See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Clinton Says She Is Only Candidate Who Will End the War in Iraq
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy ... 008/04/09/AR2008040904190.html
Published: Apr 10, 2008
Author: Kornblut and Murray
Post Date: 2008-04-10 10:37:51 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 562
Comments: 36
ALIQUIPPA, Pa., April 9 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that she is the only presidential candidate who will end the Iraq war, as she sought to assert her foreign policy credentials a day after hearing congressional testimony from top U.S. leaders in Iraq. Speaking at an event with retired flag officers here, Clinton (N.Y.) accused her rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), of being disingenuous about his promise to end the war. "We need to be planning and preparing to start bringing our troops home, and I have committed to doing that within 60 days of my becoming president," she said. "Senator Obama, on the other hand, says he'll end the war, but his top foreign policy adviser said he won't necessarily follow the plan he's been talking about during this campaign -- that the plan is 'just words.' Well, you can count on me to end the war safely and responsibly." At a stop outside Pittsburgh later in the day, Clinton added Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) to her line of attack, saying, "One candidate will continue the war, one candidate only says he'll end the war, and one candidate is ready, willing and able to end the war." Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan dismissed Clinton's criticism as a "tired and discredited attack." Clinton was referring to comments by then-Obama adviser Samantha Power weeks ago that Obama's plans to pull combat troops out of Iraq in 16 months were a "best-case scenario." Power later resigned from the campaign. Despite the attacks by Clinton, Obama and McCain largely ignored her and dueled with each other over Iraq and the economy. Campaigning Wednesday in Malvern, Pa., Obama continued his focus on the economy as he tries to win over blue-collar voters in Pennsylvania and elsewhere with a message that reflects working-class concerns, from gasoline prices to declining wages. He decried the "Bush-Cheney-McCain" principle of "you're on your own," rather than "we're all in this together." Obama also said Republican policies have led to income inequality, boom-and-bust cycles such as the current housing market crisis, job outsourcing and income stagnation. "And that is why there will be a very clear choice in this election," he said, referring to a potential matchup against McCain in November, rather than against Clinton in the remaining primaries. "If you believe that our economy's on the right path, then John McCain's the candidate for you." At a campaign stop at Bridgewater Associates, a global investment firm in Westport, Conn., McCain was asked whether he would raise taxes, cut entitlement or defense spending, or increase the deficit. McCain rejected all four options, arguing that his proposal to cut taxes and eliminate wasteful earmarks would erase the deficit. "My answer to you is, you grow the economy," he said. "I believe we can grow this economy and reduce this deficit . . . by the kinds of pro-growth, pro-stimulus packages that have shown throughout history they can grow the economy." Appearing on Fox News, McCain also called on Obama to repudiate comments from liberal radio host Ed Schultz describing the senator from Arizona as a "warmonger." "If Senator Obama is going to wage the kind of campaign that he says he is, I hope that he will, he personally, will repudiate that kind of language," McCain said. The Obama campaign has played down the controversy as a bid by McCain for media attention, noting that Schultz is not connected to the campaign, as the radio host has repeatedly said. "John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be referred to as such," said Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki. A day after testimony by Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker before the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, McCain took pains to distance himself from President Bush even as he reiterated his support for Petraeus's handling of the war in Iraq. He vowed to confer more with congressional leaders on matters of war and to "be humble" in his dealings with foreign leaders. Asked whether he would reject Bush's "preemptive war" strategy, he did not rule it out but said he would take a sharply different tack when weighing military action overseas. "I think you need to consult more closely and carefully, not with every member of Congress, but with the leadership of Congress," he told the crowd of several hundred employees at Bridgewater. "If they're not in on the takeoff, they're not going to be in on the landing." In her remarks in Aliquippa, Clinton called on Bush to answer questions that she said were ignored Tuesday. "I asked General Petraeus for the conditions under which he would actually support a change of course in Iraq and to begin a drawdown of our troops, given that the surge has failed to achieve its stated goal of political reconciliation among the Iraqis," Clinton said. "Well, he didn't really answer me."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: christine (#0)
Too little, too late. If Hillary had been saying this kind of stuff two months ago, she might be in a position to get the nomination that is now virtually out of her grasp.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Does that mean that even tho she, like Paul, is for ending the war, you will not support her? Amazing how many "Americans" are voting and supporting more war. I do suspect a month in the front lines in Iraq would change many minds of people that have never seen blood and death.
If you trust someone with a history like Hillary's, you're a lot more trusting than me.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
She parses just as well as Bill, doncha think?
"Hello Rothschild's cattle!" ~ Deek Jackson
In other words, if Clinton assures us she will end the war in the ME, something that would end the bleeding and dying, you would not trust her, but rather support Obama and further war. You do however TRUST Obama to continue the war and expand in Afghanistan? Perverse thinking Ari, anything to justify white guilt, even at the expense of others blood.
And before the war started she was for it, unlike Obama who spoke out against the war in 2002, naming names, like Perle, Wolfowitz and Rove.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
You're forgetting Obama's record on civil liberties, I think. And, given the advisers he has chosen, and his record for a long time, I still believe Obama is a lot more likely to end the Iraq war than Hillary. Your constant harping on "white guilt" is getting tiresome. I dare you to find one posting of mine that supports that view of my motives.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Yeah well...good luck with that.
"Hello Rothschild's cattle!" ~ Deek Jackson
link that, will ya?
"Hello Rothschild's cattle!" ~ Deek Jackson
There's a concensus.
"Hello Rothschild's cattle!" ~ Deek Jackson
My thoughts exactly. She knows she's doomed and only now is she desperate enough to start doing what We The People really want.
I have done so many times here (with the text), but I am more than happy to do so again. This 2002 speech even has its own wiki link: Delivered on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, at the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq war rally (organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq) at noon in Federal Plaza in Chicago, Illinois; at the same day and hour that President Bush and Congress announced their agreement on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War, but over a week before it was passed by either body of Congress. en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Thank you. I don't keep up with the Obama posts as a rule.
"Hello Rothschild's cattle!" ~ Deek Jackson
If you trust someone with a history like Hillary's, you're probably dead.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802)
Again the Democrats show their cravenness if their statements opposing the war are to be believed. The UN Mandate justifying the US presence in Iraq expires early next year. Unless the Pentagon gets its SOFA agreement with Maliki, what legal rationale is there for the US presence? Why don't the Dems harp on that? Well, the 2002 war vote, the removing of even the cudgel and threat of impeachment after the 2006 victory. Having been on a jag about Classical Greece lately, it seems the the shelf life of a republic may well be a couple of centuries. Both the Athens and Roman Republics devolved into oligarchies and Rome then installed an Emperor when the democratic process stalled and oligarchies gave way to Emperors. I think we're there now. Remember the seminal article in the Army's Parameters magazine - The Coming Coup of 2012?
After the reforms of Cleisthenes, Athens was an independent democracy for nearly 200 years. For a bit over 200 years after that, Athens, although only semi-independent as a satellite first of various Hellenistic kingdoms and then of Rome, retained its democratic institutions. Only after Athens sided with Mithradates in the revolt against Rome did Sulla step in and replace Athenian democracy with a full-fledged oligarchy that lasted. (There were oligarchic episodes in Athenian history, both during the period of independence and during the period of satellite status, but they were short.) Rome was never really a democracy. The Roman Republic lasted nearly 500 years (although the Republic was dying during the last century or so of its existence.)
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Events may well move faster in the modern age. The Empire of Queen Victoria celebrated it's dominance over the world in a Grand Jubilee in India in 1899. 25 years later it was reeling from the ravages of the Great War. I'm of mixed mind whether this is our swan song. The ramifications of Iraq on our financial system and the corresponding waste of resources may well accomplish in years what it took centuries in the Classical era, and decades in the modern era.
Hillary war hawk for 7 years .... sticks finger in air ... chicken hawk.
I cling to hope of a 50 state repudiation of the traitorous, neocon Plutocrat Party
I heard a disheartening anecdote this afternoon. "The American people will never elect an anti-war President." Ulysses S. Grant.
I cling to hope of a 50 state repudiation of the traitorous, neocon Plutocrat Party
Hillary war hawk for 7 years .... sticks finger in air ... chicken hag.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802)
The American people, 100% percent, supported the efforts in Afghanistan, for the simple reason that that was where the enemy was/is. When it was switched abruptly and in a totally deceiving way to Iraq ... that's when the people lost their appetite. We are not an imperialistic nation.
I cling to hope of a 50 state repudiation of the traitorous, neocon Plutocrat Party
I totally believe he will do his best, via diplomacy with both the ME powers and the Western powers, to withdraw while keeping a lid on the boiling pot resulting from GWB's "dumb war.
I cling to hope of a 50 state repudiation of the traitorous, neocon Plutocrat Party
The way to get out of Iraq is to negotiate a deal with Iran, and Obama is the only one of the three who has indicated a willingness to do that.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I'm more concerned with Constitutional Rights than "civil liberties." He wants to bring back clinton's gun-ban...not a big fan of the 2nd amendment. He voted to renew the "patriot" act...guess he's not very fond of the 4th and 5th amendments, either. "Hate crime" legislation...so much for the 1st amendment. Abortion? 10th amendment...not so much. I'm trying to find some part of the Bill of Rights he is in favor of. Guess I'll have to wait and see what his position on quartering troops in people's homes is.
"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price." Vir Cotto, Babylon 5
dunk!
So very well said and impossible to spin.
I will grant you that, let's say that there's 10% about Hillary Clinton that we don't know yet, I will grant you that, but I would say there's also about 50% about Barack Obama that we don't know yet," Ed Rendell said.
He wants to bring back clinton's gun-ban...not a big fan of the 2nd amendment. He voted to renew the "patriot" act...guess he's not very fond of the 4th and 5th amendments, either. "Hate crime" legislation...so much for the 1st amendment. Abortion? 10th amendment...not so much. I'm trying to find some part of the Bill of Rights he is in favor of. Guess I'll have to wait and see what his position on quartering troops in people's homes is.
I'd like to think so too, but keep getting drawn back to the story of a little haberdasher from Independence MO that ended up the only world leader to date to use nuclear weapons. Good intentions don't count for much when you owe your position to the crazies at the top.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
on Hardball tonight, the gang was talking about an October Surprise (Iran) saying that bush would do this to insure his mcCandidate a win.
Other than Obamaphiles, no one will buy that nonsense.
Triple ditto that Cynicom.
"Satan / Cheney in "08"
At least Barack has calluses on his left hand.
A significant difference between the little haberdasher from Independence and the swaggering little brush cutter from Crawford is that Obama has an IQ considerably higher than room temperature.
I cling to hope of a 50 state repudiation of the traitorous, neocon Plutocrat Party
His "diplomatic surge" is a very good policy. Any day now, I expect to read Hillary claim it as her own idea.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
#2. To: christine (#0)
#3. To: aristeides (#1)
If Hillary had been saying this kind of stuff two months ago, she might be in a position to get the nomination that is now virtually out of her grasp.
#4. To: Cynicom (#3)
Does that mean that even tho she, like Paul, is for ending the war, you will not support her?
#5. To: christine (#0)
"...you can count on me to end the war safely and responsibly."
#6. To: aristeides (#4)
If you trust someone with a history like Hillary's, you're a lot more trusting than me.
#7. To: aristeides (#1)
#8. To: Cynicom (#6)
(Edited)
#9. To: aristeides (#8)
I still believe
#10. To: robin (#7)
unlike Obama who spoke out against the war in 2002, naming names, like Perle, Wolfowitz and Rove.
#11. To: ghostdogtxn (#2)
How far we've fallen.
#12. To: aristeides (#1)
Too little, too late.
#13. To: angle, *Obama 2008* (#10)
#14. To: robin (#13)
#15. To: aristeides (#4)
If you trust someone with a history like Hillary's, you're a lot more trusting than me.
#16. To: aristeides (#1)
#17. To: swarthyguy (#16)
#18. To: aristeides (#17)
#19. To: christine (#0)
Clinton Says She Is Only Candidate Who Will End the War in Iraq
#20. To: Cynicom (#3)
Amazing how many "Americans" are voting and supporting more war.
#21. To: iconoclast (#19)
Hillary war hawk for 7 years .... sticks finger in air ... chicken hawk.
#22. To: Cynicom (#6)
You do however TRUST Obama to continue the war and expand in Afghanistan?
#23. To: aristeides (#8)
And, given the advisers he has chosen, and his record for a long time, I still believe Obama is a lot more likely to end the Iraq war than Hillary.
#24. To: iconoclast (#23)
#25. To: aristeides, Cynicom (#8)
You're forgetting Obama's record on civil liberties, I think.
#26. To: orangedog (#25)
#27. To: orangedog (#25)
#28. To: orangedog (#25)
I'm more concerned with Constitutional Rights than "civil liberties."
#29. To: iconoclast (#23)
I totally believe he will do his best, via diplomacy with both the ME powers and the Western powers, to withdraw while keeping a lid on the boiling pot resulting from GWB's "dumb war.
#30. To: aristeides (#24)
#31. To: christine (#30)
saying that bush would do this to insure his mcCandidate a win.
#32. To: Cynicom (#3)
I do suspect a month in the front lines in Iraq would change many minds of people that have never seen blood and death.
#33. To: Cynicom (#31)
Other than Obamaphiles, no one will buy that nonsense.
#34. To: _______ (#33)
#35. To: Dakmar (#29)
I'd like to think so too, but keep getting drawn back to the story of a little haberdasher from Independence
#36. To: aristeides, iconoclast (#24)
The way to get out of Iraq is to negotiate a deal with Iran, and Obama is the only one of the three who has indicated a willingness to do that.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest