MyDD :: Clarity Clinton on Iraq

Clarity Clinton on Iraq

by Matt Stoller, Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:47:51 PM EST

This is more of that John Kerry 2004 Iraq nonsense from the Clinton camp.

Hotline: We'd like to start with Iraq. Sen. Obama, last night, for the first time, called for a phased withdrawal with a date certain. In your estimation, what is wrong with that approach? Why haven't you signed on to an approach that includes a date certain by which troops would be redeployed?

Clinton: As I've said before, I've long been for beginning a phased redeployment from Iraq as soon as possible, and I have cosponsored legislation to that effect last year. I think we should begin to get U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as we can and would urge the administration to do so as expeditiously as possible. I think it is the responsibility of this president to resolve our presence in Iraq before he leaves office. I've also, as I said last week, introduced legislation to cap the number of troops in Iraq at pre-escalation levels as of Jan. 1 and require both the Iraqis to meet certain conditions in order to continue funding the Iraqi security forces and to require that the administration meet additional conditions or require a new authorization resolution in order to keep our troops in Iraq. And I believe that that approach, keeping the pressure on both our government and the Iraqi government, trying to cap the troops, trying to get more leverage on the Iraqis to perform the way they have promised, is a comprehensive approach that, if it were pursued in addition to a diplomatic offensive, would be the best way to end our involvement in Iraq in the right fashion.

This is more pony plan crap from Clinton. If she wanted to stop the war, she'd say she wants to withdraw troops and push Congress and the President to do that. But she says that it's the President's responsibility to stop the war. Which means that the war will go on.

And here's a question I'm making up that Russert will ask Hillary Clinton in September, 2008.

Q: Your opponent, Governor Huckabee, is calling for a withdrawal from Iraq in the next six months, calling the war a 'distraction from critical moral issues at home'? You have called for redeployment of our forces without specifying a timetable or a troop level. You also voted for the authorization for the use of force, and antiwar activists like Cindy Sheehan are unhappy with what they call your 'hawkish' posture. How can voters trust that you will withdraw American forces from Iraq?

I imagine that her response will fall along the same incoherent Kerry-like lines we heard about throughout 2004. I for one am not going to fall for that crap again.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 39 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (none / 0)

What crap are YOU going to fall for? (not a snark & not a concern troll) I'm just a cynical CT voter who was snookered by schmucko Lieberman. So what would you believe in?

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens, etc., etc...." -M.Meade "I, on the other hand, am not so sanguine." -ezdidit

by ezdidit on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 05:12:22 PM EST

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (none / 0)

Just to be clear: you're preferring Obama for putting forward a dead-on-departure bill for Iraq withdrawal because you think it'll give him a stronger position in the campaign than Clinton-style shuffling.

(I can see the point of that argument - not sure I agree, but, hey.)

Rather than anything substantive about Iraq policy.

(Because a no-hope bill can do or say nothing about Iraq policy.)

by skeptic06 on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 05:19:41 PM EST

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (none / 0)

No.

This is more pony plan crap from Clinton. If she wanted to stop the war, she'd say she wants to withdraw troops and push Congress and the President to do that. But she says that it's the President's responsibility to stop the war. Which means that the war will go on.

I'm glad you impute bad faith on everyone's part, though. It speaks well of you as a human being.

by Matt Stoller on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 05:37:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (3.00 / 1)

Well - if you mean that I don't assume good faith in pols, you'd be absolutely right.

Do pols take positions insincerely for political gain? Is the Pope Catholic?

Clearly, with Hill cleaving to her line on Iraq, she leaves a gap in the market which Obama has filled - with a bill that, so far as I can see, has no chance of becoming law.

Thousands of bills get introduced every year, and almost all of them get nowhere.

It may impress the tourists - but it does little or nothing for policy.

Should Obama get brownie points for introducing the bill? From the political viewpoint, probably. As you say, it gives him a solid base on which to base the Iraq element of his 08 campaign.

But, as a means of ending US military engagement in Iraq, the bill is so much waste paper. So, judged on the substantive policy content of his Iraq move, he deserves no brownie points at all, I'd say.

The difficulties that Reid and Co are having in putting to bed the truly inoffensive nonbinding resolution suggests that the chances of a binding measure passing Congress even are slight indeed. (Bush's veto pen is ready just in case, natch.)

And, my guess, is that Obama well knows this. Perhaps, if his bill had stood a fighting chance, he would have introduced it anyway.

The fact is, it doesn't, so far as I can see.

by skeptic06 on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 06:04:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (none / 0)

Personally, I give Obama some credit here... Regardless whether the the bill has a chance (which I agree it doesn't) it's the messaging I like, the messaging TO US... That he put it out there he's not going to waffle and play Senate 'Club' rules, it talking direct TO US.

Also, got him some media coverage (even if it here) didn't it! I mean Hillary has enough money she could probably buy up a network (ok being a little facetious), but seriously the poor guy has to get as much name recognition as possible.

I like this different approach.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 06:52:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (none / 0)

I rather think you're right on that.

by skeptic06 on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 06:55:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (none / 0)

Devil's advocate for the moment, leaving the candidates out of it.

It's the President's responsibility to stop the war.

I understand that a couple of senators are now on record in opposing the non-binding resolution Reid was/is trying to build a consensus on. The Warner, et al bill.

Yet, the Bush administration has been campaigning against this non-binding resolution.

Isn't it because fundamentally, it is the President's responsibility to stop the war? Is the non-binding resolution a first step akin to diplomacy before calling for a full-court press against the executive?

Is it possible likely that we'll get to the full-court press on Bush faster by taking this 'diplomatic' step first?

If the non-binding resolution goes nowhere, then what is the next (realistic) step?

by dblhelix on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 07:24:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (none / 0)

"It's the President's responsibility to stop the war."

I thought Feingold was looking into this...? Eg. 'One' possible solution power of the purse... etc... etc.

Logically it just doesn't make sense that 'A' President can continue a war or wars indefinitely just because HE deems it necessary?

Now, I don't know if everything hinges on the initial war resolution that Congress passed and this is causing problems to pressure the President, but there must be SOME way to holt the hemorrhaging of money and the loss of lives?

It just creeps me out that intelligence seems to have been withheld from congress, oversight seems to be non-existent, and enforcement tools (checks and balances part) either not available, explored, or willing to be applied?

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 07:44:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (none / 0)

Agree, and I'm trying to look at it w/o the political theater of P2008. This is a full-blown crisis. I read through Feingold's objections to the non-binding resolution. I agree point-by-point w/ all of his conclusions. Yet, by end, I found myself wondering, well then, what next -- the stronger bills will just be filibustered at present, this much is clear.

Congress is poised to pass a resolution denouncing the troop increase. Down the line, Congress may well consider mandatory caps on the number of troops in Iraq, or setting a date for withdrawal.

If it does, we may be headed toward a constitutional clash, with the administration trying to read powers into the Constitution -- as it has with its "enemy combatant" doctrine and presidential "signing statements" -- that the Founders did not put there. The Constitution's drafters were intent on balancing power so no one branch could drift toward despotism. The system of checks and balances that runs through the document divides the war power between the president and Congress.

...

There is little question that Congress could use its power of the purse to end a war. But cutting off financing is a drastic step, and one that members of Congress are understandably reluctant to take, because it can look like a refusal to support the troops. The Constitution's text, Supreme Court cases and history show, however, that Congress can instead pass laws that set the terms of military engagement. Whether it would be wise for Congress to adopt such limits is debatable; whether it has the authority to do so should not be.

by dblhelix on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:18:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (none / 0)

The so called "Dead-on Departure" bill happens to be the Iraq Study Group plan, largely. So that's pretty bipartisan. Do you have some alternative suggestion that you'd like introduced as legislation? Or are you just intent on slamming Obama, irrespective of what position he takes?

To say its not a substantive Iraq policy is just absurd. Is the Senate ready for it? Maybe not. Does that mean any candidate for President should be criticized for trying to provide leadership on Iraq? On the contrary, they should be praised for it.

by swampdredger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 06:15:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (3.00 / 1)

And what substantial effect has the ISG report had on admin policy on Iraq?

Not much, so far as I'm aware.

When I said substantive, I was contrasting the political benefits of introducing the bill with the bill's effect on the war in the Iraq.

Which will be as near to zero as makes no difference.

Introducing the bill is certainly not grounds on which to criticize Obama.

What I understood Matt to be doing was criticizing Clinton for not having introduced a bill. Or otherwise clarified her policy.

Now, I've no brief for either of them. But Obama's having introduced his bill is a thin-to-vanishing reason to prefer him to her on Iraq, or more broadly.

by skeptic06 on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 06:29:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (none / 0)

I appreciate your clarification. Unfortunately, in the short term it seems everything except locking bush in a windowless room will have no impact on the war in Iraq.

I'm no Hillary hater, but she does seem terribly cautious about getting ahead of her perception of public opinion, and that is certainly not leadership.

Frankly I think it would be terrific if she co-sponsered the bill. That of course is not going to happen because of her own political needs.

by swampdredger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 09:15:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (none / 0)

I respect your opinion on the likelihood or otherwise of this bill getting through the process but I am genuinely interested to know more about where it is going to fail, if it does.

It has to be read, go to committee, presumably Foreign Relations and then be reported to the Senate floor for a vote. What is the likely scenario? Is it a political or procedural problem?

Is the existence of the Kennedy and Feingold bills a problem? What are the pros and cons on this? Does it need powerful co-sponsorship? Obviously if it takes too long to be passed the dated provisions in the bill will render it meaningless.

I haven't been able to read the full text as it is not listed in THOMAS yet but it seemed to me that the bill was drafted to actually gain support, as opposed to the Kennedy and Feingold proposals which are curt and somewhat pugnacious.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:20:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

My thoughts... (none / 0)

...yesterday were these - on the Warner res and on an apps rider.

A freestanding bill like Obama's (S 433) might well find it hard to get out of committee. He could have a duplicate bill put on the Calendar (like Kennedy did with his S 233 and S 287), in which case it would only be a question of Reid calling it off the Calendar.

The basic problem is that there is (so far as I can see) not a majority in either house for a bill mandating no surge or withdrawal.

And - let's face it: Harry is tight for time when it comes to processing House-passed bills.

My guess is, he'll say he'll have wasted enough with the nonbinding reses.

Of course, Obama could still put his bill forward as a nongermane amendment; but Harry would be content to see it voted down - or, even better, not reached.

by skeptic06 on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 08:58:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My thoughts... (none / 0)

Cheers. I read your diary yesterday which is why I asked you about this, you seem to understand this stuff pretty well and I am just coming to grips with it. I thought it would have to go through committee before it could be reported to the Senate for a vote.

I am hoping it would get through committe and assummed that Senator Obama serving on the Committee on Foreign Relations would be helpful. The real issue then is the obvious, it must have a majority in the Senate, and the House too, of course. It would, in that case, be up to Senator Obama to finesse the support, I hope he can deliver the goods. I certainly feel that at least floor debate on this bill would be helpful. And three-fifths would be necessary for cloture if required.

Does the absence of co-sponsors indicate anything much? What are the chances that this bill could receive preferential treatment of some kind? What typically happens when there are other bills with conflicting intent like the Feingold bill, how is this resolved? Any sense of how the other senators are disposed towards this bill? I haven't heard a peep about it since it was introduced.

I guess you can see I have high hopes that some action is taken on this proposal but something tells me I am being a bit naive. Thanks for your reply, in any case.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:07:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My thoughts... (none / 0)

Pretty well would be a gross overstatement: think of a scattering of points of light in a mass of overpowering gloom!

The Senate Rules allow a bill to be kept out of committee, and placed straight on the Calendar: all that needs to happen is for someone to object to the bill being referred (Rule 14(4)).

Once on the Calendar, a bill can, in theory, be called off the Calendar by any senator and dealt with on the floor; in practice, the practice (not enshrined in the rules) whereby the Majority Leader is recognized in preference to any other senator negates that possibility.

(That's the CW, at least; I've not seen the thing fully explained.)

The main option available to senators to put forward their own measures is to offer nongermane amendments (to bills other than appropriations and reconciliation bills).

The hope is that the bill to which the amendments are attached will carry them along in its wake.

The standard leadership remedy is to offer a motion to table: a simple majority needed to kill the amendment forthwith.

Where the amendment is popular enough to withstand a MTT, the maj leadership may seek to defang it by amendment, or, if the worst comes to the worst, start again with a new bill, and hope that the nongermane amendment won't be so lucky with the MTT next time!

The real question with the Obama bill is, as you identify, whether it actually has a majority in both houses, and whether cloture can be got for it in the Senate - shenanigans only take you so far.

A key factor in the equation is the vote count (or whip count as it's often called, to distinguish it from the votes actually cast in a roll call vote): it is notoriously hard to to gauge from the outside the support that measures have; it's not too easy from the inside, either.

However, the extraordinary difficulty that there's been in assuring cloture for a nonbinding resolution on Iraq suggests that cloture for something like Obama's bill will be impossible to obtain.

It's certainly possible for events to move votes - Obama's oratory, not so much, I'd say! Something like the Beirut Barracks Bombing in 1983 coming out of Iraq - sudden, large-scale US military fatalities in one incident - could do it, I'd say.

Number of cosponsors is some indication of underlying support, but not reliably so. MCs may be more likely to cosponsor a bill that's going nowhere than a bill that's likely to come up for a vote, because they'll be able to record their views on the latter sort of bill in an actual vote.

The actual process whereby MCs try to reconcile their different positions on bills is, so far as I know, not well documented, for reasons of lack of direct evidence. Diaries, memoirs and the like - ostensibly containing the good stuff - naturally tend to be self-serving and skimpy.

The eventual outcome of the current legislative push - nonbinding and binding measures slugging it out - is, I think, likely to be underwhelming.

And that, not because of any arcane features of debating rules - though, God knows, there are enough of those! - but because of a genuine conflict in opinions and desires amongst MCs.

The political bottom line is that, even if an Obama bill passed both houses, it would be vetoed; and an override would not be possible.

In other words, any Congressional move on Iraq would be guaranteed to be purely symbolic.

(So MCs' consciences won't be able to trouble them on the question of how many lives they might have saved had they only acted in time.)

On the other side, public opinion, however opposed to the current management of the war, is not sufficiently reliable: in particular, Dems otherwise inclined to vote for binding anti-surge or withdrawal measures rightly fear finding themselves on the wrong side of public opinion after an incessant bombardment from the right-wing media on the not supporting our troops point.

And - the track record of Dems on Iraq is not exactly stellar.

But this is hardly the first time when a sane, informed and detached observer of the American political scene would despair at the parochial, venal and ineffectual response of the Federal government to a national crisis.

On the other hand, two centuries of 'we don't need no stinking constitution' caudillismo doesn't seem to have done Uncle Sam's neighbors south of the Rio Grande a whole lot of good.

by skeptic06 on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:45:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My thoughts... (none / 0)

Thanks for that I read it with great interest and have been mulling it over all day. Not very promising, is it? I must admit it has dampened my enthusiasm to realise just how unlikely this bill is to get through the hoops. A mass of overpowering gloom indeed! And the Democratic majority in the Senate is so frightfully narrow, too. Hard to imagine the Senator rallying backroom support for it either when he is off giving speeches to the DNC. Oh, well...

I am not worried about the veto, I reckon if it got that far it would have already made a worthwhile political impact and the MSM would make enough of a fuss over it to seriously discomfort the Bushies.

But the hurdles to getting it through committee or read off the calendar seem daunting. And heaven knows we don't want another Beirut bombing. I was there in '79, what a mess that place was. You don't sound very confident about the moral fibre of our legislators, either, which is probably more realistic than my previous hopes but for pity's sake I thought that this is what they were meant to do for a living. I can see why you are skeptical. Would it help if a grassroots campaign sent 10,000 emails to our senators and representatives asking them to support this bill or explain their inaction? What else can we do?

As for our southern neighbours political preferences sometimes it seems we are governed by a Caudillo ourselves.

Sigh. Well, thanks again for the post. We can only hope. Besides C-SPAN how does one follow the legislative progress of such a bill in detail? Are you in DC yourself?

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 07:52:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

someone will Youtube all of Clinton's (none / 0)

non-apology apology's on her Iraq vote..

The one clip I saw was pretty damning. on a morning show.. I'm sure there's others on tape.

throw in McAuliffe with the vote for force was not a vote for force and WE KNOW at least the RNC will run it if she wins the nomination

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 05:29:22 PM EST

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (3.00 / 0)

In Hillary's town hall meeting in Iowa, a Gulf War vet asked Hillary about the surge and when she thought US involvement in Iraq might end. She completely dodged the question and talked about getting better funding for the VA system.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 05:41:51 PM EST

and people noticed (none / 0)

Check out this blog post, which contains excerpts from many news reports on Clinton's visit to Iowa last weekend. Sounds like many of the people who attended those events were disappointed by what she said (or didn't say) about Iraq:

Chicago Tribune:
"How can you get up and speak for an hour, and not talk about the war?" asked Thomasine Johnson, 66, shaking her head as she left the gym. "I am very disappointed she said nothing about why we are there, or how we can get out of Iraq. She voted for the war."
Roberta Hardwick, 35, said Clinton touched on all of the hot-button issues other than the war. "Clinton talked about the need to help our veterans, and there was a good opportunity to address the war. But it didn't happen," said Hardwick, of Des Moines. "I am kind of disappointed about that."

And this:

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Jo Ann Mackey, 64, who attended the rally with her two adult daughters, 41 and 35, complained afterward that she hoped Clinton would have spoken more about the Iraq war, which Mackey opposes, and comprehensive immigration reform, which she supports. One questioner asked Clinton about the 21,500-strong troop surge for Iraq only to see her sidestep the inquiry and talk about visiting wounded soldiers and beefing up the Veterans Affairs health care system. Neither Mackey nor her daughters said they know whom they'll support in 2008.

I stand by my prediction that HRC will not be the nominee.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 11:48:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (none / 0)

"I think we should begin to get U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as we can and would urge the administration to do so as expeditiously as possible."

No Senator - there is no convincing the administration. You should know that. Good thing CONGRESS has the power over wars, including starting and stopping them, and funding them. The administration will have to follow along, not the other way around. Obama sees that. Feingold sees that. As John McCain shows, you don't need to be the first to suggest something to lead, just be the loudest cheerleader. In other words - get on board with your collegues and take bold steps. Then you may come up with some netroots support.

John McCain

by John Nicosia on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 05:54:01 PM EST

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (3.00 / 1)

Congress is not homogenous. Congress is in no way a "good thing" until the Democrats have veto proof majorities. You are assuming that it is "Congress vs. Bush" when in reality it is "Democrats in Congress with a few crossovers vs. Republicans in Congress and filibuster/cloture powers." I would like to think that all Republicans are disgusted and vote for binding resolutions to cut off funding and force an immediate withdrawal, but that is not realistic, IMHO.

by georgep on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 07:24:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (none / 0)

Does anyone have specifics on the phased redeployment legislation she claims to have co-sponsored last year and the capping legislation she introduced recently? I am having trouble finding these in THOMAS; the search facilities there don't let you narrow searches by co-sponsor. Perhaps the recent one hasn't been listed yet.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 06:13:12 PM EST

What you want... (none / 0)

...is this page.

The last year's thing must be the Levin Amendment to S 2766 (defense authorization bill) which was rejected 39-60.

Hill cosponsored it. It was a sense of Congress amendment (nonbinding); Kerry offered a binding withdrawal amendment at roughly the same time which garnered 13 votes, from memory.

by skeptic06 on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 06:42:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What you want... (none / 0)

Cheers, I was on THOMAS just couldn't find it. HRC was in good company on the co-sponsorship of S Amdt 4320, along with Biden, Dodd, Feinstein, Obama and three others. The vote seemed pretty much along party lines. Oh, well. I wonder why the Kerry amendment didn't fly.

I will keep an eye out for her latest effort.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 08:15:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (none / 0)

I saw Joe Biden's name in the article but not John Edwards, so I'm a bit confused about the tagging. Shouldn't Biden and Kerry be included in the tags?

by benny06 on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 06:20:29 PM EST

Which is it? (none / 0)

This is an appaling quote from Clinton, and a representative one. She should be ashamed. But there are two very different critiques Matt is making and I'm not sure they work very well together.

The first is that "her response will fall along the same incoherent Kerry-like lines we heard about throughout 2004."

The second is that "If she wanted to stop the war, she'd say she wants to withdraw troops and push Congress and the President to do that."

The plan can either not make sense or it can not work. I think that it's perfectly clear what she wants to do: cap troop levels, set benchmarks for the Iraqis, and engage in diplomacy with at least the US and Iraqi governments.

You may not like it - I sure don't. But it is not incoherent. It was a list of specific policies that fall under the general framework of "Get out slowly."

We need to get much, much better at separating out messaging and policy. They are not the same.

by CT student on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 06:26:14 PM EST

Which is it? (none / 0)

This is an appaling quote from Clinton, and a representative one. She should be ashamed. But there are two very different critiques Matt is making and I'm not sure they work very well together.

The first is that "her response will fall along the same incoherent Kerry-like lines we heard about throughout 2004."

The second is that "If she wanted to stop the war, she'd say she wants to withdraw troops and push Congress and the President to do that."

You may not like it - I sure don't. But it is not incoherent. It was a list of specific policies that fall under the general framework of "Get out slowly."

We need to get much, much better at separating out messaging and policy. They are not the same.

by CT student on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 06:26:14 PM EST

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (none / 0)

Far as I'm concerned,ANYONE who voted for the dumbass 'Authorization to Use Force' deal is a fool. Do I want a fool to be president? Don't think so, had enough of that shit.

by blues on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 06:36:11 PM EST

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (3.00 / 1)

You just called John Edwards a loser! I knew I wasn't the only one here.

by bsavage on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 09:21:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (none / 0)

Well, Ive already taken a huge amount of flack about Edwards, but this was the starting point for it. I would vote for Dr. Strangelove if he was a Democrat running against Dick Cheney.

by blues on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 09:27:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (none / 0)

I just do not understand how ANYBODY who isn't a low-information voter could possibly find Hillary to be an appealing nominee.

If she had a different surname, she'd be an irrelevant footnote. She stands for absolutely nothing.

I had dinner with my right-wing parents the other night. They're not knee-jerk Hillary haters as one might expect -- and my mother is actually quite impressed with Bill Richardson -- but they asked me one question, "Why should we vote for Hillary?"

I didn't have an answer.

by Master Jack on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 06:49:30 PM EST

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (none / 0)

The GOP just strong armed a tax break package onto the very popular minimum wage increase. They were invoking the 2/3rds rule. Unfortunately we don't have a veto proof majority at this point.

A binding resolution that demands an immediate withdrawal is good to show others what you think, but it probably has no chance of passing the 60 vote hurdle in the Senate. I LIKE those resolutions, but they don't mean that much other than putting the politicians on the record. See how Hillary Clinton votes when these resolutions come up. Yay or nay. If it is 'nay,' THEN you have something. Still, you won't find enough GOPers to go along with these binding resolutions, they will at best sign onto a non-binding expression of concern and disapproval in veto-proof numbers.

Bush has to be shamed into withdrawing. We have to keep the pressure on with talking about it, holding HIM responsible all the way. The press has to keep on this. He can't be allowed to put the onus on Congress. When Congress does not sign onto the binding resolutions the press will play it as a defeat for the Democrats, rather than what it really is, a shameful use of the filibuster/cloture vote to stifle popular legislation. We need to have other resolutions that have a real chance of passing with veto-proof majorities in addition to the resolutions that put Congress "on the record" but have no chance of passing to chip away at the authorization Bush has for HIS war. From a purely practical point of view some of the other legislation proposed has a better chance of reigning Bush's powers in. Those include legislation to make Bush ask Congress for authorization on any Iran activity and, yes, the Clinton proposal to withhold funding from Iraq unless certain mile stones are reached.

by georgep on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 07:10:32 PM EST

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (none / 0)

Bush has to be shamed into withdrawing.

Have you been paying attention for the last 6 years?
The Bush administration has no shame about anything. The only argument for not pushing directly for the end of the occupation is that it might create an even more profound constitutional crisis than the one in which we find ourselves.

by jsw on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 09:43:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (none / 0)

I realize that Bush has no shame. But this sure is painting him into a "do or die" corner. If it fizzles like last August's surge he can hardly come back again and say "Wait, wait, I now have a new plan that is sure to work." This is his attempt at a last-second Hail Mary, a straight flush to win the entire pot. This is kind of the endgame for Bush.

If the American people believe by summer that this surge did nothing THEN we will have a great chance to get some movement. Sure, Bush will try to save face by claiming that the Iraqi's have done a great job training, so we can now withdraw some troops because of the whizbang job the military has done. Stuff like that. Bottom line is that we could then have troop withdrawals. We have to keep the pressure up, offer one resolution after the next, get enough resolutions passed that actually PASS with a 60-vote majority designed to chip away at war authority and funding.

These binding and non-binding resolutions are nice, and they sure make for great rhetoric and, looking at 2008, make for excellent soundbites to preserve for another year. But they really mean diddly-squat in the end, because if they can't get passed or are non-binding, what good are they really?

by georgep on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:02:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (none / 0)

The surge is a 'Statue of Liberty' play. The 'Hail Mary' will be the preemptive airstrikes on Iran, we will all be fiddling with our rosaries and praying like mad.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:56:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarity Clinton on Iraq (3.00 / 1)

Actually she is right. Congress can do more by cutting funding but we all know that neither chamber is going to do that. So it's not her fault that both leaders in the House and the Senate are gutless losers.

by bsavage on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 09:18:36 PM EST

Give Senator Clinton a Break (none / 0)

Senator Clinton needs more time with her advisers to formulate both an appropriate statement and policy on Iraq.

Please don't worry, though. She'll get right to it after working out her position on the Peloponnesian War.

by BBCWatcher on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 05:59:25 AM EST

Re: Give Senator Clinton a Break (none / 0)

Makes sense to me, Sparta always had two kings and the US would have two presidents. But who will be our Pericles?

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:49:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.