Hillary speaks:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be “a big mistake.”
The New York Democrat said she respects Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., the Vietnam veteran and hawkish ex-Marine who last week called for an immediate troop pullout. But she added: “I think that would cause more problems for us in America.”
“It will matter to us if Iraq totally collapses into civil war, if it becomes a failed state the way Afghanistan was, where terrorists are free to basically set up camp and launch attacks against us,” she said.
As with all things Hillary, she said it, but I don’t know if she actually means it. Regardless, she is right. Anytime now, Armando will be accusing her of the “New McCarthyism.”
Bonus Schadenfreude: Hillary does seem to understand that Murtha’s bill called for immediate withdrawal, something that eluded most of the left and the preponderence of commenters at this web site.
Pb
Poor HIllary. She’s found the exact middle of this highly polarized debate. The people who agree with what she says don’t take her seriously. The people who take her seriously don’t agree with what she says.
And, no, John, I don’t think she necessarily does “seem to understand that Murtha’s bill called for immediate withdrawal”–that seems to be a bit of editorializing in between her comments, and not necessarily something that she actually said.
Otto Man
You don’t seem to understand the “clap louder” mockery, John.
That snark refers to people who insist that everything is going rosy in Iraq and the only real problem is that people on the homefront — the media, The Left™, or that Fat Michael Fat Moore — are daring to question the wisdom of our exalted and heavenly leaders. It refers to people like Cheney and company who insist that any form of criticism of Operation Clusterfuck is somehow causing it to fail. As opposed to, say, the actual failures of the civilian leadership.
I know conservatives are generally genetically incapable of humor — see “Mallard Fillmore” or “Day by Day” for the proof — but I thought you were an exception to the rule. Maybe not.
Steve S
Hmm. I don’t see Hillary calling Murtha names. Did she say he was a coward, or a cut-n-run traitor?
Where is this McCarthy claim of yours John?
John Cole
Steve S.- You haven’t been paying attention to Armando lately. You merely need to disagree or you are engaging in the new McCarthyism.
Otto Man- I understand exactly what it was meant to be, now, however, anyone who disagrees that the whole thing is a n unsalvageable debacle and who is against immediate withdrawal is accused of being part of the “clap Louder” team.
PB- Sure seems like her comments speak for themself.
scs
I respect Hillary for taking a position contrary to her party and saying it like she sees it. No group think going on. If she keeps this up- Hillary for ’08!
Otto Man
By whom?
srv
She’s not right. Iraq will not collapse into a nationwide civil war. It’s just an excuse for us to keep trying to beat a dead horse a little longer. There is no evidence the Shia, Sunni and Kurds aspire to become the Taliban replacements to harbor Osama. And since they never attacked us before 2003, why would Iraqi’s attack the US now?
She and Murdoch are now socializing. A match made in heaven.
SomeCallMeTim
Bonus Schadenfreude: Hillary does seem to understand that Murtha’s bill called for immediate withdrawal, something that eluded most of the left and the preponderence of commenters at this web site.
Unless you have a transcript of the speech you haven’t linked to, I don’t think you can make that claim. The AP writer characterized Murtha’s call, not Hillary. We don’t know whether she was saying (a) an immediate pullout would be a mistake (everyone agrees), (b) Murtha’s pullout would be a mistake (some agree), or (c) a and b are the same.
Ancient Purple
Nice going, John. Next time, perhaps you can actually read all of what Armando wrote. Here is what Armando wrote on November 20th:
Link.
That certainly is McCarthyism.
Oh, wait. No, it’s not.
Pb
John Cole,
I can’t say that her comments speak for themselves, because I don’t know what they are, minus a few sound bites embedded in a journalist’s likely oversimplified characterizations. I’d need to see a longer quote or a transcript to know what Sen. Clinton actually said. What can I say, I’ve seen the media get even simple details of any story wrong often enough to not blindly trust their version of anything.
Dungheap
scs – Hillary is not really taking a position contrary to her party, at least not the members of her party with presidential ambitions.
Biden said today:
Our presence remains necessary because, right now, our troops are the only guarantor against chaos. Pulling out prematurely would doom any chance of leaving Iraq with our core interests intact.
Kerry said the other day:
I respectfully disagree with John Murtha.
Feingold:
At the same time, I am not in the “cut and run” or “immediate withdrawal” camp, nor do I propose a hard deadline for troop withdrawal, regardless of conditions on the ground. I believe that our military still has a mission to complete but the President needs to make clear what the mission is, and what our plan to get the job done is.
Edwards:
Therefore, early next year, after the Iraqi elections, when a new government has been created, we should begin redeployment of a significant number of troops out of Iraq. This should be the beginning of a gradual process to reduce our presence and change the shape of our military’s deployment in Iraq. Most of these troops should come from National Guard or Reserve forces.
Bayh:
His office told the Chicago Tribune that while he still does not support a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq, he voted for the Iraq progress bill “because it asks the administration to develop a plan for eventually withdrawing troops.”
You get the point.
As an aside, I haven’t seen any of these folks branded with the “New McCarthyist” label but maybe I missed something.
Pb
I don’t think Murtha is in the “cut-and-run” camp either–so far only the GOP has proposed that, but anyhow…
Here’s another Hillary story, which sounds almost completely different, yet seems to have more and different quotes. Let’s let the two stories fight it out.
KC
I have to be honest, as this war is getting less popular, I’m finding myself less inclined to pull up stakes and leave. It’s not that I think we had to go to war, I don’t. I was pretty much against it from the beginning. Unlike John, I believe the administration was dishonest in the way it presented intelligence respecting WMD, al Qaida ties, and nuclear weapons to the public. Like John, I think its done a lousy job in the post-war period. However, I guess I just find it difficult to pull out when the Iraqi people have voted twice to set up a government.
I know people say our staying hurts more than it helps, that we’re drawing trouble to Iraq more than repelling. However, I’m just not ready to make the leap to saying we need to quit.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hillary is an asshat. She continues to try to seem centrist as she prepares for a 2008 run.
My worst nightmare is a Hillary vs Condi. Not that I think it would happen but if it were too, I think I’d be fleeing the country.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Though I should note that agree with her in a sense. I just think she is doing this for mostly personal gain.
Pb
KC,
If I thought there was a chance that the Bush administration could do this right, then I’d let them do it. Instead, I’ve watched in horror as they’ve bungled it for years now. I don’t know what they could do that would be worse, but by now I trust that if we let them stay in Iraq, they’ll find something.
scs
That would be awesome. I like them both.
Well I’m not talking about just recently, I think Hillary has gone further in her support for the war more than the other bigwig Dems for a while. She was supporting it earlier, louder, and more consistently than the others, like Kerry. So more of a quantity thing to me than quality.
Bruce Moomaw
Er, John. It was indeed the reporter — not Hillary — who referred to Murtha’s plan as calling for “immediate withdrawal”. (And, for more evidence on just what drivel that claim is, see Fred Kaplan today in “Slate”.)
Now let us consider a simultaneous quote from Hillary in the same article: “At the same time, Clinton said the Bush administration’s pledge to stay in Iraq ‘until the job is done’ amounts to giving the Iraqis ‘an open-ended invitation not to take care of themselves.’ ” That is, she’s also saying that we should explicitly REFUSE to say that we’re going to stay in Iraq “until the job is done.” Shocking, isn’t it? Until you consider that the intended effect of doing such a thing would be to finally get the Iraqis off their asses and force them to start actually trying to retrieve the situation — which would also be the effect of Murtha’s 6-month withdrawal-to-the-borders.
However, I note that neither Hillary nor Murtha has pointed out that — while it would indeed matter to us if Iraq collapses into “a failed state” and romping ground for al-Qaida (assuming anything can be done to prevent it, which is highly unlikely no matter how long we stay) — it will matter to us a hell of a lot more if Iran acquires the Bomb, or North Korea’s or Pakistan’s current ownership of it explodes into a major military crisis, because we’ve kept our troops stuck in Iraq too long to do anything about it.
Side note: why isn’t anyone talking about the possibility of pulling out of the rest of Iraq but staying in Kurdish Iraq? They actually like us there and want us to stay; they seem much less enamoured of Moslem theocracy than any other Arabs; the new Iraqi Constitution (even assuming it survives) is so loosely structured that it would enable us to stay there even if we’re ordered out of the rest of Iraq; and we do badly need a military staging area in the region for a whole variety of reasons, ranging from action against Iran’s nuclear program to stomping on al-Qaida when it does start running operations in the rest of Iraq. But then, I still see virtually no evidence that any elected American politician — not Bush, not Hillary, not Kerry, not McCain, and, alas, not even Murtha — is actually trying to put any serious thought into the best stategy for the overall war against Megaterrorism (in which the most important part, by an infinite margin, is trying to minimize the chances of nuclear terrorism).
Kimmitt
Man, I like this blog owner, but I gotta say that this post — other than reiterating why I really don’t like Senator Clinton — almost, but not quite, makes sense.
Steve
The irony of this post is that John thinks he is pointing out hypocrisy (“Ha! See if dkos flames Hillary for disagreeing with their hero, Murtha!”) when, in reality, dkos is flaming Hillary six ways from Sunday. I saw at least 5 diaries today, one of which made the recommended list, which purported to express disgust at Hillary for “undercutting” the honorable Rep. Murtha.
Jorge
I wonder how this statement by Iraqi leaders changes things. How do we justify calling ourselves liberators and not occupiers if we don’t begin working in earnes to meet their demands?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aDLgOBgqARvw&refer=top_world_news
Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) — Iraqi leaders, meeting at a reconciliation conference in Cairo, urged an end to violence in the country and demanded a timetable for the withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq.
In a final statement, read by Arab League chief Amre Moussa, host of the three-day summit, they called for “the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces.” No date was specified.
John S.
Damn those Iraqi cowards! They just want to cut and run. Don’t they realize it’s over when we say it is? How dare they try and assert some sort of authority over their own country.
Bob In Pacifica
John Cole, please stop snarking Hillary. I don’t want to feel obligated to defend her.
Paddy O'Shea
Responding to calls by the Iraqis for the U.S. to establish a timetable for withdrawing all of its armed forces from their country, Dick Cheney spoke out forcefully: ‘The Iraqis are stabbing Iraq in the back. We will never abandon the Iraqi people of Iraq to themselves!”
Meanwhile, in what is starting to be seen in Washington as a carefully orchestrated media offensive to counter the irresponsible Iraqi call to regain soveriegnty over their country, President Bush lashed out: “These Iraqis are traitors to America! By telling us to remove our troops they are putting our troops in danger! They are encouraging themselves to do things that are not in their best interests!”
Jorge
Bob brings up a good point. I don’t really want to see Hillary run in 2008 and she’s not one of my state’s Senators. I’d even consider voting for McCain over Hillary in 2008 even though I find myself disgreeing with a good deal of his politics. The same with a Luger.
It actually amazes me that Hillary is such a front runner. I can’t think of a more divisive candidate for the Dems to run. We’d end up with a compromised Democrat hated by the right for supposedly being a feminist extremist.
Stormy70
Anyone who relies on Armando’s (the CBS documents were not fakes) commentary are self-identifying as wacko Moonbats.
Hillary is a shrewd politician and is trying to position herself as someone the country could trust on National Security matters. We’ll see if she can pull it off.
Pb
Et tu, Stormy?
ppGaz
1) HC is right about Iraq (the staying part, only)
2) She is taking a considerable political risk with this position, because the Dem base does not agree with that position. I might give her props for that, if I were convinced that is being principled. However, not many in Congress are principled on this issue, so I’m not sold.
3) I still would not vote for her for president … certainly not in a primary, and not in the national election either …
4) Unless she runs against people like Frist, a person I consider to be dirt, or Rice, who I think is insane. If the GOP puts up another Bush-quality candidate, I’d vote for anybody else, including Hillary.
Stormy70
I would have to sit out an election with her against McCain. Those would be dark days, indeed. I just ooged myself out.
ppGaz
As time goes on, I like McCain less and less. You’d think that as an Arizonan, I’d have already made up my mind about him. But I haven’t, and that’s what he’ll do to you … he’s mercurial. Shifty.
Geek, Esq.
When she talks about a timetable I’ll take her seriously.
Right now she’s just trying to show how tough she is.
BIRDZILLA
Is she planning to send in her flying monkeys? i have this feeling that she is in it for herself and 2008
Stormy70
You just can’t trust him.
Pb
Seems like neither of them inspire much trust. Maybe we can get McCain/Clinton (or Clinton/McCain) to run as an independent centrist ticket to vote against?
Steve S
You didn’t answer. Where’s the Jean Schmidt moment from Hillary?
I happen to like Armando, and you’re purposefully misinterpreting what he says. But I’m not surprised by that… you’re like the left.
Retief
Hilary has the same problem the Bush administration does. Warning of the negative consequences of Murtha’s (out in six months with a quick reaction force close by) plan does nothing to suggest that any alternative will be more likely to avoid those consequences. If leaving now, or in the next six months, means Iraq would collapse into civil war, then what is Hilary’s (or Bush’s) plan for making more progress toward the goal of No Civil War during the next year than we have made over the past two and a half years? Bush’s plan seems to consist of waiting for our enemies in Iraq to get tired of killng us, while pointing hopefully to whatever the next milestone that’s suposed to make them turn the corner is. If Hilary, or anyone, is convinced that leaving Iraq now would result in a collapse into civil war, what does she, or anyone, propose to change in the next two an a half years to make them more productive than the past two an a half have been? “Iraq will explode if we leave” is not an argument for staying unless she has some reason to believe that staying makes it less likely to explode later. And I mean something better than, “maybe the horse will sing.”
The Disenfranchised Voter
What makes someone who thinks they were not fakes any different from someone who says they were fakes…
The independent investigation ruled that they were inconclusive–as in they could not determine whether they were forgeries or not.
So if believing they were real makes one a moonbat, doesn’t that mean believing they were fake makes one a wingnut?
I’m comfortable with the investigations position. They could be fakes, or they could be authentic.
ppGaz
Just to put it out there so that I can come along in a couple years and say I Told You So ….
Clinton’s stance on the war will be the thing that knocks her out of the primary race early in 2008.
Knee-jerk support for the war in Iraq is going to be a big loser in American politics from here forward.
BIRDZILLA
Flying monkeys i eats flying monkeys a eats them with catsup SQUWARK SQUWARK BURP