Did HRC say troops may be needed in Iraq while "attempting to figure out what to do about Iran"?

This was overlooked during the Lute hearing. It was posted as a reply in another thread but it is such a bombshell it warrants a full discussion.

==We may, as I have said, have remaining missions that will be concerned with Al Qaeda with the difficult position that we find ourselves in vis-à-vis the Kurds, the Turks, and the increasing pressure on the Kurds from the Sunnis to the south. As well as, perhaps, a continuing training and logistical role if the Iraqis get their act together, as well as protecting our interests and attempting to figure out what to do about Iran going forward. But I do not foresee a long term role for our combat brigades in the midst of this sectarian civil war.==

When she listed the reasons for her plan to keep troops in Iraq she also cited the possible need to keep them there while figuring out what to do with Iran. This, it seems to me, can only mean keeping them in Iraq in case they are needed in Iran when she "figures out what to do about Iran." Let's not forget what fellow DLC'er Holy Joe has been saying we should do regarding Iran lately...

P.S. Don't be fooled by the "mays" and "perhaps" the triangulator used in this public hearing. She has made clear that she will keep troops in Iraq indefinitely (apparently at least 10 years according to Ted Koppel) for at least some of those missions.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=275680

they have sold their souls to the BFEE for the almighty $

sorted out for themselves how to proceed yet. The possibility does exist that we can play SOME role in the near future of Iraq. I would personally discount the statements of anyone who claims they can see the future clearly enough to say otherwise.

IF their intended mission is to capture/kill Osama bin Laden and keep the on-deck post-withdrawl genocide down to reasonable (tens of thousands) numbers.
I'll even support going into Pakistan from Afghanistan to kill him.
And if Musharraf gets in the way - kill him, too.

Waht will you come up with next - "Water is Wet"?

But the simple fact of the matter is...he is NOT in Iraq, so why would buy the BS about fighting him in IRAQ?

didn't he order the yellowcake from Africa?
didn't he design and personally build those mobile poison gas trailers?
didn't he grab all those WMD and put them in his knapsack, carry-on hand luggage and a large wheeled Samsonite, and personally carry them to Syria, Iran, and Belgium?

geez, louise, folks. If Bin Laden didn't do all of those things in Iraq, why the hell are we there?

Some DLC'ers here actually believe things like that so it is sometimes difficult to separate (through a computer screen) true blue DLC'ers with such views from sarcastic progressives. ;)

that things will stay exactly as they are today into the indefinite future.

wise and rational response - thinking about the future and recognizing the complexities of the region and the constant need to re-evaluate foreign policy... Hmmm...

She sounds increasingly like Nixon, who ran as an anti-war candidate and then promptly escalated and expanded the war once voters turned the keys to the country to him for four years.

Not just Hillary, but all of the Presidential candidates, once they are in office will not respond to the situation at hand will act profoundly stupid.

Good grief.

You seemed to have ignored this part of Sen Clinton's statement at the end of your emboldened Iran words that clarifies things...How come?

Here is the clever deception by HRC: "But I do not foresee a long term role for our combat brigades in the midst of this sectarian civil war."

In other words, she is making it sound as if she will not keep troops in Iraq in the long-term while giving herself the perfect inoculation against charges of flip-flopping by implicitly limiting that comment only as it relates to the civil war. She, consistent with all her statements on continuing the (de-escalated under HRC) war, will not keep troops fighting in the civil war but they will remain for the other military missions she has consistently outlined, including on her own website.

It is unrealistic to expect that the U.S. embassy in Iraq is going to be the only undefended American embassy in the world. He will not keep troops in Iraq to prosecute a (de-escalated) war. Other candidates will continue the war.

yet, by parsing her words you have conflated your own interpretation of the meaning of her statement as your new interpretation in triangulation.

Yet, this statement means nothing to you..when in fact, this statement is diametrically opposed to your reinterpretation of convenience serving as an attempt to reinforce your argument.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/clinton.troops/index.html

And then there is the recent Ted Koppel report.

How about her own website?

==She believes we may need a vastly reduced residual force to train Iraqi troops, provide logistical support, and conduct counterterrorism operations.==

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

How about the link you cited?

==# Specifically it requires that a phased redeployment of United States military forces from Iraq has begun including the transition of United States forces in Iraq to the limited presence and mission of:

• Training Iraqi security forces;

• Providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces;

• Protecting United States personnel and infrastructure; and

• Participating in targeted counter-terrorism activities.==

Of course, HRC is not going to bother to state her true position on Iraq during debates and forums. :eyes:

is commonplace in the countries we have operational bases in now.

Certainly nothing of the magnitude stated by you in your last post.



No, of course not. She put it in writing for people like you who think nothing of taking license with her words and inventing a totally different scenario based on 3 or 4 words in a sentence containing the word "Iran." :crazy:

But, alas, no. Her polling folks are good, but not that good.

Iraq should be free and sovereign. That means withdrawing occupation troops.

Writing letters, interviewing officers, voting in the Senate (doing her job) and campaigning.WOW!

To whom it may concern,

Where is your candidate today & what are they doing?


May 23, 2007

Clinton Calls on Pentagon to Plan for Withdrawal from Iraq

Presses Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Begin Proper Planning

Washington, DC - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, in both a letter to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and in a private meeting with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace, called on the Pentagon to brief the Congress on any existing plans for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, or provide an explanation as to why such plans have not been properly created.

"The seeds of many problems that continue to plague our troops and mission in Iraq were planted in the failure to adequately plan for the conflict and properly equip our men and women in uniform," Senator Clinton wrote. "Congress must be sure that we are prepared to withdraw our forces without any unnecessary danger."




The full text of Senator Clinton's letter follows:
(link)
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=274922

As far as Iran, the big 3 have all been bellicose but HRC is the only one implying that part of the reason she will keep troops in Iraq is to "deal" with Iran. Obama has not been saying anything about his "limited" force for a "limited" time in Iraq. HRC deserves some credit for being open about her desire to keep troops in Iraq.

:scared: Does HRC think that we'll love her more if she exudes more testosterone-like blather than warmongering men? I'm NOT impressed. :(

Do you have a link? This is very, very important to me. I'd like to see ALL of the Dem candidates following Wes Clark on this - or better yet, following Dennis Kucinich.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

This was at the kick off of camapigning.

There is little difference among the big 3 in terms of their position on Iran which is talk first but basically all options are on the table.

Edwards reiterated that position at the recent debate.

:(

"Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel’s neighborhood much more volatile," Edwards said.

Edwards added, "Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."

It is okay for a candidate to say they want meaningful political or economic sanctions -- but the emphasis of ALL options remaining on the table is not okay by me.

Damn.

"As to the American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran."

I don't exactly take kindly to the idea that I can be "educated" as to the need to "go for" Iran. :(

She's going along with it but doesn't like to be identified with it

they lay off her and support her, and she sells whatever bits and pieces of her soul remain within her reach.