Hillary Sandbags the Anti-war Movement

In an attempt to please an audience of veterans Monday, Hillary Clinton said the surge was "working" and gave a helping-hand to the Bush spin machine, Pentagon dead-enders and right-wing pundits who have already begun to quote her.

"Of course the surge is working," they'll say, "even Hillary Clinton acknowledges that!" Just when Congressional Democrats were beginning to grow spines and stand up against the war, Hillary has cut them off at the knees.

As always Hillary tried to have it both ways and went on to say: "We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war. We have to be preparing to fight the new war." I'm not sure what she meant by that, but I do know the surge is not working.

Whatever success we might achieve in Anbar is temporary and isolated. We've just nudged the terrorists and death squads to other parts of Iraq. If you want to know the truth about the surge, look at the numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians killed and number of people fleeing the country this summer. In both cases the numbers have remained fairly steady.

In January, before the surge, bombings in Baghdad killed 438 people. After the surge began in February, that number jumped to 520, declined in March to 323 and rose again in April, to 414. The lowest total came in June with just 190 dead, but then swung back up last month, with 354 dead. And that's just Baghdad.

Some Americans, like Hillary, might find those numbers encouraging but the majority of Iraqis view us as an inept occupation force that has failed to keep them safe from terrorism, ethnic cleansing and violent crime. That's why they continue to abandon their homes and families to join millions of their countrymen in refugee camps in Jordan and Syria.

General Petreaus's September report will of course paint a different picture. He'll offer the same cheerleading that we always hear from Bush's media savvy, but militarily clueless generals. We, in the anti-war movement, will counter his lies with facts and try to push the cowardly congressional Dems and wavering Republicans to cut off funding. But thanks to Hillary our task will be more difficult.

After Monday's speech, Clinton aides tried to clarify her remarks, saying she was specifically referring to increased cooperation from Sunnis battling insurgents in Al Anbar province. But that clarification was too little too late. Unless Hillary publicly reverses herself and personally calls the surge an overall failure, Bush's allies in the media and the Congress will have the cover they need to impede any funding cuts next year.

Saying the surge is "working" is another example of how Hillary is adopting Bill Clinton's triangulation strategy. After securing the Democratic base, the Clintons always sacrifice their allies to the Right. (Remember Sister Souljah?) Last week Hillary sandbagged the LGBT community with her states rights argument against gay marriage. This week she throws the anti-war movement under the bus. I'm curious to see who's going to be next week's victim.

Comments

[jkfee]

Hillary never said the surge is working. I would think if someone is going to write an entire blog about it you should have the facts straight on what your talking about. This is Bill O'Reilly style journalism. She spoke of particular tactics in a particular province. Please pay attention. It does us no good right now to be eating each other alive.

[Unitari]

Any democrat who is running must concentrate on winning. Of course nobody is a saint, but I consider the "change" rhetoric that some other candidates are using just like any other political slogan. As far as I care, Hillary will probably bring as much change as any other democrat. (plus she is a woman which is also a big positive change for all the women and girls in this country who are believe it or not 50% of the people).

Most of those who slander Hillary are either deep down angry that she is a woman, or they hate Bill Clinton, or they just don't like the way she looks and sounds.Some have no clue about how politics works in the US right now or are waiting for a messiah. Hillary is the only candidate that can win and if liberals or democrats don't for the democratic candidate, we will enjoy more years of a republican conservative president.

If you would like to get Giuliani, Thompson, or Romney, be my guest, but don't confuse yourself about who you are choosing and don't be so delusional as to think Hillary is anything close to those people.

[twocrows]

considering the source: Gravel wants to get his name out there.
Hillary bashing is the order of the day-- very safe to do and a way to get his name in print.

I haven't decided about Clinton, yet -- by a long shot.
I HAVE decided about Gravel--- he has
'opportunist' written all over him.

[rboylern]

If the surge is indeed working, then we might as well also believe that the moon is made of green cheese.

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

I'm glad somebody else brought up the CFR and the Bilderberg group so I didn't have to. I will NOT vote for a member of either group even if s/he is a Democrat.

Hillary and Bill are members of the Bilderberg group so by definiton they are corporatists.

You do know the so-called "shadow government" arms both sides as a matter of policy? Bush and Kerry are from the same creepy fraternity at Yale.

As for Gore? I don't know if he's got one or both feet in the corporatist camp. He's been a repeat performer at the CFR though, with his speeches. Anyone out there know the deal?

I think Gore will shake things up by entering the race in the last minute. He'll announce that he's SO annoyed at the presidential race as it stands and throw himself into the ring on "principle." Since this scenario most likely comes out of the corporatist camp I probably won't be impressed!

Ron Paul is the perfect "protest candidate." He is soooooooooooo far off in the libertarian field that I think he adds a necessary balance to the race of politicians who I SWEAR are competing over who's going the biggest asshole. It's good to have this constant reminder that the Constitution is what America is about.

Doesn't it make you wonder: Why the blackout on Ron Paul? Are the corporatists threatened by him? Who knows? ALL I KNOW is that if all I have to choose from are people who've been bought by the corporate elite, I will vote for either Ron Paul or Kucinich on principle. Oddly enough, I think the two of them would actually make a weirdly good team. Each would balance the other out.

[cruzecon]

I have tried every way I can, to find a way to support Hillary without major misgivings. This just seals the deal- I can not. Bill said the same kind of stuff but of course, that was before 9/11 and the Bush tyranny. It is time for the "base" to say enough and actually require a Democrat to run for the party nomination.

[PTCruiser]

Among the many, many things I have grown tired of hearing are the praise songs offered on Hillary Clinton's behalf for her "noble" effort to provide universal healthcare for the masses. If Clinton and her minions were genuinely desirous of creating a universal health care system they would have taken affirmative steps to enlist the involvement of the American people instead squirreling themselves away in conference rooms with various academic policy wonks, consultants and lobbyists.

It was not her responsibility to create a universal health care program that would win the hearts and minds of the American people. Her responsibility, in my opinion, was to use her pulpit in the White House to initiate a national discussion and a grass roots movement on the issue of universal health care.

Given the degree of vested and ideological opposition that exists in this country to universal health care, it is utterly foolish or supremely arrogant for any elected official, or one who thinks they were elected by proxy, to think such a program can become real without broad and widespread support from the electorate. Hillary Clinton's approach, whether intentional or not, effectively cut out and cut off the voices, concerns and demands of the people.

Hillary Clinton is simply another card carrying member of an elite set (and, no, at last report it does not matter whether they are liberals or conservatives) who believe that they alone are the best qualified to make public policy decisions that affect the lives of millions of Americans. It was not her job to create an acceptable health plan that the insurance companies etc. could buy into. It was her job, however, to raise and keep raising the issue of universal health care so that it was placed front and center on the nation's political agenda.

[Johnz52]

The next war Hillary is referring to is our already planned bombing of Iran. Look at Clinton's constituency and any moron can figure out who the U.S. will be invading next. Two months ago Israel gave the U.N. a timetable of 18 months to have the U.S. bomb Iran or they would. A recent poll in Haaretz showed that 74% of all Israelis want the U.S. to bomb Iran. If the anti-war movement is serious they need to get more vocal about the America's blind acquiescence to Israel's demands. There is a reason why the majority of un-aligned countries believe Israel poses the greatest threat to peace. This stuff doesn't happen in a vaccum. The anit-war movement needs to go back to the passive resistence tactics that were prevalent during the Vietnam era. Peace doesn't come easy, you have to work at it and unfortuately the anti-war movement has been more than timid speaking out against rogue nations such as Israel and it's supporters.

[badgervan]

Hilary has to make a choice; she can't continue trying to please all. If she continues her waffling on the illegal invasion and continued occupation of Iraq, she will not win the nomination.
This Navy vet would like to see us pull out of Iraq one division a month, beginning immediately. I would call for volunteers to transfer to Afghanistan, where we should have been, in force, all along. Volunteers could take leave in the states before going to Afghanistan, say one to six months.
For supposedly being so smart, Hilary sure is stupid as to the biggest issue, the defining issue, in the upcoming elections.

[nomorebombs]

diebold continues as does this insane war...why are there not millions removing these tyrants? why? why? why?

[Bettysdad]

I am at a complete loss to understand why anyone is supporting Mrs. Bill Clinton (and that's all she is), much less the almost 50% in the latest polls.

I believe that Clinton and Obama are the PC candidates. A ton of progressives are just dying to show how wonderful they are they'll even vote for a woman or a black. Neither of them stand for anything, so that must be their appeal.

[Nancyann]

To Roger werner

You are deluding yourself if you think that Mrs. Clinton is a centrist. She had a hissy fit when Bill signed the Welfare reform Act and NAFTA. She is a socialist in disguise. A cameleon at work.

[boldtimer]

Mike you are 100% spot on about the Clintons, they have a long history of selling out to the side that can best further their fortunes. For the most part, we've had far too many of this type running our government for the last 25 years.

We won the Cold War but we have been losing the peace for the last 18 years. Much like a mad dog, if we can't find anybody else to bite we'll bite ourselves !

[albalovescholo]

ONCE UPON A TIME...

i loved Hillary Clinton so much that she was 50% of why i voted for her husband--twice (President Gore was the other 50%).

now, i hate her like poison. she is a liar and a traitor to all she used to believe in...to everything she spent her career defending.

i PRAY enough people get a clue before the primaries. Barack O'Bama is the ONLY sane option left to us. he is the ONLY hope for this fucked-up world that the present corporate-junta has created.

[motamanx]

If it came down to what the polls said to do, and what Hillary's conscience said to do, which way would she go?

I believe she would go with the poll, and that is why I could never vote for her.

Unless it was Hillary v Cheney!