voted to allow Bush to go to war in Iraq if he wanted to? Is her only regret now that our "tactics" were flawed, i. e., we did not send enough Americans to accomplish whatever the Bush/Clinton goal is right from start?

I suspect all she meant to do in Kansas City yesterday was pander a little to the Vets, be enough of the Hillary they want to get some of their votes, you know. But her declaration that the surge is "working" and that we're just "years too late in our tactics" goes beyond standard politician-pander to reveal something terribly wrong in her thinking. She has given us a glimpse beneath the mask -- there's the real Hillary. Years too late in our tactics? How many more Americans and Iraqis should have died under her leadership, with her superior tactics, to achieve her unspecified goal ("victory"?)? Does she think the American people have turned against this unwinnable, unconstitutional, criminal war only because Bush didn't surge from the beginning?

I have been thinking I would feel compelled to vote for Hillary if the Democrats nominated her because that would be the only meaningful way to cast a vote against the horrifying, entirely and eternally discredited Republican party.

I'm not sure now how meaningful that vote would really be. And I don't think I'm going to be able to do it.

Comments

[marcialosangeles]

I think Hillary's comment was a brilliant anticipation of the positive spin the White House will be putting on the Petraeus comments due on 9/11. They will surely say the surge is working-or beginning to work. Now Hillary will be able to respond, yes, I acknowledged that, but I also pointed out that we have made so many tactical mistakes that it is irrelevent.
And as for the Michelle Obama comments--I hope she was only referring to HER HOUSE--no woman in America should judge another's maritial issues and take a "I'm better than you" position.
Step up to the plate boys, we may just be heading towards a woman president--at least I hope so.

[Maxaron]

Hillary should get her act together and begin to understand that words mean something and that a lot of people will not forgive or understand unpardonably stupid "surge working" remarks. If she's the candidate then I'll swallow my pride and pull her lever but she's not a thoughtful choice for the presidency...unless you like playing it safe, playing to the crowd, and bearing a president's surname for all its worth.

[HartlessBeest]

My first attempt to post the following comment was unsuccessful. So, here goes………..:::::

Hillary has become so intoxicated with what appears to be an irrepressible desire to achieve the impossible dream…….enabling her to cross the threshold of the White House as the first lady President of the United States of America. She couldn’t have made it any clearer, judging from her recent “Vets” speech, there is no doubt she is pandering by adopting a ‘militaristic’ stance to further her own objectives. Whether or not she assumes the throne vacated by GWB still remains to be seen, but I don’t entertain any hopes that U.S. policy will undergo any drastic change and will more or less continue as it was under the Cheney/Bush Regime. Right from the very beginning of the Iraq onslaught, the so-called ‘tactics” that were adopted have not proven successful and it is likely that any future ones will end up with the same dismal result.

If Democrats are truly willing to launch the country into a positive direction, as opposed to the past seven years of almost perpetual nightmares, they need to stand firm against the destructive forces of the present “un-leadership”, taking the bull by the horns, so to speak, and stop the wasteful warmongering and investing all the resources into the country’s future economy and wellbeing.

The only Democrat Candidate whom I believe could rid us of the scourge of destructive government policy, in my opinion, is Kucinich.

Certainly NOT HILLARY!!

[Komodo]

Hillary Rodham Clinton (R-NY) is the daughter of two Republicans, went to law school and chose to become a corporate lawyer (that's someone who protects corporate interests), is a member of the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) a Right-leaning organization bent on converting America to fasctism, is best friends with Rupert Murdoch (which is why she is all over the media - which RM owns), had lunch with Karl Rove at the WH in Nov '06 (where they discussed new draperies, yuh, right!), sat as a trustee for Wal-Mart, received 25M dollars from Wal-Mart (no quid pro quo here), is onboard with NAFTA (North American Trade Agreement which is out to gut American workers and join Mexico, America, and Canada into one country), GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; translation: screwy trade agreements which allow Chinese manufactured goods to enter the US under a 2% tariff, while American manufactured goods that enter China get slammed with a 20% tariff,) the WTO (World Trade Organization that believes in Free Trade which is actually rigged trade for which Americans will pick up 23% of the bureaucratic operating expenses,) the Bill Clinton Telecomunications Act of 1996 (which essentially killed news and endorsed Republican propaganda ensuring that opinion is fact where dogs are cats and purple is Monday), has stated openly in the Democratic Debates that she will not give up her dependency on corporate contributions (why should she when she's in their service?), has commented that she has "no sympathy for Americans because they don't know how good they have it," is a Blue Dog Democrat (you may hear Republican mole in the party, like Joe Lieberman,) is onboard with continuing war in the middle east (no matter how illegal, inhumane, unethical or flat out evil it is because it's "doing business" and doing business makes money.) This gal is all about the money and the ends justify the means.

[Gileo30]

After reading all this stuff the only thing I wish for is a THIRD Party to evaluate.

[apcalc]

I like what Kucinich says too. He had a bad tenure as mayor of Cleveland.

Vote for who you want in the primary, and may the best person win.

We should all support whoever wins the (Democratic)nomination. One lesson to be learned from the election fiasco of 2000.... if only the Nader voters would have voted for Gore.............
Yes Nader Voters,I too liked Ralph Nader, and I know you wanted to make a point.....but LOOK WHAT HAPPENED!!!!

Think - Guiliani, Thompson, Romney......and then vote Democratic!!!!

[raswicai]

More of the same here from HuffPo bloggers. I love the idea of this site, but so many of the postings and comments have become utterly predictable. Most of the comments and many of the postings (including this one) show very little effort to really get to the bottom of an issue. It is clear that the majority of HuffPo commentators dislike Hillary Clinton. Ok, fine. But don't let that disproportionately alter your view on EVERY issue that she plays some part in.

People do the same thing with President Bush. I too think he's made a terrible president, and that's an understatement. But sheesh, people, is every single moment of his life as president absolutely corrupt, ignorant, or evil? ... No!

I think there are plenty of things to question in regards to Hillary Clinton. But lets look at her and the other candidates in an intelligent, critical way. That also means that we can be critical of Senator Obama. He is not above criticism. Don't just be sheep and simply find the best person to dislike.

We need some intelligent discourse in this country, not the same old left vs. right.

[HartlessBeest]

Nonamnesiac, I agree.
=====================
Hillary has become so intoxicated with what appears to be an irrepressible desire to achieve the impossible dream…….enabling her to cross the threshold of the White House as the first lady President of the United States of America. She couldn’t have made it any clearer, judging from her recent “Vets” speech, there is no doubt she is pandering by adopting a ‘militaristic’ stance to further her own objectives. Whether or not she assumes the throne vacated by GWB still remains to be seen, but I don’t entertain any hopes that U.S. policy will undergo any drastic change and will more or less continue as it was under the Cheney/Bush Regime. Right from the very beginning of the Iraq onslaught, the so-called ‘tactics” that were adopted have not proven successful and it is likely that any future ones will end up with the same dismal result.

If Democrats are truly willing to launch the country into a positive direction, as opposed to the past seven years of almost perpetual nightmares, they need to stand firm against the destructive forces of the present “un-leadership”, taking the bull by the horns, so to speak, and stop the wasteful warmongering and investing all the resources into the country’s future economy and wellbeing.

The only Democrat Candidate whom I believe could rid us of the scourge of destructinve government policy, in my opinion, is Kucinich.

Certainly NOT HILLARY!!

[jr9657]

I would definitely have to agree....

[frank67]

Hillary is a DLC person, same as Bill. Personally, I have absoluely no use for the DLC. These are those same consultants who have won one election in the last the last six. In fact, most of the 2006 winners were NOT the DLC choices. Thank liberals!
Look at Ambassador Lieberman - he won with RepubThug votes - not Democratic ones!
"Smarty" Rahm Emanuel personally caused the loss of the IL 6th open seat!
The DNC and DLC choice in Montana was NOT Jon Tester, who won!

[reinaldok]

I do my best to keep up with the political news. Mainly internet, certainly not tv (Foxes,Wolves etal.) You can't rely on the print guys either. I sure must have missed something big. I certainly was not aware that the neo-Bush-cons had named Hillary to replace
Karlie Rove. (She sounds just like him.)

[neoconscums]

And that is exactly what we are going to get if we stay in Iraq. THE DEATH OF A HUNDRED THOUSAND AND MORE. So what is the point. Next suggestion, please.

[bassclef]

Hillary's a lost cause. She didn't "get" that Bush was blowing smoke 5 years ago; she took 3+ years to figure out that occupying Iraq was a colossal blunder; even then, she won't remedy her error by withholding funding; now she reveals her moderate Republican core by supporting the surge. Ditto for Nancy Pelosi.

I will not vote for HillaRepublican Clinton, not will I vote for any incumbents in 2008.

Write in Greens for a change. It is the only possible way to wake the spineless Democrats.

[chrematophobe]

Right there with you,Frank. Are we in for another election cycle of no choice? Between big media and the middle branch of the military industrial complex otherwise known as the Democratic Party, all other options are being snuffed. We need another party NOW. We need voter & campaign finance reform before democracy as our founders intended it is defunct. Well anyway, thanks for the thoughtful blog.

[TheLastPenguin]

REUTERS
Updated: 4:18 p.m. PT Aug 21, 2007
KANSAS CITY, Missouri - Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday told U.S. military veterans who largely back the war in Iraq that he is committed to pulling the troops out — something his Democratic presidential rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, played down when she spoke to the group earlier.

Some among the thousands at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Kansas City gave the Illinois senator high marks for confronting the issue loudly and up-front, even if many didn’t agree with his stand.

Obama, 46, praised U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq as having performed brilliantly, but reiterated a call to withdraw combat troops, saying “there is no military solution in Iraq.”