Hillary To White House: No Permanent Bases In Iraq

Comments (42)

Mike wrote on November 27, 2007 3:24 PM:

Under Guliani murder rates in New York went up by over 3000 in 2001 alone while he was mayor. You call that protecting America?
Rudy Guliani was too busy before 9-11 protecting the interests of Bernie Kerik who is now under federal indictment.
He knew about his mafia connections and kickbacks.
He was protecting his friend - a pedophile preist.
He got kickbacks from the company that made defective radios that firemen had to use.
He was seeing another women while married.
No wonder Guliani did not protect Americans before 9-11.

hadenough wrote on November 27, 2007 3:29 PM:

I have no idea what she means:
"I am particularly concerned that this document did not contain any explicit reference or language that indicates that the United States will not seek and will not maintain permanent military bases in Iraq."

Oh that's so confusioning. Who could figure out what that means. Why won't she tell us what she'll do:
"I urge you to clarify the Declaration of Principles with the Iraqi government to confirm that the United States does not plan to place any permanent bases within Iraq and instead plans to begin the phased redeployment of U.S. troops."

Oh no! Why won't she stop triangulating!

How'd I eric? Was that OK?

CT Voter wrote on November 27, 2007 3:29 PM:

To be clear, attempts to establish permanent bases in Iraq would damage U.S. interests in Iraq and the broader region, and I will continue to strongly oppose such efforts.

This doesn't indicate what her position would be if permanent bases were created in spite of opposition.

Michael wrote on November 27, 2007 3:35 PM:

I guess she finally got her poll results on this issue and ran it by bill. Took a while, like the driver's license thing. Gee she wrote a letter to the king. Wow, that's much more powerful that issuing two press releases that say the same thing. Took them a while to come up with how to out do obama, in their minds.

Donovan wrote on November 27, 2007 3:45 PM:

The Democratic Party is filled with petty and snarky people like Michael.

Geez Michael, it's so easy to sit on your fat ass and criticize people instead of getting out and doing something with your life.

DRinOH wrote on November 27, 2007 3:49 PM:

Controversy's over. Greg blew it with the first Obama release, but it's fixed. Let's move on...

Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 3:50 PM:

What, no snarky editorializing?

BlueDog wrote on November 27, 2007 3:54 PM:

Hillary, you're awesome. Don't let the haters get to you.

John McCutchen wrote on November 27, 2007 3:55 PM:

Brunehilde should have thought about that before she supported Bush's War on Iraq 2002-2006

texasdem wrote on November 27, 2007 3:56 PM:

Obama "somewhat hedged," but this is perfectly clear? Where's Spencer Ackerman's "analysis" of Hillary's statement?

John McCutchen wrote on November 27, 2007 3:58 PM:

As Hillary sinks steadily beneath the corn stalks, BREAKING NEWS

I don't pay any attention to polls. The only poll that counts will be on January 3rd, caucus day - Bill's Wife MSNBC

loki wrote on November 27, 2007 3:59 PM:

For the record, I also don't think Clinton is going to be so hard and fast on the whole "no permanent bases"/"no residual forces" bit. I suspect she will as well leave wiggle room. It is the politically smart thing to do.

Oops. I was wrong.

Anonymous wrote on November 27, 2007 4:02 PM:

Can America afford on the job training for President Hillary Clinton?

loki wrote on November 27, 2007 4:04 PM:

Iraq and bases and oil oh my!

Interesting piece, actually.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/holt01_.html

Donovan wrote on November 27, 2007 4:10 PM:

Can a blog afford a person who is already anonymous to be more anonymous?

What? You don't stand behiind your comments, Mr. Anonymous?

Fred App wrote on November 27, 2007 4:17 PM:

Seriously, I'm with TEXASDEM on this one. Obama's original statement was much more definitive and straightforward, and you parsed the hell out of it until you found possibly a sliver of wiggle room. Hillary's statement is far less direct, and you pass it along with no questioning whatsoever. And you wonder why commenters think you're biased?

"I will continue to strongly oppose such efforts." That's spoken like one senator out of 100, in an opposition party. But the issue is not what she'll do now as a senator. It's what she'll do as president. She didn't address that at all. Talk about wiggle room.

loki wrote on November 27, 2007 4:18 PM:

Donovan,

You have a point, but for me it's not the anonymity, per se...it's the lack of moniker. After getting a feel for certain forum member's commenting style I'll often look to see future comments.

That's why I'd like to see more names (even if it's a goofy made up name) to go with the comments.

Michael wrote on November 27, 2007 4:20 PM:

Uh, donovan, I am defending my candidate against the relentless clinton II attack machine, along with periodic humor. Apparently, I have discovered as evidenced by your post that clinton II supporters generally have no sense of humor and have no understanding as to why they support her, other than she is clinton II. That's not enough for me and I want the dems to win in 08, so I am for my candidate, anybody but clinton II in 08.

CT Voter wrote on November 27, 2007 4:21 PM:

loki,

I completely agree--all you anonymous people out there, choose a name and stick with it...you create a context for your comments.

Derek wrote on November 27, 2007 4:25 PM:

See i think the problem is that's it is perfectly acceptable to parse what a SPOKESMAN for a presidential campaign says, but you're not allowed to parse a written letter from a presidential CANDIDATE (that mentions nothing about what THEY would do if president).

Two completely different things here and they should not be handled the same way.

Jeremy wrote on November 27, 2007 4:27 PM:

Hillary has gotten somewhat less hawkish, but maybe we should consider candidates that don't have a track record of knee-jerk support for invading and occupying foreign countries without so much as reading the NIE. Just a thought.

Donovan wrote on November 27, 2007 4:29 PM:

Michael, you're not clever enough to attempt humor. You come off as snarky and petty. That is usually what happens when someone thinks he's being funny. The real humor in it all is that no one but the joke-maker is laughing.

"Hillary's relentless attack?" Are you smoking the same dope Obama did?

Mr. Candidate of Hope has long abandoned his promise to the Democratic voters.

Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 4:40 PM:

Donovan:

Apparently you've been smoking the same dope as Obama (btw, nice snark) if you don't think Clinton has been on the attack lately. Even the more ardent HRC supporters recognize that. It's not a good/bad thing, it is what it is--a political campaign. If no one told you, you have to exhale as well.

Donovan wrote on November 27, 2007 4:45 PM:

Jeremy, should we consider a candidate that spoke out against Iraq BEFORE he became a US Senator, but AFTER becoming one, he's voted for every single war funding bill and was against a Timetable?

Should we consider a candidate who rapped his rival over lobbying, but is embroiled in a new scandal over his own PAC?

Should we also vote for a Senator who has missed 80& of votes since September?

The same Senator who has missed crucial votes like Kyl/Lieberman, S-Chip, only to later criticize his rivals for showing leadership by actually taking a stand?

Jeremy wrote on November 27, 2007 4:45 PM:

Donovan wrote on November 27, 2007 4:29 PM:

...

"Hillary's relentless attack?" Are you smoking the same dope Obama did?

Mr. Candidate of Hope has long abandoned his promise to the Democratic voters.

Usually what happens when someone thinks he's being funny is that no one but the joke-maker is laughing. You come off as petty.

Donovan wrote on November 27, 2007 4:50 PM:

Only John Kerry would allow constant and continuous attacks upon him to go unanswered.

For several months, as Edwards' and Obama's attacks became more personal, it was my hope that Hillary would counter-attack.

We all learned the lessons of Kerry and it is foolish to not respond aggressively to mudslingers, especially someone like Obama, whose own vulnerabilities are easily exploitable.

But to claim that Hillary is "relentlessly" attacking is a hyperbole befitting one who's view does not reflect reality.

Donovan wrote on November 27, 2007 4:54 PM:

Jeremy, I'm flattered you can only borrow my words. Have you not your own originality and cleverness to fend yourself?

I suppose when you buy into someone who claims to be a "Candidate of Hope" you're not really that much of an independent thinker.

Jeremy wrote on November 27, 2007 4:55 PM:

Donovan, lashing out is not going to make Hillary's track record of poor judgment disappear. She needs to explain to voters how her experience informs her judgment or the centerpiece of her campaign is going to dissolve into an abstraction. Obama's judgment hasn't been perfect and I think there's a case to be made that a more aggressive approach based on defunding the war might have gotten results. There's a big difference between trying to make the best of a horrible situation and making the situation horrible. The fact stands that Hillary voted for Bush's blank check and against efforts by Democrats to force more diplomacy. Her so-called experience has not proven to inform good judgment over the course of her track record.

BTW, Obama's PAC actually donated to Hillary in 06. Will she be endorsing him soon? One memo from a union busting, Blackwater lobbyist doesn't make a scandal. We know what kind of tactics people like Penn use and this attempted hit is completely without substance.

Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 4:57 PM:

Donovan:

To your question:

1. See Meet the Press on Sunday November 11, 2007, for the answer to your questions (implied) about his votes on the funding of the war.

2. There's no scandal, just an insinuation by HRC. The FEC is not investigating HopeFund, nor is there any indication that HopeFund has run afoul of the law. See Ben Smith's post from yesterday, spelling all of this out in greater detail.

3. He missed the vote (and he admits that), but he's been on record about KLA before it was adopted, the similar measure he co-sponsored (S. 970) makes clear that diplomacy, not structuring our forces in Iraq, should be the primary tool to counter Iranian influence and has introduced a Joint Resolution clarifying that President Bush needs congressional authority to take an offense military action against Iran (arguably, by structuring our forces in Iraq to counter Iranian influence, one could argue that it implies we can use them as well; but it's not a cut and dry case).

I can post links to support all of the above, but I didn't want to inundate the others with unnecessary long posts.

Any more questions you need cleared up, just ask.

Jeremy wrote on November 27, 2007 5:04 PM:

It's true. I'm not that clever. In fact, I've never personally been all that great at the snarky sniping that dominates the web. What I try to do is make evidence-based judgments. For example, I look at the claims a candidate is making and try to work through sound arguments. Hillary claims to have the best experience. I don't know about that. Even in terms of conventional Washington experience it looks like three or four candidates have an edge on her.

Putting the question of insider experience aside, I think Obama's counterargument makes a good point. He's pointed out that "experienced" folks like Rumsfeld and Cheney pretty much screwed up everything they've tried to do. Experience is really just a means to an ends. The ends, what we really want in a leader, is good judgment. So, it seems to me that Hillary needs to respond to that counterargument by explaining how her experience informs her judgment. I'm not that clever or original and I tend to zero in on core arguments like this, so you may notice me harping on that point, but I really think that if Hillary is going to do more than sling mud (like this ridiculous and desperate PAC smear) she needs to find a way to explain more of the concrete value of her experience.

patchwork wrote on November 27, 2007 5:11 PM:

Peter Daou has a post on KOS, and posted this letter here. Hillary is not automatically the favorite on KOS by the looks of it. KOS does not allow candidates, such as Cindy Sheehan to post there, yet Daou is allowed to propagandize on KOS. Whatever, which is it? Keep combat troops in Iraq, or don't allow bases in Iraq, Hillary? If you want to keep combat troops to 2013 to the tune of some fifty thousand, where do you think they will be based? In abandoned homes and mosques? In the green zone? In the embassy?

This is more desperation on the part of Hillary's campaign without any accountability or plan.

loki wrote on November 27, 2007 5:18 PM:

Jeremy,

Interesting. Your self-deprecating post was indeed endearing, but it loses much of its punch because you simply aped everything the Obama campaign has already tossed out there.

So much for "evidenced based judgments."

patchwork wrote on November 27, 2007 5:22 PM:

Correction to typo

Should be "there" and not "here"

texasdem wrote on November 27, 2007 5:24 PM:

So, Donovan (DemAC? Anonymous?), is it your job to derail the thread from the fact that Hillary's statement is posted without comment, while Obama's was parsed in a vain attempt to be able to call it inadequate? You're obviously just here to throw out a bunch of bs and direct attention away from questions about how Clinton is held to a different standard than the other democratic candidates.

Jan wrote on November 27, 2007 5:39 PM:

This is uninformed:
Michael wrote on November 27, 2007 3:35 PM:
"[...] Gee she wrote a letter to the king. Wow, that's much more powerful that issuing two press releases that say the same thing."

-->>> It actually IS much more powerful to address Bush and his advisors directly, rather than issuing two press releases.
This is exactly where her experience shows (and yours doesn't).

This is also uninformed:
patchwork wrote on November 27, 2007 5:11 PM:
"If you want to keep combat troops to 2013 to the tune of some fifty thousand, where do you think they will be based? In abandoned homes and mosques? In the green zone? In the embassy?"

I dare you to show me where she said she "wants to keep combat troops to 2013"... She said her goal was to have all troops out of Iraq by 2013.

But, yes, if Bush continues to screw it all up, the troops still don't need permanent bases. So, yes, they would be based in the Green Zone temporarily.
If they don't have permanent bases now, why would they ever need permanent bases in the future?
(Informed answer: Because Bush plans on stealing their oil.)

gqmartinez wrote on November 27, 2007 5:44 PM:

It's absurd to say Hillary gets less scrutiny than Obama. As the project for excellence in journalism conclusively showed, Obama gets praised (3-to-1 positive to negative), while Hillary gets the most negative press (though ratiometrically, less bad than McCain). When the right holds on to demonstrably false claims, they are ridiculed. Shouldn't we hold ourselves up to the same standard?

Lee wrote on November 27, 2007 5:45 PM:

What do you mean "concur"?

quasar wrote on November 27, 2007 5:50 PM:

Something smells like...like...trolls

texasdem wrote on November 27, 2007 6:27 PM:

Gqmartinez, if you are responding to my post, I am only referring to this particular article as compared to the earlier TPM posts about Obama's response. It was, in my opinion, particularly egregious.

But yes, it would be absurd in general to say Hillary gets less scrutiny than Obama. And when those instances occur, I would expect commenters to call on it.

patchwork wrote on November 27, 2007 7:14 PM:

I dare you to show me where she said she "wants to keep combat troops to 2013"... She said her goal was to have all troops out of Iraq by 2013.

She voted for the war. SHE VOTED FOR IT and now people are expected to forget about that vote? Now we are to believe that she wants to keep combat troops there, but wants a withdrawel of troops from Iraq? Because she is now against the war, while before whe was for it.

Strikes me as rather odd.

Have you forgetten? SHE VOTED FOR THE WAR AND SUPPORTED THE WAR for a few years.

She also was gung ho, even at one time, promoting sending MORE troops to Iraq, along with McCain, until polls showed that people were getting fed up with Bush's war. Since then she has changed her tune, but she continues to maintain her vote was right and just , refuseing to admit the error and misjudgement or whatever, apparently. How can she do that and at the same time try to make it appear as if she is now against the occupation, which I believe she is not, but nevertheless, she is trying to make it appear as if she actually is against it. She is not. That is my opinion.

How was that vote right? And how was that vote responsible for the slaughter in Iraq that she now claims she wants to stop by maintaining combat troops but withdrawing all the rest? Where are these troops, to be quartered? She does not want them to be permanent bases,but what does she say about the embassy and the green zone as permanent bases?

She is simply spouting rhetoric that she thinks will make people forget about her disaterous vote to invade and occupy Iraq.

SHE HAS ENABLED THE INVASION AND THE OCCUPATION and now seeks to retract or make us forget about that horrific vote by throwing a clinker in our faces.

It appears she now wants out of Iraq. She tried to occupy Iraq, and now, since it became a slaughter,and very unpopular with the American people, wants to make you and me believe, she never ever did want to invade Iraq. Instead, she wants to withdraw , but still leave combat troops there to fight Al Quiada. Yeah.

Michael wrote on November 28, 2007 9:04 AM:

Just getting back at you donovan. I really don't care what a shrill, uniformed clinton II lover like you thinks about my posts. You want to talk about snarky and petty, read your own or the other clinton II supporters that regularly post on this site. Basically, to sum up the arguments for support, support her or else. No substance, just whiney garbage and then a charge of being a naderite, uninformed, a hillary-hater, etc.

By the way, on NPR this morning there was ANOTHER republican operative laughing about the fact that she is leading the dems in polling right now. He said, paraphrasing, that the republicans are on the ropes and the dems are trying to use jumper cables on the party by nominating clinton II. I thought that was funny. I am sure that you will find it as snarky and petty, but its funny and a fact.

Jeremy wrote on November 28, 2007 11:17 AM:

loki,

That shouldn't be surprising. i was pretty explicit that I was rehearsing the arguments made by the campaigns to see which held up. I think that the Obama campaign has made a strong argument: Experience isn't an end in itself. Do you disagree? Experience is a means to acquiring good judgment. Isn't that right?

Rather than making condescending remarks, Hillary and her supporters might try responding to the arguments being made by Obama and his supporters.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)