HRC-- Hillary Rodham Cheney -- in Iraq?

Hillary Clinton put a brave face on it during her Iraq visit. The spate of bombings in Iraq are "in an unfortunately tragic way, a signal that the rejectionists fear that Iraq is going in the right direction." Well, I guess.

But isn't that the very kind of language that Dick Cheney was using when he divulged on "Larry King Live" in June 2005 that the Iraq insurgency was "In the last throes." There would be no more fighting, Cheney said, by the time George W. Bush left office. Cheney's throes threw everyone else for a loop. Iraq came close to total meltdown shortly after Cheney delivered himself of his verdict.

Clinton's remarks about rejectionists, by the same token, should be creating dejectionists in America. She sounds like the Bush administration warmed over, trying to spin her way out of a revival of terror that may well make a mockery of the surge. All along the problem confronting the Obama administration is that it wants "peace with honor," to borrow a term from the Nixon administration, but maintaining a modicum of stability in Iraq is already beginning to run up against its promise to withdraw troops.

Most likely, President Obama will pullout no matter what the consequences. The right, in turn, will claim that he muffed the ball that Bush handed him and lost Iraq. No matter what gloss the Obama administration puts on it, it's between Iraq and a hard place. And emulating Cheney isn't going to help matters.

Comments

[DinkSinger]

Mr. Heilbrunn ignores the Status of Forces Agreement agreement that the Bush administration negotiated with Iraq. The obvious course for the Obama administration is to order the military to follow this negotiated settlement to the letter. Unfortunately, this has not been done up until now. Currently the Obama administration is trying to get Iraq to allow us to keep combat troops in populated areas beyond the June 30 deadline. (The msm, including yesterday's New York Times insists on misreporting this as " the June 30 deadline for withdrawing American combat troops from Iraqi cities". The language in the SOFA is "cities, villages and localities".) Most American's are unaware that under the terms of the Bush SOFA the Iraqis can order our military forces out at any time and that the Iraqi people will decide by referendum on July 30 if the deadline for the withdrawal of all US forces should be moved up from December 2011 to July 2010.

The actions of the US military in Kut yesterday show that the provisions of the Bush SOFA which states "No detention or arrest may be carried out by the United States Forces ... except through an Iraqi decision issued in accordance with Iraqi law ..." are being ignored. The US military command stated that the raid was "fully coordinated and approved by the Iraqi government". The Iraqis deny this, but even if true it falls far short of the SOFA requirement.

[edgraham]

President Obama has my full support. His decissions have supported my desire for a better America. But, I do have a suggestion - - Get out of Iraq, and stay out of any trumped-up wars that only feed corporate greed.

War is not the answer. We live in a global society. America's greatness should set an example for the rest of the world.

[ThoughtfullyYours]

Obama said our troops would be there through 2010. Nobody called him Barack Bush. Hilary has to maneuver her policy within the parameters set by Obama and he already said the US would be there for a while.

I find the nature of the criticism against Hilary Clinton to be colored with unnecessary invective. I mean "Cheney?" Puleeze. She does not have a republican voting record and at the rate Obama has punted the ball on torture, state secrets, wiretapping, not reinstating Glass-Steagall, and handing the financial crisis by deferring to Geithner (no mark to market, not trying to implement Hilary's proposed solution when she was a senator of reinstating HOLC and using some of the tools from past recessions), it seems like the same chorus from the primaries that was trying to put a negative spin on everything she does is still at it.

[partyofone]

Are you saying that Hillary continues to be a victim and now it's Obama's fault? Does that mean that Obama is now part of the "vast right wing conspiracy" ?

[fayemac]

That doesnt make any sense at all. That" vast right wing conspiracy"that she stated then, had taken over the the last 8 years, and ruined this country. Maybe if they had listened to Hillary back then we wouldnt be in this pridiciment now.They couldnt get them on policy so they went the low road and attacked them personaly (sounds like you partyofone).How profoundly insightfull Hillary was and still is.

[anticds]

Here's Exhibit 1.

[kempis]

To the author: what DO you suggest the U.S. do with regard to Iraq? I ask with no animosity and considerable curiosity. Obviously, you disagree with this path, so you must have a different solution in mind. It would be interesting to see what it is. Maybe it's something worth hearing.

[Manx]

After hearing Clinton's remarks about Iraq, It occurs to me that the Bush script is still being repeated - only the cast has changed.

[Reighben Labilles]

I think she has no choice. America has to save face in terms of its efforts in Iraq despite its dismal performance there. She always needs to put a positive spin, for the sake of morale. A lot of people already now that going there was founded on bad intelligence. She's just doing damage control. It is likely that this'll keep up until Obama finally pulls out the armed forces from Iraq. Because if she admitted that Iraq is mostly unstable and that instability calls for US presence (since the US is responsible for the mess anyway), calls might be made for continued occupation.

Of course that shouldn't happen. Iraq, despite having terrorist cells of its own, is harmless compared to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Palestine. These three countries are hotbeds of super anti-American terrorist groups that are more organized than the ones in Iraq. World security depends on the suppression of these groups and not Iraq.

At most , America should leave a super small contingency force to train local Iraqi armed forces and police to handle the rebels on their own. At that point, they'll set their sights on the states that actually have terrorist groups that pose as threats to the America and the rest of the World.

I just hope that in the future battles, they'd have a definitive time table to suppress the enemy, reestablish peace, and exit country. And not the vague schedule that way being pushed around during the Bush years.

[dynwitch]

You could just as well have compared her comment to any number of comments made by any number of other administrations, including LBJ with Vietnam, FDR with Germany/Japan, Lincoln with the Civil War, etc., etc. Cheney was merely saying what diplomats say, and so was Clinton. Just because we now know the sinister realities behind Cheney's comment, it does not follow that Clinton also has some sort of sinister plan behind her glib dismissal of Iraq's insurgents. She might very well have, but this single comment does not constitute evidence of that.

[MocksNix]

Actually, it's a breath of fresh air to see Hillary (and Obama) put a little fire and brimstone into their committment to winning the GWOT. For awhile there, it seemed that the Obama government was going to roll over like a bunch of namby-pambies.

[partyofone]

Does GWOT mean "global war on terror"? What does that have to do with Iraq?

[TheLearnedEnglishDog]

Iraq has terror now, thanks to Bush's recklesss invasion. Chalk one failed state up for Team Neocon. And as an added bonus, this unneeded war tanked our economy. Awesome job, wingers! Keep on destroying sh*t. That's all you are good at

[waitforme]

Why not take the trouble to spell out your words? Whatin'ell is GWOT?

[TheLearnedEnglishDog]

Yeah! we brought terror to Iraq, good job buddy! Pat yourself on the back, we made the world less safe, and all it cost us was a few thousand troops and a few trillion bucks. Glad to see that you are gonna sing the same tune no matter what actually happens in Iraq

[partyofone]

Once agian, recent statements raise more questions than they answer about Obama's foreign policy. It would be wise for the President to act quickly to clarify his administration's position on Iraq, and identify, if necessary, a spokesperson on this major issue who will not prone to "misspeak."

[fayemac]

So your supposedly a supporter of his huh? With friends like you and Cheney, who needs enemies.

[partyofone]

You seem to have a very distorted definition of "support." From my view, support does not mean constant, overstated, loving comments that have no connection to reality. I do support President Obama, but I do not agree lock step, knee jerk, blindly with everything he says and does. I trust him, and took him at his word when he said to his supporters: "You may not agree with everything I do, and it is particularly important for me to hear from you when you don't agree."

[partyofone]

Thanks to Jacob Heilbrunn for an important question. When Hillary pffered Bush-Cheney style up-is-down spin about Iraq:

1. Is Hillary speaking for Obama?
If so, it is REALLY unsettling for those who helped elect Obama to be an honest leader who would end the wor. Someone with in the Obama administrations with authority on foriegn affairs should quickly make that known and state a fuller policy. some authority on fin the administation

or

2 Did Hillary once again put her foot in her mouth?
She has a growing record of doing this as SoS when she gets in that arrogant, dishonest, pandering politician, campaign trail, town hall meeting kind of mode. It would actually be annoying but comforting to know that she just "MISSPOKE" once again.

3. Is Mrs. Bill Clinton expressing her own setiment as a proponent of the Iraq War, divergent from the Obama administration? Is Hilary already charting her path as a rival to Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2012. If so, it didn't take long for the true stripes to show.

[fayemac]

Two bad days in Iraq cuz the insurgents want to get the tribal factions fighting again and now all of a sudden you and this article think everythings gone to hell in a hand basket. You can actuly walk the streets now without flack jackets. Something that wasnt the case when Cheney spewed his typical "everythings great there" speeches. Yes she is speaking for Obama and yes you are fixating again on stuff you dont have a clue about. Remember when you said that she mispoke in Mexico about guns in America going to Mexico? I do belive he(Obama) said the same thing verbatum as Hillary. Wow could that actuly mean that they are on the same page in foriegn matters? You 2012 comments are just your foot in mouth disease rearing up again. The guy who wrote this article should check his facts just like you. The generals also said that they might have problems like this because they are starting to take down the barriers around Bagdag. Wow sounds like it getting better there, but you and your friend dont want that do you?

[partyofone]

I don't undersand. Sorry

[waitforme]

Your comments may be basically right but when you use a woman's husband's name in this way it sounds sarcastic and as if you are twisting a knife -- and in this context, irrelevantly. No professional woman (and in my book no woman) should be called by her husband's name -- it is demeaning, and she tends to disappear; these days I begin to see the woman in a black (whatsit'sname's the long cloth cloak some Arab women wear to hide in; there are several names for it). In Clinton's case, give her all the credit for her mess-ups and her (this week, seemingly fading) good diplomatic works.

(And try not to let your obvious emotional bitterness muck with your clarity of thought as well as your editing skills. -- This is your Teacher/Your Therapist/Your Feminist Mother speaking to you.)

[WeWon]

ROFL ... you nailed it.

[partyofone]

Thanks for a well reasoned response.

To clarify, I believe that Hillary's career is being Mrs. Bill Clinton. Sorry if that sounds like emotional bitterness. It is not. It is more a response, I think, to the stalk and attack methods of Hillary's supporters on this site. The more inolterant they become of allowing anything but adoring coments about her, the more jaded my comments become in self defense.

[waitforme]

Clinton has been surprisingly contained and helpful-sounding since she became Secretary of State. But in the last few days she has, regarding Iran, and now in Iraq, begun to sound like her old self, her old 'obliterate Iran' (promising that if Iran doesn't give up any nuclear possibility she will see to it that they are severely sanctioned), 'everything is on the table! (meaning including nuclear weapons at the time)', etc. Now she scares me.

Now what is she trying to convey with this Iraq statement?
Her last comment trying to put 'a good spin' on the two horrific suicide bombings in Iraq was murky and senseless. There is no good spin. Suicide bombings can happen, no matter how much security there is. No one, presumably, has 'taken responsibility for' these crimes. So how would Clinton know what the motivation was? I have heard some experts make guesses but they really don't know. She shouldn't even try.

[partyofone]

It may be time for President Obama to reel her in again and let a real spokesperson of his foreign policy agenda repair the damage. Hillary seems once again to be grandstanding and its about Hillary.

[fayemac]

Wrong again! He has never reeled her in and trusts her info more than those suppossed suporters who second guess his decissions at every turn. Dont you have a JFK assasination plot to solve?

[fayemac]

She said that she would obliterate Iran if they bombed Israel. Iran has threatened to obliterate Israel. Most of the Arab countries have said that they will severly sanction Iran if they dont give up thier nuclear ambitions because they feel that Iran is threatening them too. The victims of the suicide bombings were Iranians on a holiday worshiping in Iraq. Now why would the insurgents pick them? To pit them against the Iraqis and cause another faction to do thier bidding.

[waitforme]

"She said that she would obliterate Iran if they bombed Israel. Iran has threatened to obliterate Israel."

You've made several points. I write back about this one. You seem to think, by your sequence of these two sentences, that it is OK to use the word, 'obliterate' -- of a whole country! -- if a blowhard leader has used it before. Ahmadinejad seems to talk much more than he is able, in fact, to do anything about it, both because he is indeed a blowhard, threatthreatthreat -- who can take a blowhard seriously? And because he is only the president and does not have the last word -- Ayatollah .......(can't think of the name and the spelling) does.

An American leader should never threaten to blow up a whole country. For one thing, since it is so beyond most people's ken, it is not taken seriously (as Ahmadinejad's should not be either; but I may be wrong). Also, it would be the worst thing in the world to use a nuclear bomb on another country, killing millions of Iranians. Clinton was way out of line when she said that and nothing absolves her of blame for her basically big, basically hawkish, basically un-diplomatic, immature mouth.

[special muppet]

Obama campaigned on ending the war in Iraq... well, ending US involvement in it.

That's exactly what will happen in 2011.

What happens after that is up to the Iraqis. I hope they sieze this opportunity for self determination. They won't get another one, that's for sure.

[SSAG]

See you in 2011 to prove you wrong. This president has war on the brain just like all the others before him.

[waitforme]

See www.dahr.org for facts-on-the-ground in Iraq to see what the Iraqis and also the Americans have already done to muck this plan up. His stories from Iraq are quite scary.

[LizM]

Explain to me again why Biden couldn't have taken on the role of Secretary of State AND Vice President? Geesh.

[partyofone]

I think he has, in effect. Biden, Jones, Gates, Power, and Susan Rice seem to be working as the grown ups on foreign policy in a quiet diplomatic mode . Hillary is doing some odd First Lady - Pandering Political Candidate redux that seems more driven by her ego and thirst for headlines than by strategy or content. Time will tell. Time for another "get on board or get off, " tete a tete at the picnic table?

[Infostream]

It's sad but true, this isn't the change I voted for. It's just more of the same rationalizing that there is a valid reason for our troops occupying countries thousands of miles from our shores, and spinning the facts to make it seem like the expense of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives has made things better. And then of course there's the massive denial - that a net increase of armed occupying troops in the region; unreported "Collateral damage" deaths of innocent civilians; abduction of "enemy combatants" based on info from someone collecting a reward; denying the abducted the most basic human right of habeus corpus - the continuing denial that those things are the prime recruiting issues for anti-American terrorists.

[rebelrebel]

Didn't Bush himself make a statement in 2005 or 2006 that the level of violence was a sign things were going in the right direction?

When I read HRC's comment, it seemed eerily familiar.

However, unlike Cheney, she's not making a prediction here; she's trying to put a positive spin on a dreadful series of events. I'd think it's enough to say, the Iraqi government is getting stronger, the terrorists want to destabilize that any way they can, so let's not let them.

This week's bombings are certainly a sign that things could go off the rails in Iraq in a hurry. But HRC isn't advocating that we stay there forever. In fact Bush had already agreed to reducing U.S. forces, as the Iraqi government was insisting on it.

[Trogenhorse]

I think you're entirely irresponsible with this blog. There is always a place for decorum in the country. Futher, we are still at war and to end a war with honour is a grand position. Iraq will determine it's own destiny. The president has said that - on Iraqi soil. But we must withdraw with due purpose and skill. We make up the finiest military in the world and must exit with the grace, intent, and leadership that defines our military troops.

give it a break

[Yermammy]

Go to Redstate or Free Republic is you want to read lies. We're not exceptional. We're the scourge of the world now, thanks to the neocons.

[waitforme]

New Oxford American Dictionary:
"honor |ˈänər| ( Brit. honour)
noun
1 high respect; esteem : his portrait hangs in the place of honor.
• [in sing. ] a person or thing that brings credit : you are an honor to our profession.
• adherence to what is right or to a conventional standard of conduct : I must as a matter of honor avoid any taint of dishonesty."

The Iraq war was begun on lies. By virtue of this war millions have died needlessly. There is no way to 'end it with honor' -- there never was; and it is far past any possibility of that.

[partyofone]

"irresponsible" to question an administration about its war policy? Are you echoing the Bush-Clinton position that "you are with me or my enemy"?

If the media had questioned Bush more, we may not be in the mess we are in. It is only responsible to aks if Obama is committed to the change agenda that helped him get elected. For those who see Hillary's appointment as more of the same in Washington, her pronouncments on Iraq are very troubling and need to be clarified as Obama policy or not.