Senator Clinton Calls For Troop Build-Up On FoxNews!

Senators Clinton, Graham call for larger U.S. military
Former political foes strike an alliance

Monday, May 24, 2004
WASHINGTON (CNN)

An unlikely pair of Senate allies called for a larger military Sunday and pledged a thorough investigation of abuse against Iraqi prisoners in Baghdad.

Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, and Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, are both members of the Senate's Armed Services Committee. "A number of us have been sounding this alarm. We have to face the fact we need a larger active-duty military," Clinton told the television show "Fox News Sunday."

"We cannot continue to stretch our troops, both active-duty, Guard and Reserve, to the breaking point, which is what we're doing now."
Graham said the United States is "putting too much pressure on the men and women in uniform." "We need more of them, sooner rather than later," he said.

The senators acknowledged that an increase in the size of the military would be an expensive venture. Clinton said, "I don't think we have any alternatives." And Graham said, "If we lose Iraq -- if it fails to go from a dictatorship to a democracy -- then we've had a great setback in the Mideast."

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/23/senate.military/index.h

...coming. Sorry, Hillary, just can't go with you on this one and wish you'd shut up about it.

1) pay the troops a REALISTIC wage for their skills

2) provide the same medical care as any other federal employee

3) same for the families

4) provide them with GOOD equipment in SUFFICENT quantites


People will join.

I`ll second the motion. I feel a sort of Viet Nam deja vu, all over again.

1. It's the sound of 1,000,000 hard-core radicals cursing Hillary as a war monger, a capitalist, and an RIAA tool.

2. It's the sound of 30,000,000 hard-core right-wingers having the air taken out of their sails.

3. It's the sound of tens of thousands of tablets of Imodium® (loperamide) being twisted out of their protective packaging by members of the Republican Party, now that "Hildabeest" has told them to put up or shut up, the Democrats are gonna show you how ...

--bkl

Well .... do you agree with her or not? You didn't say.

and trust her strategy. :dem:

The GOP plan is to get Dems to vote against before November.

Besides which the strain on the Reserve and Guard must be dealt with.

...to both you and Hillary, it seems a dangerous game to play as it might cause one of the Repukes to suggest a draft.

I hope you're right. Bill is known for playing those sorts of very effective psychological games with the neo-cons. I hope it doesn't backfire, though.

I'm kind of wondering what Hillery is up, but I have to assume she's calculated every scenario, and calling for Chelsea to serve will certainly be one that the right-wingers will bring up.

every goddamn thing a Dem does is lauded as "brilliant strategy"

"You in or out, America? The ante is your sons and daughters."

(on edit: punctuation)

She can go to hell. Better yet, send her to Abu Ghraib.

BRING THEM HOME NOW!!! The distinguished lady from New York is wrong to call for a troop build-up. It's beginning to look like a draft is coming!


John

while working. The Host was interviewing a guy who sounded American who had been living in Falluja for the last year. I didn't catch his name but, boy oh boy did he give a different perspective on the situation over there.

He said emphatically that to send more troops over there is a mistake. That things are calm in the neighborhoods until the troops arrive. Then all hell breaks loose. He quoted some thoughtful former Baathists who said they would be fine with the occupation if the tanks just stayed at their bases and stopped cruising through their neighborhoods shooting innocent civilians.

He quoted one in particular who was shown a photo of a GI's kids in America and the guy said, "We didn't go to America to kill their children. Why do they come here and kill ours?"

He later said that this individual was currently incarcerated at Abu Graib. He was arrested for "talking to the troops."

He's written a piece for the upcoming Harper's magazine and I truly think that it's worth a read.

are going to be anything but more targets. She is scaring me to death with this silly crap.

82% of Iraqis want us gone NOW>

al Sadr has STRONG support from 32% of Iraqis because he is fighting to evict our troops.

I smell Vietnamitis coming from the Dems and it is freaking me fucking out.

Hillary who called for the unity. Bush is staying his stubborn course, in spite of himself. He's between a rock and a hard place, call for more troops, you take the idea of Kerry and Democrats, swing voters realize that Kerry and Democrats are fixing the solution, why do they need Bush. Don't bring in more troops and we'll have more chaos and casualties and America will lose it's patience with Bush for not having the foresight to call in more troops. Check mate!

tar and feathers?

So we should heed Senator Clinton's appeal and stop all of this nasty, partisan and divisive wrangling over Iraq. Than we can concentrate on building a bigger and more effective military! That certainly is needed if you want to "win" colonial wars. We need more and better equipped troops in order to accomplish those missions.

The best way to take away the war in Iraq as a campaign issue for Republicans would be to support the war. Isn't that obvious?

I just didn't realize that the occupation of Iraq was a big winning issue for Bush. But, I must be wrong. The less that Kerry says against it and the more Senator Clinton can do to stop discussion the better. We can't tolerate, much less encourage such debates in this nation. We need bi-partisan unity on Iraq.

It's just those million or so comminest radicals that keep raising questions about Iraq. Ignore and marginalize them. They say power to the people. We say power to the center ..... and conservative Republicans .... and maybe even some right-wingnuts.

Am I wrong?
:D

I'm ready when you are.

Another "unity" ticket? Let's see Bush/Clinton vs Kerry/McCain. The DLC would consider that the dream election.

over the Abuse photos. He and Hillary would get along well, I think.

I don't have a problem with this. I think Hillary has always been clever and knows how to "forge a coalition" which mocks the Right Wing.

Remember she and Bill did support Family Values in that they "worked their problems out" with their pastor (called in Billy Graham) so she knows what she's doing.

Lindsey....well he's SC...lots of mavericks there and to support McCain over the Chimp (much as I dislike McCain) means he might not be all "Tom
DeLay.

Point is...you have to turn the Repugs game around on them. Arguing with them or ignoring doesn't work. Maybe they are onto something. Charlie Rangel also wanted more troops and was for the Draft.

Chicken Hawks don't want to bring the "Draft" back! All those CEO's with Sons and Daughters? No Way!

draft. That's the way its always been with the draft since the Civil War-- the rich get a free pass.

more troops will make the resistance stop:eyes: Well, we can't just give up the idea of permanent bases and world domination just like that.

HIS bill called for ALL eligible people to go...college or not. Rich or poor. If there's a draft....We're outta here! They cannot have my son!

difference on many issues between Republicans and Democrats would be believed if so-called "liberals" like Hillary weren't running around. It really depresses me that so many good-intentioned liberals are so easily fooled by her slimy, self-serving politics. With liberal heroes like this, who needs enemies?

for more troops. Makes sense.

But the devil's in the details, like always. HOW do you get our guys out and, more importantly, get enough of them IN? The UN can't draft anyone, and no country with a lick of sense is going to throw troops into that meat grinder, IMO...

will sit on the sidelines and watch the administration wither in the wind. We're watching the slow emergence of the EU and the decline of US influence.

to mention the fact who wants to get into a quagmire that the world's most powerful military can't seem to handle?

I mean, why assume that the Iraqis aren't capable of managing their own affairs, even in the "interim"? Even US-sponsored polls show that the great majority of Iraqis wouldn't see a US-appointed interim government or even a UN-appointed interim government as legitimate, and similar numbers see recent events in Najaf and Fallujah as a justified revolt against colonialism. And why shouldn't they? As far as I'm concerned, the best solution would be an immediate and unconditional withdrawal, and just let the rebel militias provide security and organize new elections.

Sure, an ideally secular democratic state wouldn't come out of this (I'm all in favor of secular democratic states, but that's for local secular democrats to fight for), but it would probably incorporate much more democratic processes than anything set up by the U.S. or by the great-power-dominated U.N.

First of all, increasing the size of the military does not mean we can, we should, or we will increase our presence in Iraq. The military is currently stretched to the limit, and the enlisteds are taking the punishment for it. Hillary says, in effect, "if you want a war, George, I'll make sure you pay for it."

Second, a larger military will cost a lot more money. Yep. A lot more money for the same amount of war with even less ego-stroking wins means that a whole lot of Americans will become anti-war real fast. The actual cost will be much less than the cost of the war has been already.

Third, Hillary has, as I wrote, just eviscerated a huge number of Freeperish people.

Hillary isn't alone. Charles Rangel has been famously stumping for a toochess ahfen tish (put up or shut up) approach to the Bushwar.

Yes, it's a dangerous game. But, yes, Hillary thinks it's one that "we" will win. If Bush is pushed to make good on his word, his crusade will collapse into the shit from which it was spun. And good riddance.

--bkl

It's plain that this has been the neocon game all along: Contrary to advice from the Pentagon brass, to the UN, to world opinion, and to millions of concerned citizens here in the US, contrary to all this, the game plan was to bully ahead anyway (because they could), regardless, and create the world of shit in the ME that now exists.

AND THEN, now, the result is to have Dem politicians, like Hillary, like Kerry, take the pragmatic stance and say 'since we are there, we have to make something of it, We cannot afford to now lose Iraq.

I hope democrats are not thinking of making the same mistake as your current White House chimp.

If there is a good reason for a "colonial war" you will have all the support you need. But if you plan on going in on yourself (without UN approval) you need a larger military...

On the other hand, if they are playing political/psychological games, i hope they know what they are doing.

Her comments aren't the first time I've heard that from a Democrat. I've talked to many on the "Left", who have suggested the same thing. The reasoning is: as long as the "soccer" moms and dads don't have to feel the pains or worries of war, because it is being fought by "lower" classes, then they will remain apethetic to what is going on with this administration. However, if it looks like a draft is coming, and Biff, Skeeter, and Buffy have to go, then they may become more politically aware of what this administration is doing.

whole argument is that rich families always avoid the draft-- they've been doing it since the Civil War. Reinstituing the draft is unlikely to change the class composition of the US military much. It just means now working-class kids will be FORCED to join, rather than choosing the military as a job or means of education or social advancement.

which tells me one of two things. Hillary is not a liberal Dem and I have been using magical thinking when it comes to Hillary. She is slipping to the level of a Lieberman. Good thing she did decide to not run. I found out what she is really made of and I do not like it.

If she does not change, I will be suspicious of her if she, at one point in time, runs for president.

If you'll recall, Hillary's hubby dropped millions of tons of explosives on Iraq the late nineties, killed more Iraqis than Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. combined through murderous, child-killing sanctions, etc., etc. Why assume Hillary's got a different outlook? She's a corporate-backed, pro-'free trade" pro-imperialist, always has been and never pretends to be anything else. The idea that its all part of some secret plan to end the war is delusional and deeply sad.

Hillary isn't Bill. Why do you assume she's got the same outlook? Women do not automatically take on the political outlooks of their husbands when they marry, and vice-versa.

There is no grand corporate plan in her statement. She's pushing the Republicans up against the wall and daring them to make good. They can't, and she knows it.

--bkl

I would never automatically assume that a woman agrees with her husband's politics. I would however, assume that if she takes various roles as a spokesperson for his administration, campaigned for his election and re-election, etc., that she fundamentally agrees with his politics, not because they're married but for those reasons. I'm not assuming any kind of "grand corporate plan," I'm assuming that she means exactly what she says and that she wouldn't say it if she wasn't sincere. I see no reason to assume otherwise, given that she's never exactly even pretended to be anti-war. Assuming that its part of a secret plan to shame the Repukes and end the war is unsubstantiated conspiracy theorizing, period.

Hillary's recent moves are not part of a secret plan to shame the Republicans. It is part of a logical plan to make them accountable for the criminal fraud they have prepetrated on the USA and the world, at the expense of the US taxpayers and over the bodies of the Iraqis.

Similarly, Charles Rangel doesn't want to see a full generation of young Americans conscripted to fight for Halliburton and associates. Again, he's rubbing the war-makers' noses in the shit they've dumped on the hapless canon fodder that our barstool patriots are so happy to send to the Middle East to die.

We don't have what it takes to conduct a proper occupation. Americans will tolerate a lot, but they won't tolerate a fascist federal garrison state. Noam Chomsky and the Grand Wizard will play pinochle in a forward batallion on the Resistance line before that happens.

Hillary Clinton can agitate for war all she wants, but every "pro-war" statement she has made -- as far as I've seen -- has been made to force the war enthusiasts to stop thumping their chests and start giving blood. And the war wimps haven't exactly bled themselves white.

Team Bush has written a check with its tongue that its tail can't honor. And if Hillary Clinton undertakes to demand payment, I'll be happy to let her try to collect.

Because if nobody makes that demand, it's like giving them a line of credit that we will have to honor -- with our freedoms, our blood, and our children.

--bkl

"Hillary Clinton can agitate for war all she wants, but every "pro-war" statement she has made -- as far as I've seen -- has been made to force the war enthusiasts to stop thumping their chests and start giving blood...."

Including here "yea" vote on invading Iraq? Or her statements before the war to the effect that Saddam WMDs really did pose a grave danger?

Face it, she's never claimed to be anti-war, its delusional to read that into her statements.

Enough with the Hillary worship. She's a whore.

Get used to it.

She's not the person you thougt she was.

(not you, but everybody else who thinks "oh, look at the brilliant ploy she's pulling here")

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Give me a frikkin' break.

Hillary has drank of the Lieberman kool-aid and has sold out completely to the militaristic corporatist Sharon-kissing weasels

Her true colors are coming out and they aren't pretty.

She needs to either go to the Republican party or get the fuck out of town.

is to end the disastrous military adventure, boot the fools who started it, and do the right things going forward including the dogged pursuit of energy independence. That does not require more troops. It requires more brains.

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
news source.

Thank you.


DU Moderator

oh well, I guess both parties wipe their ass with it.

There seems to be this compensatory reflex of some Democrats: the more they are called "liberal", the more they try to prove how conservative they are.