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

[Bettysdad]

Why did Mrs. Bill Clinton (and that's all she is) keep using the terms "we," "we're," and "our" in describing tactics?

This is Bush's and the Republicans war. All Democrats must put the blame where it lays, and keep hitting Repubs over the head every chance possible.

Unless, of course, the Democrat isn't really upset about the war.

[ohboy]

Ahem. There is no war on terror, you frittering nitwits. There is only an imperialist superpower with geopolitical motivations slaughtering innocents and beating up on defenseless nations for the benefit of corporate hegemony. So, what exactly is Hillary talking about? Who knows--other than her PR machine. But one thing is for sure. Saddam Hussein did a lot better job in Iraq than the combined resources of the U.S. and it's coalition harem. No wonder we groomed, armed and funded the guy for so long.

[jaygirl]

I would never vote for Hilary. Her gender has nothing to do with it! The problem with Hilary is that she talks out of both sides of her mouth. She votes for the invasion of Iraq. Then seems to be repentant. And now says things are working there. Just what does this mean? Does she say this because corporations love her and contribute millions to her campaign while Rupert Murdock, the media mogul, is her buddy? Could it mean that she thinks it is worthwhile to hang on so we can steal the OIL from Iraq and Iran? Does it mean that she expects Democracy to take over? Does it mean that she accepts nearly 4000 dead American soldiers and 1,000,000 dead and displaced Iraqis? Does it mean that it is OK to kill innocent women and children? Does she think that it is worthwhile to continue to poison Iraq with spent Uranium and other pollutents? Is it her tactic to continue the enormous waste of money and outright theft of billions of dollars by various independent contractors? Does it mean that spending millions on the largest Embassy in the world, helps the Iraqis? Does she think we can "win"in Iraq? WIN WHAT IS THE QUESTION? At home, because of this "war", we have already lost our Constitutional rights, our treasure, our Democracy and a fair and just political process. Most people think the United States is being run by the scum of the earth. It's hard to argue with that!

[azbirds]

Hillary Clinton has become more in the Bush "mindset" in the last few years. The Clinton's have become more Corporate and have earned a lot of personal money, that is now their agenda. I am a registered Democrat now, but will not vote for Hillary Clinton, because she has become more interested in Power. I will change my status to Independant voter.
Any self-respecting woman that was not only interested in money and power would have divorced Bill Clinton.

[newsweek1945]

IF SHE BELIEVES SO MUCH IN VETERANS, WHY DOES'NT SHE ALLOW THEM TO BE VETERANS INSTEAD OF MORE CANNON FODDER FOR AN UNJUST INVASION? I HAVE ALWAYS VIEWED HER AS A REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE TO THE "CHIMP", BUT SHE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN SEDUCED BY ITS IDIOTOC "SENSE?" OF MORALITY AND RIGHT AND WRONG. GOD HELP AMERICA.

[Rosey]

Hillary Clinton as a candidate is only inviting another Replublican president. I am a STAUNCH Democrat and I cannot see her winning with half the nation hating her. Frankly I would have trouble voting for her.... but President Romney gives me convulsions! Are we Dems so blind and such wussies that we cannot put forth a real candidate who can win? Do we want 8 more years of right-wing freaks? Apparently.

[SONWABO MDA]

I agree with you that by declaring that the surge is working Hillary Clinton was in fact pandering to that war-leaning constituency. Hillary, understandably, is convinced that she has already won the primaries and has nothing to lose at this stage if she straddles toward the center , and beyond to the right in order to win the general election. Without any core beliefs herself, she is taking for granted the Democrats who are afterall equally bereft of core values themself as much as they are devoid of fundamental principles and ideological clarity, and would thus have no choice but to go along with her, the "seasoned" political veteran whose professed battles against the political right is as duplicitous as it is dubious. With this in mind, then, it should be clear that Hillary's politics, reminiscent of her husband's is driven by an overriding sense of opportunism as compounded by her unscrupulous impulses.

Hence after months of protracted and intense public opposition to the Iraqi war, as well as unmitigated skepticism about the troop surge, recent reports point to the likelihood that the situation in Iraq may be improving. If this is indeed the case, then, with the prospects of actual improvement being likely to be realized, Hillary wants to preserve a viable option of asserting that she has supported the war all along. Nothing could be more opportunistic than that.

[rpmcestmoi]

Baloney you couldn't vote for her. In an election the result of the regular republican looneys is unthinkable.

But as to the issue and the lady with the grand cojones, she actually doesn't have the stomach for saying she was wrong voting for the war, nor does she apologize for screwing us out of universal health care because of her hubrisitic handling of the issue when she was the King's wife. She is just one of the boys mouthing the same old tired cliches about tipping hands, standing strong, and other bs. But she would be preferable to any of the wolves in Eephant's clothing.

[PoliceState]

I agree.

Hillary is a hawkish Republican neocon. If elected, she will represent the same interests as Bush: the military industrial complex and Wall Street.

Wall Street and the M.I.C. have managed to buy Hillary just like they bought a once-reasonable Joe Lieberman.

[hilow64]

You really don't get it do you?

Hillary is the corporate candidate of the Democratic Party,and her policies,if she is allowed to be president,will be those of her corporate masters.

[RPJ]

THE POINT IS THE SURGE, SO WHAT???? THEY WILL CONTINUE TO PURSUE THIS WAR AS LONG AS THEIR CRONIES CONTINUE TO MAKE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. BOTH PARTIES ARE INVOLVED, AS WE HAVE SEEN OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS. THEY ALL CONTINUE TO VIOLATE THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE, WITH LITTLE FEAR OF ACCOUNTABILITY. WHO IN GOVERNMENT IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE??? OBVIOUSLY ELECTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN EFFECTIVE TO CHANGE THEIR ERRANT WAYS. WHAT'S NEXT???

[DoctorDoctor]

hillary isn't and won't be the dem candidate unless the dems let the repubs frame her in that role. hillary is practicing politics as the art of the achievable. i suspect there's something of a disconnect between her rhetoric and her intent -- necessary these days. but i wouldn't interpret her comment too desperately. you won't hear that kind of thing from edwards -- and he can win it, which is why such entities as fox and cnn just don't cover him. what better way to downplay his message -- just like 2004.

please, please, please don't let them do this to us again. fool us twice, shame on us. oh. that was 2004. is there a "fool us thrice --" epithet? hope not.

[solid]

I really would like for someone to explain this to me: How do you know so definitively that U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will lead to total chaos and dramatically worse bloodshed than we have right now? And if we are so concerned about having the blood of people on our hands, why the hell aren't we doing something about Darfur?

[Takumar]

I think the biggest mistake the Democrats could possibly make would be to nominate Senator Clinton. The reason she's "ahead" in the race at the moment is simply because she serves the interests of the entrenched power structure more than any other candidate. A Clinton candidacy would bring out the absolute worst of the Republicans' dirty tactics, and she is least likely to speak to anti-Republicans' desires for reform and need for idealism. It would be a messy, debilitating election and would probably result in the election of another Republican president, which, of every possible result, is the one the nation least needs.

[Olek]

I don't think there is any "real" Hillary. She is at the apex of a machine to win the election and will say anything the focus group analysis says gains points. What she would do in office is a mystery, but likely she'd cover her military and police flanks, so it means more of the same. Remember she criticized Obama for ruling out a nuclear attack on Iran (of course, while criticizing him for proposing to go after Osama in his cave). If Bush attacks Iran, don't count on Hillary to oppose it, as the Israelis will back it. The election will shape up as Bush, in the person of the Republican candidate, and Bush Light, in the person of Hillary. The voters may just go for the real thing.