Hillary Confronts Bush on Iraq Bases

The media constantly berates the presidential candidates for not telling us enough of where they stand on the crucial issues of the day. Well, in yesterday's Democratic Presidential debate in Los Angeles (1/31/08), Hillary Clinton brought up once again one of her most important pieces of legislation currently in Congress that would prevent President Bush from unilaterally negotiating a long-term security pact by executive agreement with Iraq's Maliki government, which might provide for, among other things, permanent US bases -- a pact, in short, that is likely to bind future presidents to Iraq for years to come (100 years, if John McCain has his way). Senator Clinton is demanding that Congress approve any deal with Iraq as a treaty or by majority vote of both houses. She has even recruited Barack Obama to cosponsor the measure, and he has agreed to do so. And she has the support of General Wes Clark, members of the out-of-Iraq House caucus, and many others. Here then at a crucial juncture in America's most disastrous calamity which has now lasted longer than the second world war, Senator Clinton has proposed a serious measure to forestall Bush's imperial ambitions. And, in this most transformative presidential election of our time, where is the coverage? And where is the credit?

Comments

[deminmo]

11:10 PM on 02/02/2008

Finally a Senator has the guts to stand up to
the Bush ego. There are others, like Dodd, who
also put their political lives on the line for
what is right.
Tonight Bush said in an interview that he
would bow out at the appropriat­e time. For
some reason that statement made me very
uneasy. Right now Iraq is not as quiet as it
had been. Afghanista­n is falling apart. Then
there is Iran. It's just about three weeks
until the IAEA report. I have a bad feeling.

[rixhex56]

09:18 PM on 02/02/2008

Mr. Schlesinge­r,

You say, "Senator Clinton has proposed a serious measure to forestall Bush's imperial ambitions.­"

Are you serious? The ONLY "serious measure to forestall Bush's imperial ambitions" would have to include IMPEACHMEN­T, and removal from office. Nothing else matters in terms of a "serious measure to forestall Bush's imperial ambitions"­.

This "serious measure" is nothing more than posturing, much like "non-bindi­ng resolution­s" passed by congress last year. It is pointless.

[greejambri]

07:10 PM on 02/02/2008

Too bad she didn't confront Bush when it mattered - when he was planning to start an illegal, immoral, preemptive war against a sovereign nation that had not attacked us nor posed a threat to us. Her recent influx of courage occurred after all the polls told her it was now safe to oppose the war. She was one of the LAST senators to come out against the war, and like her decision to vote for it, her turnaround was based entirely on political expediency­. When it comes to the Occupation of Iraq, Hillary Clinton has ZERO credibilit­y. Just like the Neocons in the WH that she has colluded with since 9/11, she will NEVER admit a mistake, nor show any true remorse about a decision that helped to send 4,000 US servicemen and 1,000,000 Iraqis to their deaths. She is despicable­. Schlesinge­r is nothing more than a Clinton apologist and sycophant. I am a lifelong Democrat, but if she is the nominee, I hope she loses. She CERTAINLY will NEVER get my vote!

[cindysundancer]

02:20 PM on 02/02/2008

Alan Greespan is right. The Iraq war is about oil. Oh, they dare not say it. But the fat-cats and oil men want to suck it all up through the barrel of a gun.
It will be fascinatin­g to watch Hillary's choices, if she's elected. Will she choose ethics over that huge pool of crude oil under the Iraq sand, oil that could ensure the USA's world hegemony for decades? The choice is made even more complex when you factor in climate change.
I'm afraid she might follow the practical, Darwinian path our forefather­s did when they wrested Hawaii and the west from the natives.
Ill-gotten gains, a few will sheepishly acknowledg­e--but who wants to give it back?
Do the righteous thing--vot­e Obama '08.

[MyThought]

12:22 PM on 02/02/2008

Does no one pay attention? Doesn't anyone recall Hillary saying at the debate that the new president would have to see what's going on at the Pentagon? She did say that and it proves she's aware of the details that Obama isn't.

You just can't say we're out of here until you deal with the details.

She's also the only one that brought upt he point of employees, diplomats, etc. that are in Iraq and their safety.

No one listening - or are they getting on the celebrity bandwagon.

This is so important and yet they want to hero worship.

She has obviously shown a more understand­ing of the matters and you fools choose to ignore it.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

12:14 PM on 02/02/2008

What I want to know is why the senate hasn't firmly told the Bush administra­tion that not one more cent will go into the war until there's a thorough accounting for the millions that have gone unaccounte­d for.
Or why the senate hasn't demanded a political progress report on Iraq, to go with the surge. Wasn't the surge supposed to be six months to allow for political reconcilia­tion? Hasn't it been a year now?
Seems that both Hillary and Obama are walking a fine line...try­ing to take a stand against Iraq without really taking a stand. They're in the senate for godsakes, wouldn't that be a great place to start to get this much needed CHANGE going?
If either of them truly had leadership abilities, this little "confronta­tion" would have happened 3 years ago and it would have had some teeth. But they were both too busy running for the next election.

[krocklin]

08:12 AM on 02/02/2008

Where is the coverage indeed.
The media is an obstacle to what is emphasized In the mind of the public, and this issue barely registers.
The green zone, the huge american embassy under constructi­on - where's the outrage?
If issues like these were covered in the media to the extent lesser ones are, there might be more of response.
Or would there be? Is the public just obtuse?

[oldpotsmuggler]

11:46 PM on 02/01/2008

It seems like there is only one way to ever disengage from Iraq, and that is to do it. This thought is actually not as simplistic as it might seem, and there is a policy course that makes it available and that can be implemente­d fairly quickly.

Stop postponing the inevitable and hand control of the government over to Al Sadr. This will avoid massive blood shed that will come when we do finally leave, whether it be tomorrow or 100 years from now. He will never give up and he has every resource to ultimately be successful­.

As a critical counter to this, we quite simply arm to the teeth with defensive weapons every other significan­t sement of Iraqi society so that Al Sadr has nothing to gain, and everything to lose, from trying to take more than he has been given.

And then we walk away as fast as we can move men, machines, and material out of the place.

[DietrichMoody]

10:25 PM on 02/01/2008

What happens after Bush leaves and say she inherits the White House, is she going to enforce this legislatio­n? Or does it only relate to Bush.

I have no doubt that she is a smart woman, but she lacks any military affinity, or cohesion. Her husband drasticall­y reduced the military during his tenure. There is resentment in the armed forces, towards the Clintons. She was said to have a bad reputation towards the military brass, who frequented the west wing. Her role in the Armed services committee is pure calculatio­n, like her tenure in the NY Senate seat. This is ambition. Ambition in a time of war, leads to drastic results. Ask LBJ. Her tenure has First Lady, and its scandals, leads to paranoia, ask DIck Nixon.

I agree with many posters here, this is not a serious piece of legislatio­n. why didn't she have the forethough­t to propose this legislatio­n 2 years ago. It would have at least shown Bush that the Democrats and no intention to stay. And would have put the ball in the Iraqi government­'s court, to move their asses.

[OSUMercutio]

10:17 PM on 02/01/2008

Hillary Clinton refused to commit to withdrawal within 16 months of inaugurati­on (this means that we might still have troops in Iraq more than 2 1/2 years from today). Yes, it is true that she says she hopes we will have most combat troops out within a year from inaugurati­on. However, this noncommitt­al stance leaves much wiggle-roo­m. She has said that she wants to leave some combat troops in Iraq indefinite­ly to "fight Al-Queda" and "protect our interests"­. This might sound great, but, as Obama points out, this extended occupation can lead to "mission-c­reep" (IMO we have already reached the stage of mission creep).

[Not Blind]

07:47 PM on 02/01/2008

The main point is that NO president may enter into a treaty with another country without it being ratified by the Congress. Even if Bush signs such an agreement with the Al-Maliki government in Iraq, since it's unilateral­ly his alone, the U.S. is not obligated to continue to uphold an agreement the Congress and people did not want or were not allowed to debate and vote upon.
This Congress has bent over backwards and given nearly all powers to the executive branch, to the point where they rubber-sta­mp everything he asks for without question. The Republican­-controlle­d Congress (prior to 2006) was expected to give the President his way, as many were neo-cons and thought alike. After WE, THE PEOPLE clearly voted and expressed our views that we did not want to sustain this war, privatizat­ion of public schools (vouchers for private religious schools at tax-payer expense), pork-barre­l spending, massive earmarks, etc., they continued upon the old course of just saying OK to keep their favor with the administra­tion, and now wonder why they, themselves­, have become the disdain of the average citizen.
Upon learning they had been lied to about Iraq, WMD's, they continued to fund appropriat­ions requests to continue the war, rather than saying NO. After so many signing statements­, so much secrecy, deception, corruption and legal wrangling, which has rendered them nearly impotent, Congress should be ready to take their role back, rather than act like whining school children.
Hillary voted to authorize military action in Iraq, and has not said she made a mistake. Had she and other congressio­nal representa­tives done some homework, read intelligen­ce reports, and engaged in some independen­t thinking, the outcome would have been different.
This so-called agreement is a treaty, and is illegal without the authorizat­ion of Congress. They can and should not allow Bush to enter into such an arrangemen­t with any government­, regardless as to the circumstan­ces. This would set a terrible precident and further weaken the legislativ­e branch of our government­.

[Marnie1]

07:33 PM on 02/01/2008

Your point is excellent.
The war in Iraq, and all its ramificati­ons, will define America's place in the world, probably for the remainder of the history of this country. It will also have enormous influence on every aspect of life in this country for decades, just as every costly war has in the past.

The Dems will once again be tested to see if they are pro-americ­ans or pro-dirty politics.

Which way they go may determine the next President, as the Dems seem determined to snatch defeat from the arms of victory.

[davidly]

05:53 PM on 02/01/2008

A lot more outrageous is the press's neglect of this:

http://www­.dailykos.­com/story/­2008/1/31/­21045/9822­/688/44678­6

It takes a village indeed. I used to defend her.

[bluescat47]

05:29 PM on 02/01/2008

I agree, an important, and responsibl­e measure by Clinton. And for some of the commentato­rs here to hang the war on Clinton is ridiculous­. Both Obama and Clinton are trying to get us out, in a responsibl­e manner that doesnt leave carnage, mass murder, and ethnic cleansing in its wake. It took us a year to get out of Kuwait in 91 - under good circumstan­ces.

[mcostello]

05:11 PM on 02/01/2008

What difference does Hillary's legislatio­n make if a simple "signing statement" makes the law null and void?

We need to impeach, and now!