MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Clinton on Iraq: Got Some Explaining to Do?

There's a 2005 Face the Nation excerpt floating around the web that makes it look like Hillary Clinton was once sympathetic to John McCain's argument that a long-term occupation of Iraq isn't objectionable as long as American casualties are down.

Senator McCain made the point earlier today, which I agree with, and that is, it's not so much a question of time when it comes to American military presence for the average American; I include myself in this. But it is a question of casualties.
We don't want to see our young men and women dying and suffering these grievous injuries that so many of them have. We've been in South Korea for 50-plus years. We've been in Europe for 50-plus. We're still in Okinawa with respect to protection there coming out of World War II.
You know, we have been in places for very long periods of time. And in recent history, we've made a commitment to Bosnia and Kosovo, and I think what is different is the feeling that we're on a track that is getting better and that we can see how the Iraqi government will begin to assume greater and greater responsibility. The elections were key to that. The training, equipment, equipping and motivating of the Iraqi security forces is key to that. But so is our understanding that if we were to artificially set a deadline of some sort, that would be like a green light to the terrorists, and we can't afford to do that.

Clinton says we've been in South Korea "for 50-plus years," but doesn't explicitly say that she approves of a similar situation in Iraq. She might just be counseling caution to those who, in 2005, had already seen enough of the war. Her argument might be, in other words, "Look, other conflicts have taken decades. Let's be patient."

But this situation does raise new questions Clinton should answer. Did she ever support a 50-year occupation, or think of it as one of many acceptable outcomes? When and why did she switch to her current position?






Comments

Clinton always changes positions as its convenient, I don't really think that her or McCain care about the concept of being where your not wanted. They didn't care that putting troops in Saudi Arabia peeved off locals (like Bin Laden) who don't like foreigners in their holy land, and gave the radicals among them another excuse to hate and attack America. I also don't think that either of them would be inclined to give a damn if say the Philippines wanted a giant base shrunken on one of their little islands, or if Puerto Ricans wanted to have the air force stop doing live bombing exercises in their territory (I think both were recent happenings). We really don't need to make people POed at us over bases being where their not wanted, their will always be those who would be happy to have troops from American bases come out and spend money on their off time, why not just be where we are really wanted or where we truly have to be?

Posted by: Michael Z. on 05/05/08 at 5:11 PM  Respond

Hillary Clinton switched to her current position because she wants to be elected and to be for continuing the war ad infinitum would not be conducive to being elected by the common population whose sons and daughters keep coming home in body bags. Hillary's take on the war is the same as a Bush Republican. War is the "Project of the New American Century" that Hillary and the DLC sponsor.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Posted by: MarthaA on 05/05/08 at 5:26 PM  Respond

there is a sucker born every minute in this case there is a whole country of them.

go hillary americans deserve you.

it matters not who wins the die is cast. it is about a culture of beliefs.

we americans must sink to the bottom before we awaken to our imperialism.

bases all over the world and calling john mc cain a war hero is the very definition of imperialism.

ike warned us but no one listened.

Posted by: researcher on 05/05/08 at 11:29 PM  Respond

Post a comment





 

RECENT COMMENTS

Politics, Pandering, and Policy at the Pump: Who Wins? (46)
Jonathan Stein wrote: Thanks to all who pointed out the viola/voilą mistake. Fix... [more]

Banning Gay Adoption Would Cost Foster Care System $130 Million (13)
Sarah wrote: If someone is a good parent they are a good parent, if the... [more]

McCain Wants a League of What Now? (3)
Gary wrote: Watch the video all the way to the end. His wisecrack abou... [more]

Clinton Smears Obama on Iraq — Again (112)
izolasyon wrote: fgfgfd... [more]

RumInt: New Bush Iran Finding? (12)
Walter wrote: MarthaA, the New American Century group are neocon Zionist... [more]

The Weekly Standard Does Not Have the Democrats' Best Interests At Heart (10)
TheRealFish wrote: Correction: Apologies for being energized early this morni... [more]

Awkward Sports Metaphor of the Day (5)
MarthaA wrote: kathy giannini: This is a primary campaign, but Obama wil... [more]

Clinton on Iraq: Got Some Explaining to Do? (3)
researcher wrote: there is a sucker born every minute in this case there is ... [more]

In Case You Forgot John Bolton Is Crazy (2)
ff11 wrote: Bolton is not crazy, only evil. He is the American equiva... [more]

NYC's New Reefer Madness (23)
Guav wrote: "I think it's amazing that Guav sites a comment by his wif... [more]

XML RSS Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.33

Jail.org - Inmate Search
Criminal records, instant public records & people search & current court records. www.jail.org

U.S. Public Records Search
Search County & State Court Records, Criminal records, Vital and Adoption Records www.PublicRecordsInfo.com

Records.com - People Search
Public Records and Background Checks. Instantly Search Criminal Records, Addresses and Court Records www.Records.com

Court Records & County Records
Find Instant Public Records, Criminal Records as Well as County Property Records Search. www.PublicRecordsIndex.com

















bookIN PRINT

CLICK HERE
for more great reading

headphones IN TUNE
New music every issue

CLICK TO LISTEN


This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.

© 2008 The Foundation for National Progress

About Us   Support Us   Advertise   Ad Policy   Privacy Policy   Contact Us   Subscribe   RSS