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

[gardenbookie]

slc20 - I hope you're right. Is it time for a woman in the White House? Yup. This woman? Nope. I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton if she was the last candidate on earth. Of ANY party.

[JPHogan]

Well I for one am feeling better about Hillary's poll numbers after just reading three pages of these comments. I thought they were off the wall, the poll results that is. Still, though in the off chance Dems nominate Hillary I think we should start the legislative process to give Bush the extra year in office as an interim government, the extra year Hillary thinks she will need to make sure she can meet with foreign leaders without just being a propaganda tool of such.

[AcitizenNJ]

"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."

Frank, what your pointing out here rings very loud about every elected official both democrats and republicans allowing this president to invade another country. it's the very reasons you spotlight here that a lot of Americans have no ideal who to vote for. As for me i don't really see much difference between any of them. the time to rail against this government action was a long time ago. iraq is what it is and i have little hope for it's recovery no more than those recovering victim's of katrina right here in our backyard.

[dirtyrearend]

I was going to vote for Hillary as well, but she makes me sick. She is taking money from Haliburton and being bought by all the republican backers. Her hubby seems to spend his days at bushs daddy house. Hillary even says that lil georgie bush is "very charming."
I believe most Americans feel we should get a new party because the dems and repukes are now one and the same. Does anyone have any info on Dennis Kucinich?

[rmreddicks]

Hillary quotes Archibald Macleish at VFW.

"As the poet Archibald MacLeish reminds us in his poem, "The Young Dead Soldiers Do Not Speak," those we have lost have a silence that speaks for them at night. They say we have done what we could, but until it is finished, it is not done. They say our deaths are not ours; they are yours. They will mean what you make of them. They say we leave you our deaths. Give them their meaning."

Ol' Archie was all about bombing Hiroshima. Let us give meaning to the deaths of 100,000 civilians. I guess Hillary's not taking nukes off the table.

[Dredd]

Ditto. Hillary is no John Kennedy and Hillary is no Bill Clinton.

[Toole]

American politics is not based on democracy or the rule of law and justice but caters to the desire of those holding the biggest purses.
All candidates parrot the same line to please their sponsors. Republicans and Democrats are the two sides of the same coin.

[titotitotito]

I heard this speech on the television last nite... she said the surge was working in Anbar province..­. not that it is working in all of Iraq. And her point was actually that the Bush administration has blown it really, not changing tactics in a timely manner.

[Mahavishnu]

I expect the right-wingers, who call Hillary Clinton "ultra-liberal" to lie and mislead...­but it makes me sick to my stomach when the Left does it. It is not what we are about. If one reads that speech and comes to the conclusion that it is a pro-war/pro-Bush speech...t­hey are either dishonest, blinded by hate or stupid. Take your pick.

[nippersdad]

Again, it is not that anyone misunderstands what she said, it is that what she said is at odds with what we wish to see in our candidate.

If the surge is working in Anbar it is because we are arming and training people who will be one of the sides in the all out civil war that Iraq will become. It may be working now, but will it be serving any but the insurgents needs next week? We have done this before in Afghanistan and I trust you know how that turned out?

[xpresv]

The dirty little secret is here:

The Republicans want Hillary to be the Dem nominee, simply because people like you and me know she's a phony and will have a hard time voting for her. That makes their job easier. Duh.

Edwards and Obama are both just what we need in the coming years to repair the damage done by Bush and his cronies. Even if you don't like them that much, in my opinion, they are shining stars in a world of dim bulbs. They're the best we've got.

And for the record, if I could have my choice for a female nominee: ARIANNA. Though it may never happen, it would be nice to have leadership with an independent voice; not just saying what the audience wants to hear.

I can dream...

[joja]

xpresv --

agree with you about arianna. she'd get my vote in a heartbeat if she ran for prez.

obama, at least, represents the future.

edwards, i'm not so sure of. for some reason i feel he's trying to exploit his wife's cancer to get people to support him (sorry, but the yellow bracelet is waaaaay too obvious).

[georgecrupper]

Definition of surge working "When the 2 million Iraqis have decided to come home because the country has electricity, water and bridges." that's what Bush has promised..­.

[jginnane]

This is a sloppy post. Hillary did NOT say "the surge is working" -- she said the tactics in Al Anbar (which was never part of the "surge") have changed, and are working.

That's miles apart from the headline. Shame! -- Mr. Dwyer, are you watching too much Faux Noise these days? :-(

[nippersdad]

Even given the distinction you make, I fail to see how arming and training both sides of an incipient (if not actual) civil war gets us anywhere in the long run. The fundamental premise is flawed, buying into the existing process to any degree whatsoever is not what we want to see
in our candidate.

If she is unwilling to even compromise with the base for the primaries, what do you think she is going to do once she is the nominee?

[jd91854]

If people would just stop listening to the media that tells them who the leading candidates are (Clinton & Obama) and just listens to John Edwards then maybe they would see that there is someone who can make a difference.

[RusStyles]

JE is a successful trial lawyer, what political accomplish­ments--com­pared to Obama--can he hang is hat on? Granted, he's a good talker, as he should be, then what? How do you prop yourself as the poor man's candidate, then get $400 trims, and build a 28,000 sq ft palace; aren't there some inherent and troubling incongruencies between his words and actions?

[GreedyOldPsychopaths]

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, hello? Wealth does not necessarily preclude benevolence and generosity. Roosevelt, while wealthy, reformed government for the poor. Edwards was born impoverished and made his fortune standing up to big business for the poor.

[joja]

This is why HC is the worst candidate the Dems could pick for 2008.

She is tied to the past and has no vision.

Either that, or she has no integrity, which is worse.

Yes, as previous posters have suggested, she DOES know how to play the political game, only she plays the dark side too well.

I see this as pandering to big business interests -- the wink & nod to them that contracts for reconstruction will not be interfered with or abandoned if she's elected -- in other words, business as usual.

If James Carvill's strategy is to woo potential Independents & Republicans over to her side, he has badly miscalculated her appeal.

This, like so many other issues on which she has commented, is clothed in the ideals of the entrenched politics of the day -- ambiguity, ambiguity, always ambiguity.

[kozy]

Frank, you and the many that think like you, are the only hope the Republicans have. Republicans are counting on disarray among those potential Democrat voters. Political Guru Rove has even said so in effect. Many Libs seem to have a real problem with ANY compromise. They'd rather throw their vote away and elect a Bush clone, than select an imperfect moderate candidate over a far right extremist. The GOP wins again.

[Independent voter]

I don't believe that Hillary has any intention of ending this war. IMHO this woman is a cold, calculating bitch who will say anything to anybody in order to win.

If the surge is such a great plan, why isn't her kid a part of the surge?

I'm voting ABC - anybody but clinton