Clinton Lays Her Cards on the Table: Will Continue War if Elected President

New York Times:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a ”œremaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

Yeah, plenty of people will spin that as ending the war, but it won’t. This is a recipe for war without end. Clinton is establishment to the nines, and she wants to keep those bases in Iraq. Since a small US presence in Iraq isn’t possible (becaue, ummm, the government would fall and the new government would tell the US to leave, assuming they hadn’t already put the bases under siege) her plan is just pie-in-the sky.

Nonethelss I appreciate her honesty in laying out her position – as Chris Bowers had said in the past, and as I likewise believed, she would not end the war in Iraq if elected President. She voted for the war, she has repeatedly refused to say that she was wrong to do so in unequivocal terms, and with this interview, it is now impossible to say that she is anything but for the war.

Democrats will now have a clear choice between a pro-war candidate and candidates who are clearly for ending the war.

This post was read 102 times.

About author View all posts

Ian Welsh

12 CommentsLeave a comment

  • I think she’s fishing for Rudy Guiliani votes.
    As much as ever, I still find it impossible that she would win the nomination. If she were to, I would believe once and for all that Democratic primary voters have taken leave of their senses.
    I truly do not understand her appeal on any level.

  • So far:

    – Edwards supported Bush’s murderous and futile troop surge.

    – Obama campaigned for Joe Lieberman after he lost the Democratic primary.

    – Hillary Clinton IS Joe Lieberman in drag.

    Anybody seen a DEMOCRAT running for president? I’m getting a little tired of these poorly fabricated CPA’s (Complete Pandering Assholes).

    One of these days a REAL Democrat will come along, and he’ll reveal all these lame-ass DLC, blue-dog, third-way pseudo-Dems to be the ugly, half-breed sellout donkey-phants that they are.

    But will Keith Olberman run for president?

    “Death before being dishonored any more.” – Col. Ted Westhusing

  • …deter Iranian aggression…

    Other than a bunch of trash-talking on the part of Ahmadinejad, has there been any aggression?

    You know, if you look at things from their side, it’s the US that’s been the aggressor, starting with the CIA toppling of Mossadegh, bringing in a tyrant ruler, egging neighbors into a war, shooting down civilian airliners…

  • From any side, the chief aggressor in this relationship is the US; it has invaded, “regime changed” and occupied two of Iran’s neighbours, built new military bases on their frontiers, spoken openly of “regime changing” Iran again (it already “regime changed” Iran once before) and has a massive fleet off their south shore.

    “Iranian aggression”? Yeah, right. Go smoke some more crack, you morons; I own a map and I don’t suffer from Alzheimer’s.

  • to the rigid position that US “interests” must be secured by armed intervention. Who at this point can possibly be surprised that virtually every “mainstream” politico of both parties endorses the “consensus view” of US foreign policy as it has been practiced since the Cold War, and refined toward world hegemony since collapse of the Soviet Union? The public has been conditioned to expect this, the military has taken it on board as a principal “mission”, and the entire culture is geared toward “projecting a muscular foreign policy”, usually at the point of a gun.
    Where is the national debate as to the continued viability of this mindset? Where are those “intellectuals” and think-tank pundits calling for a revisiting of old and discredited policy assumptions? No, one can’t fault HRC, as she is simply parroting the “national interest” here, seemingly enshrined immutably within both parties and the public.

  • A vote for Hillary is a vote for contless more meaningless U.S. deaths and further control of what laughably can be called the U.S. government by nuclear-armed Israel.

  • There is only the patrons of politicians. The only strategic disagreement is who will wind up with the most money. The only difference in tactics is which lie they will tell first.

  • I cannot understand how you interpret Edwards as being for the surge. He couldn’t have come out against it any more. And from recent comments, he’s saying in a less blunt way than Feingold that we should cut off funding the war.

  • Edwards’ sin was aping the BushCo line on Iran, that “all options are on the table” for dealing with another country that has not attacked us.

    Pandering to AIPAC and the criminal right wing is an efficient way to lose my support.

    Frankly, the only rational stance on Iraq is to withdraw, asap. Staying there is only making things worse, which is Bush’s job.

    “Death before being dishonored any more.” – Col. Ted Westhusing

  • How anyone can find her an appealing candidate is beyond my understanding. Anyone who pays attention can see she would be a major disaster as a president. On par with Bush.

  • They are all bought by the money. This pres election it is going to be even worse with everyone moving their primaries up to early Feb. She/he with the most money before then has a huge advantage.

    On the foreign policy issue, nothing better we could do for our fp, the “war” on terror, and the price of oil than to pull out lock, stock, and barrel. That is after pounding on Israel and Palestinian to come to peace.

Leave a Reply