First you say you will and then you won't.

Run time: 00:27 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e89-M7-dSGQ   Posted on YouTube: November 07, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: November 08, 2007 By DU Member: be inspired Views on DU: 4035

 
What is Hillary Clinton's position on Iraq?

By the way, if the theme song here sounds familiar from a video that was posted yesterday by ultraist, it's because a couple of us got together and realized Clinton needs a new campaign theme song - one that reflects her personality more than Celine Dion. This is it.

Absolutely the best theme song for Hillary, realisitc, true, spot on!

would make the republican swift boaters proud keep it up your doing there job for them

The video uses her own words and cuts to the essence of her Iraq policy (or non-policy). Better to have the truth come out now, during the primary, than later, after we've made the wrong choice AGAIN.

They want their revenge during the general election on the Clinton family for 1992. They have been obsessed with the Clintons since then.

They're not afraid of Hillary. They imagine it will be a cakewalk to beat her. And even if they lost to her, they figure it's not really a loss - she's the most like them (true, blue DLC - the closest thing to a Republican) of any of the Democratic candidates.

The ones they're really afraid of are Gore, Edwards, and Kucinich.

It is our job as Democrats to deny them what they want.

Hillary's doing our job for us by self-destructing with all her evasions and self-contradictions which are now part of her permanent record.

...we're not gonna get Edwards, Gore or Kucinich.

We won't get Edwards because there aren't enough of us to break through the ~40 percent (nationally) of people who vote Democratic and pick up the Independents and liberal Republicans. The numbers aren't there and they haven't been there for a long time. There used to be a solid group of Dixiecrats we could rely on: Dick Shelby, Phil Gramm, Rick Perry of Texas and others are in this group. Zell Miller is one of these people. So is Sam Nunn. I'll even put Lindsay Graham in this group. Jim Webb of Virginia isn't far away, either.

If Edwards couldn't carry North Carolina for Kerry, what kind of nominee do you think he would make?

Gore doesn't want it. I think that's clear. He's said it over and over and over...and it's too late now anyway because Iowa is sixty days away. He has a different life now. Yes, I think he could win. But the argument is academic.

Kucinich? Yeah, right. Now there's a way to split the party in half. How does Kucinich carry five southern states? How does he carry Ohio, with all the people who remember Cleveland going into bankruptcy while he was mayor? How does he carry Florida? How about Pennsylvania, when Kerry only won it by a single percentage point...and I think that's largely attributable to Theresa's influence in Pittsburgh. He wouldn't have a prayer there.

The country is not progressive! We are not the United States of Northern California and we never will be. There isn't the will for it and there sure as hell isn't the money for it.

We're either gonna get Hillary (who in another era would have been a Republican and actually was a Republican in high school) or end up with Giuliani or Romney. There's some real ugly stuff in Giuliani's background and Romney is said to be pulling closer in New Hampshire.

Other than that, the race is basically over. I like Biden and Dodd but both of these guys were in Hillary's shadow all year long. They say Ron Paul is breaking all fundraising records right now but he doesn't have the media's blessing.

They say Huckabee appears to be pulling closer in Iowa. If he makes a strong showing, he could be asked to take the VP slot because he's a southerner and that'll be important this time around. Oh, and by the way...he's an ordained minister, just like Strickland in Ohio. It appears to be a trend...and there are many, many rumors of Hillary pulling in Strickland as a running mate. Both of these turds are basically moderate Republicans. You can start crying now.

Even so, all indicators seem to be pointing to Hillary...and she'll be awful. Half of the party blames Bill for all the unemployment in the Rust Belt due to the trade agreements...and they hate her guts. Every day, Fox News or The Politico or conservative talk radio will serve up a new scandal or sexual peccadillo from Bill's Arkansas days or some other such thing...

...and the progressive movement will take yet another hit to its credibility.

It almost makes sense for Democrats to stay home in 2008. I suspect many of them will do precisely that.

I guess I missed all those times Gore said he "doesn't want it". All I recall him ever saying is he "has no plans" to run. Which means nothing is clear yet. And no, it's never too late for a man of his dignity and stature to enter the race and run away with it.

If Edwards runs away with Iowa and New Hampshire, will you still have the same dismal outlook about him?

And what if Kucinich continues to surprise everyone, as he did in the DFA straw poll (winning by a landslide), and by being the only Congresscritter to introduce a bill of impeachment?

I for one don't subscribe to crystal ball gazing. All is still possible, despite all the mindless brain scrubbing engaged in by the MSM every day.

...Iowa is less than sixty days out. Gore would need a staff and funding. I don't see them. He hasn't been in any of the debates.

Edwards hasn't been able to fight off Hillary and he's dumping his own money into the race. A lot of people thought he was a drag on Kerry in 2004. He's had it.

What is this obsession with Kucinich? What states in the South does Kucinich carry? How does he carry Ohio? How does he carry Pennsylvania? How does he carry Florida?

Moreover, how does a guy who looks like Dennis Kucinich and carries on like Dennis Kucinich be taken seriously?

The nominee will be Hillary. And she's likely to take a heavy beating in the South.

She has to win something down there...and that means she's not gonna be progressive.

You can't have it both ways.

Because by now I don't think you'd want to read what I have to say.

...I'm impossible to offend. I've been posting in forums like this one for longer than many of the posters here have been alive. I work in the tech sector but my undergrad is in Political Science and I have many years of experience watching the campaigns, starting in 1972.

You can talk to me.

My undergrad at Bezerkely was also in Political Science. My experience in campaigning began with Eugene McCarthy's 1968 presidential campaign (he was a relative unknown outside of his strong criticism of Johnson's Vietnam policy). I also worked on the McGovern campaign in 1972. In 1975 I campaigned for George Moscone (against Feinstein) for Mayor of San Francisco. Most recently I campaigned for Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer and Francine Busby (for the 50th Congressional District where I now live in San Diego).

Unfortunately, I do find myself feeling offended at times by certain posters on DU. Not personally, but there are just some very obnoxious people here I've run in to, which are now all on "ignore". The vast majority are DLC'ers, whose posts I generally deem an insult to my intelligence.

So siding with any anti Hillary info is the same as working for the repukes huh?

Their numbers are far smaller than the Bushies would like to pretend. If we left, who would they be fighting? The Iraqis would hunt them down and drive them out.

Answer the question, please.

and btw, if that's her position then she really doesn't get it!


Peace!

and how to get the troops out. She equivocates on all issues.

I just feel she will be like many in congress that had promise but now are voting for Bush policies.

She is sounding more and more like a consumate poitician all the time much to my dissapointment,

I believe if we nominate her there will be a Republican elected in 08.

that it's called "Undecided".......lol. A couple of us were chatting about this track recently but I can't remember the context. Find Ella's early track, with Chick Webb I guess, and listen to that.

Yes, that is indeed the name of the song. Probably I should have put that in my post. Thanks for the tip about Ella. I didn't even know what the name of this song was or who sung it until yesterday when it popped into my head while I was thinking about Hillary. I had (sort of) heard it before, but if you want to know the truth, I knew it from a really bad version of it that Davey Jones and his "girlfriend" sang once on the Monkees. I could tell it was an old song, but had to figure out what it really was. The version I found first on YouTube is by the Delta Rhythm Boys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZlSscwvkCA

:kick:

I LIKE IT! We really should be running her campaign for her, you know? I think we really "get" Hillary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s1FWqKI5As

Might as well knock yourselves out!

That Edward's position on Iraq is identical to HRC's and that he's talking out of both sides of his mouth right?

That you are full of it.

Clinton has said exactly what she says in the video above. She would have getting "most" combat troops out by the end of her first term as a goal, but would continue combat missions against Al Qaeda in Iraq indefinitely.

Edwards would get ALL combat troops out of Iraq within the first 9 months to one year of his presidency, and the only troops he would leave would be non-combat troops specifically to protect our embassy. That would be 3,500 to 5,000 troops in a non-combat role.

In other words, Clinton would continue the war. Edwards would end it.

Here is his policy on Iraq

But it is true that he would pull all combat troops out of Iraq (unlike Clinton) and keep some in the region, outside of Iraq, in case there was a verifiable terrorist threat aimed at the United States coming from inside Iraq (NOT if there was Iraqi on Iraqi violence). That is far different from keeping troops inside Iraq to continue to go after Al Qaeda, which is what Clinton would do and which is what has been the excuse for the war all along.

sounds like double speak to me.

If any combat troops remain in Iraq, the Iraqi's would then still consider that we are occupying them. If on the other hand, they are in another country, and could be called on when needed, they could start governing themselves. It is much more about what the Iraqi's perceive, and how they react to it, then what troops are where.

Have you ever taught a child anything? They want to do it themselves, but as a parent you keep an eye on them. Having troops in Kuwait, is keeping an eye on them, while talking them through the process, not trying to do it for them.

zalinda

Send in Combat troops into Iraq from Kuwait 9am to 5pm--and then have them go back after work hours?

Most likely not send them in at all unless there is a specific threat and a specific target. This is not going to be ongoing war, unlike the Clinton plan. Are you a Clinton supporter? Because you sure seem to be trying to muddy the waters here and blur what are real distinctions.

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

Bill O'Reilly would skip right past blurring distinctions and just call Edwards a terrorist.

I'm an Edwards supporter --but I find this thread moronic --and a disservice to both Edwards and Clinton --and more importantly to the Democratic Party.

to clarify --I support ALL the Democratic candidates.

what I DON'T support is bashers

Because this is the truth about her position. Or is the truth "bashing?"

that her position is no different than Edwards' position.

And as I've already told you how they differ and given several links to prove it, I can't believe you would try that same lie a second time.

--or not?

WTF is the difference --except now he thinks our troops can just hump it down to Bahgdad from Kuwait anytime there's trouble.

It's disingenuous and most likely unfeasible.

Let me spell it out. Again.

Hillary Clinton would keep COMBAT troops in Iraq and continue COMBAT with anyone she designates a terrorist or "Al Qaeda."

John Edwards would get ALL combat troops OUT of Iraq and would ONLY reenter Iraq if there were a specific target that was an immediate threat against the U.S.

Do you really not understand the difference it would make to the Iraqis to have their country occupied by an American military presence engaged in active combat vs. NOT being occupied? How is that not a big difference? Because I guarantee you it's a big difference to the Iraqis.

--I guess it must be true.

I understand the concept you THINK will happen.

I'm not comfie with a standing army in Kuwait that can attack at the President's whim without approval from Congress --but that's just me.

But that doesn't mean it's the same as keeping combat troops in Iraq. At least admit that.

it's still combat in Iraq --what's the difference whether the troops have tents in Iraq or Kuwait?

We have no right to be there. Bring the troops home now.

The one he co-sponsored...:shrug:

maybe the repukes will have a job for you guys after Edwards is done digging his political grave.

Republican and MSM appointed frontrunner for the Democratic nomination!

I'm pretty sure somebody will be willing to pay

These are her real words, representing her real positions with her pictures, many of which seem to me to be official campaign type portraits. How is this sliming? You don't like the song? Or you can't handle the truth?

twisted to leave a negative impression. It's a hit job and could be easily done to any candidate. If this were a project for journalism class, you'd fail simply because of the unfairness of it - taking quotes out of context and pasting them together. If that's all Edwards has left, he'll soon be former Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards. And it will be a fate of his own creation.

First of all, it's only two quotes, one from the debate on 9/26 and one from the debate on 10/30. The second one is fairly long. They are taken out of context only in so far as they aren't in the context of the full debate (that would be kind of long). They are not unfairly snipped, and they do represent what she actually said about her plan.

Here are the full transcripts:
September 26th
October 30th

Did she really say her goal was to get all or most combat troops out by the end of her first term? Yes.

Did she really say she would leave troops in Iraq to continue combat missions against Al Qaeda in Iraq? Yes. Is this really the same rationale that was given for the war in the first place? More or less.

Has she said other, conflicting things sometimes or even in the context of the same debate? Yes, but doubletalk is her M.O., so this is not really surprising.

Do I want to end the war? Yes. Do I think John Edwards wants to end the war? Yes. Do I think Hillary Clinton wants to end the war? Not so much. Do I trust her? Not at all.

Is it fair to consider these issues in the context of a democratic primary between the candidates? Absolutely.

how does "all or most" conflict with leaving a small number there to engage al qeada if it is using Iraq as a base of some sort? "All or most" means all or most, I guess. If not all, then most.


By context, I mean the full answer to the question, after hearing the question. What question was she answering? The same question? It's not evident in your video, and no links appear in your video. I doubt even fox news would air such an attack.

And it's not the same rationale for going into Iraq in the first place - wmds that were an imminent threat was the rationale then. We were lied to. Congress was lied to. The world was lied to. Fighting aq, which wasn't there before but evidently is there now, is not the same as pulling inspectors from their work (which Hillary condemns) so bombing could start to save the US from all sorts of made-up dangers. It's not the same as staying in small numbers to engage aq if they are, in fact, there. Who's double talking here?

Sorry, but saying something doesn't make it true.

Former presidential candidate John Edwards, and I agree that soon-to-be for the second time, has bought into Karl Roves tactics and the majority of democrats are not happy with that behaviour.

He has also killed his chances for having Hillary bring him as a running mate.

Ask yourself a question, has Edwards, so far, gained anything from the slime besides filling the hearts of the republicans with joy?

Look at the numbers, and read the blogs, you will find that more people, who may have considered Edwards, are now turning against him. The same goes for Obama.

And I will emphasize that I have never been crazy about Hillary, but when you take the time and do the analysis of where we are and what I believe needs to happen for us to get out of this mess, Hillary brings with her the most realistic view. Edwards and Obama, besides their attempts to trash Hillary, are full of rhetoric that would be impossible for them to carry out if the surreal happens and one of them becomes president.

I am not associated with the Edwards campaign and made this video myself.

We are not helping Ms. Inevitability. Yeah. I can see why you're upset about that.

That ship has sailed.


The only way he can make himself look good is to tear down his competitors. And it only makes him look sad and desperate.

I don't buy into Bush's "dissent is unpatriotic" idea. I also don't buy into the "dissent is undemocratic" idea the Clinton campaign is pushing. Hillary Clinton is not going to be crowned queen on my watch. There are real problems with her positions and it is entirely fair to point them out.

Ain't we special... Last I looked it was one person one vote and it appears that she may indeed be crowned queen on "your watch."

Yes, sadly, the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty WOULD go a long way toward turning the U.S. into a monarchy. All us patriots can do is to fight against that sad trend.

get it?

- "Sorry, I don't buy into Bush's "dissent is unpatriotic" idea. "

Do you have some basis for insinuating that I, like bush, hold that idea? What exactly are you saying? It's hard to tell.

And as far as that goes, you twist my words just like you twist hers - and guess what, it's transparent to many.

Isn't trying to silence dissent pretty much what you're doing when you say that pointing out what Clinton has said and how it differs from my own candidate's position is "sliming?" Again, you may think that quoting Hillary Clinton's own words don't reflect well on her, but if they don't, it's because she said them.

I don't see how "you can't attack other Democrats" is any different from "you can't criticize the president." It's all trying to silence dissent. And in this case, I am not making up an attack, much as you seem to think so. I am merely quoting Clinton.

But, in fact, I know you, and Edwards, won't stop - and I acknowledged as much by talking about him finishing digging his political grave at the outset of this converstaion. Show me where I asked you to stop.

Did I point out the unfairness of these youtube attacks, and the whole "doubletalk" smear - yeah. Did I mention that it repulses me? If I didn't let me do so now. It disgusts me to see Democrats hurling mud at each other.


But no where did I ask you to stop. I would never want to infringe upon your right to make a fool out of yourself. Please, knock yourself out with this crap. The sooner Edwards fades away, the better.

You and Skip Intro should really get together on your talking points. Because Skip Intro just told me someone would want to pay me for my skills. LOL.

the RNC for starters

Do you think the US should not engage Al Qaeda if they're in Iraq?

Obviously a troop withdrawl is needed, and she said that (no?), but if it becomes necessary for security reasons she will engage Al-Q, IF they're in Iraq.

Makes sense.

I don't think so.

Now we know.

Thanks!

This attack on Clinton is empty-headed nonsense.

Because she won't give a "Sherman" statement about removing ALL American troops from Iraq, we should be outraged.

And yet, when Congressman Murtha advocates a "redeploy" strategy that would move troops to the periphery of Iraq, ya'll cheer!

This Clinton attack is partisan bullshit.

Period.

why be upset with Mr. Bush for starting the war to begin with. ?

"Who here advocate NOT engaging Al-Qaeda?"

Me. Thanks.

Mrs. Clinton has convinced you that the boogey man is real? (*edit to add link to what DU'ers think of the latest boogeyman threat just in time for Christmas: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3060046)

I understand that by the mere definition of cognitive dissonance that there is no way to make someone in it's throes see the light.

Coming out and saying they'd rather not engage Al-Qaeda would be a death sentence at the polls for any candidate.

And no, you are wrong to extrapolate my question to mean "why be upset with Mr. Bush for starting the war to begin with". Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before the war. Were you not aware of that?

Mrs. Clinton hasn't convinced me of anything, but someone has convinced you of something strange.

I am getting sick of this crap.

and many of you are eating their garbage.

Democrats in DU are starting to sound just like those in congress and senate, they cannot unite. You are all doing such a great job for the republicans, they can now sit, watch, drink lemonade (or whatever they drink) and enjoy while DU bloggers take care of trashing their own candidates.

The message to Edwards and Obama should be clear, you don't hit on family, and Hillary should be considered as part of the Democrats family.

Don't complain when democrats jump to defeat the Cheney impeachemnt, don't complain when Lieberman (the Repub agent) goes against (as he always does) the democrats ideals, some of you (too many) are doing the same.

WHAT is wrong with you people???? IFFF.. I had the time and some $$$ I COULD AND WOULD put together A few snippets and EDITS on OBAMA AND EDWARDS......! Why don't you volunteer for charity work..community service or something positive...this is becoming more apparent to those WHO HAVE A BRAIN AND USE IT! EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED TO KERRY...


OH! and Obama's new BLK AND WHT ad....IT'S NOT WHAT IS...IT'S WHAT IS NOT!!! OPEN YOUR EYES. READ BETWEEN THE LINES...

Follow the money and look at who the military industrial complex and big pharma is backing. They and the media are our enemies!

she doesn't want to look weak on defense, her "biggest elephant in the living room", so to speak. That's her biggest vulnerability, the RW would never stop attacking relentlessly. She may have better instincts. but she is stuck with subtle hints of continuing the Mideast conflict. She may be able to overcome this flaw by having vast amounts of money to get powerful labor unions on her side and people like Joe Wilson, Mondale, and other Democratic celebrities to shill for her. IMHO, she would have been a logical choice follow her husband administration, but following Bush with his Mideast mess makes her candidacy problematic.