New York Times: [1]

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining 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.