Mar 15 2007
Anti-War Hopes Crushed By Hillary-Bush
This NY Times article, where Hillary Clinton claims US troops would remain in Iraq if she were President, has got the nutroots beside themselves. There are some trying to point out the fact this is not news, that in fact all Dem proposals included troops in Iraq fighting al Qaeda. But making the case all the Dems are in on this bait and switch is only going to make the anger on the far left worse. There is no consolation that many of the Congressional Dems plan to ignore the leftward fever swamps. Here is one example:
Clinton lied. Or at least changed her mind in the last month, though this is hardly a better explanation.
Michael Gordon and Patrick Healy have an article in today’s New York Times based around an interview of Clinton and what she will do in Iraq if elected president. In it Clinton says that she would keep American troops on the ground in Iraq, though shift their mission to remove them from playing a role adjudicating the civil war and refocus on fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. The crux of Clinton’s January 2009 plan is this: “What we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of, between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region — the ones that are going to remain for our antiterrorism mission; for our northern support mission; for our ability to respond to the Iranians; and to continue to provide support, if called for, for the Iraqis.”
Senator Clinton, changing which parts of Iraq we focus our military’s attention is not the same as ending the war. It’s not even part of the same conversation.
So now the truth is out – the Dems are playing the far left for suckers. And it seems the KosKids are quite aware of the truth.
Say NO to war-monger Hillary (5+ / 0-)
Hillary has proven time and again that she is a Lieberman type war-monger.
Just continue with your job as Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, you have no chance of being elected as president, all you can do is play the “Lieberman role” in the 2008 campaign by tearing down the democratic wing of the Democratic party.
…
Hillary = Bush stay the course (1+ / 0-)
More and more it seems, Hillary Iraq plan is just Bush stay the course plan. (ie. AIPAC/AEI scheme with different people.)
…
I’ll vote for Dem candidates for Congress (6+ / 0-)
But I will not vote for a Dem candidate for President who wants to continue the insane foreign policy of the neocons, Bush’s corporate cronies and the Likudniks.
If Hillary is being compared to Bush, then you know she is in serious trouble with the leftward fever swamps. Sadly for Hillary, she is only stating what all the Dem proposals are stating – there will be a US presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future. And for her honesty she is being equated to Bush. Welcome to the leadership role Hill.
” the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence”
That sounds like “somebody might get hurt so we better run and hide”.
I just finished reading this article and see a tremendous opportunity for us in Sadr City. If we can get a major operation going in there to clean that place up … clear garbage and sewage off the streets, install water and sewer, repair electric lines … give the people some real improvement in quality of life issues, we can go a LONG way to undercutting the insurgents. These people are living in conditions that make our troops vomit. A front end loader, dumptruck, and washdown truck would probably make more of an improvement in some streets than they have seen in years.
I hope General Petraeus gets some engineers in there ASAP.
CrossPatch, saw this article, too. I hope the same. Hope General Paetraeus will ensure the safety and security of those engineers.
If those people of Sadr City will see great improvement, they will think twice about allowing Sadr and hist cohorts back into Sadr City.
One observation: what is the difference between the Democrats keeping troops in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda, and Bush keeping troops in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda? Yet the Democrats claim they are going to do something different from evil George. More obfuscation by the Democrats.
Poor KOS – no matter how hard he tries, he can’t run American foreign policy.
“would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violenceâ€
Oh, that’ll be very helpful.
“Oh, that’ll be very helpful.”
For them. The Democrats *have* to make sure that the mission fails or they are toast politically. So what they have to do is create the conditions whereby failure is the most likely outcome.
Dems Have No Home…
Back in September 25, 2004, Barack Hussein Obama
…suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile st……
Good point. I had no idea sectarian violence was a good thing.
“would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violenceâ€
…..
You know what this will mean, don’t you? In the case of ethic cleansing (also known as GENOCIDE, Hillary!), Clinton would do just what her worthless husband did in Rwanda (sic)…NOTHING!! She would sit there and do nothing while innocent people were slaughtered so that Iran could have its way. Did it NEVER occur to this stupid woman that keeping an eye on the Iranians also requires keeping an eye on all the groups in Iraq now that are getting MARCHING ORDERS FORM IRAN??? Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the next President of the United States!
The job of Commander-in-Chief is quickly becoming a horrible joke! We don’t need someone who will destroy without conscience what took over 200 years to build…the GREATEST country on the face of the earth!!
GOD HELP US!!!
[…] the NYT has an article about Hillary in which The Strata-Sphere notes her similarities to Bush: Michael Gordon and Patrick Healy have an article in today’s New […]