Hillary's War Contemplation

[Bonnie]

(HILLARY CLINTON HAS SENT THIS DETAILED LETTER ABOUT HER POSITION ON IRAQ TO SUPPORTERS.)
Warning, reading this in it's entirety may cause an involuntary gag reaction, read at your own risk

Dear Friend,

The war in Iraq is on the minds of many of you who have written or who have called my office asking questions and expressing frustration. When the President addresses the nation (Wednesday) on the war, the American people want and deserve to know how we got there, why we are still there, how we have executed the war and what we should do now. In short, the President must explain his plan for the war in Iraq.

There are no quick and easy solutions to the long and drawn out conflict this Administration triggered that consumes a billion dollars a week, involves 150,000 American troops, and has cost thousands of American lives.

I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. I believe we are at a critical point with the December 15th elections that should, if successful, allow us to start bringing home our troops in the coming year, while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities. This will advance our interests, help fight terrorism and protect the interests of the Iraqi people.

In October 2002, I voted for the resolution to authorize the Administration to use force in Iraq. I voted for it on the basis of the evidence presented by the Administration, assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections, and the argument that the resolution was needed because Saddam Hussein never did anything to comply with his obligations that he was not forced to do.

Their assurances turned out to be empty ones, as the Administration refused repeated requests from the U.N. inspectors to finish their work. And the "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda turned out to be false.

Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority to use force against Iraq. And if Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed, given the lack of a long-term plan, paltry international support, the proven absence of weapons of mass destruction, and the reallocation of troops and resources that might have been used in Afghanistan to eliminate Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and fully uproot the Taliban.

Before I voted in 2002, the Administration publicly and privately assured me that they intended to use their authority to build international support in order to get the U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq, as articulated by the President in his Cincinnati speech on October 7th, 2002. As I said in my October 2002 floor statement, I took "the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible."

Instead, the Bush Administration short-circuited the U.N. inspectors - the last line of defense against the possibility that our intelligence was false. The Administration also abandoned securing a larger international coalition, alienating many of those who had joined us in Afghanistan.

From the start of the war, I have been clear that I believed that the Administration did not have an adequate plan for what lay ahead.

I take responsibility for my vote, and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the President and his Administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war.

Given years of assurances that the war was nearly over and that the insurgents were in their "last throes," this Administration was either not being honest with the American people or did not know what was going on in Iraq.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I heard General Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, tell us that it would take several hundred thousand troops to stabilize Iraq. He was subsequently mocked and marginalized by the Bush Administration.

In October 2003, I said "In the last year, however, I have been first perplexed, then surprised, then amazed, and even outraged and always frustrated by the implementation of the authority given the President by this Congress" and "Time and time again, the Administration has had the opportunity to level with the American people. Unfortunately, they haven't been willing to do that."

I have continually raised doubts about the President's claims, lack of planning and execution of the war, while standing firmly in support of our troops.

After my first trip to Iraq in November 2003, I returned troubled by the policies of the Administration and faulted the President for failing to level with the American public. At the Council on Foreign Relations, I chided the President for failing to bring in enough international partners to quell the insurgency.

I spoke out often at the Armed Services Committee to Administration officials pointing out that the estimates they provided about the war, its length and cost lacked even basic credibility. And I challenged Secretary Rumsfeld more than once that he had no benchmarks to measure actual progress which would lead us to believe we had a strategy that was working.

Last month, I signed a letter with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and dozens of other Democratic Senators voicing strong concerns that, without a solid plan, Iraq could become what it was not before the war: a haven for radical Islamist terrorists determined to attack America, our allies and our interests. The letter asked the Administration "to immediately provide a strategy for success in order to prevent this outcome." Just a few weeks ago, I joined a bipartisan majority in the United States Senate in voting for an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill calling upon the President and his Administration to provide answers and a plan for the war. It is time for the President to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor – not a rigid timetable that terrorists can exploit, but a public plan for winning and concluding the war. And it is past time for the President, Vice President, or anyone else associated with them to stop impugning the patriotism of their critics.

Criticism of this Administration's policies should not in any way be confused with softness against terrorists, inadequate support for democracy or lack of patriotism. I am grateful to the men and women of our armed forces and have been honored to meet them twice in Iraq. They honor our country every day with their courage, selfless dedication, and success in battle. I am also grateful to the thousands of unknown men and women in our security forces and around the world who have been fighting the larger war against terrorism, finding terrorists’ cells, arresting them and working to prevent future attacks. And I applaud the brave people who have been risking their lives every day to bring democracy and peace to Afghanistan and Iraq.

I recently returned from visiting Israel and Jordan, seeing first hand the tragedy of spreading terrorism. As a New York Senator, I believe New York has a special bond with the victims of such terrorism, and we understand both the need to fight terrorism and the need for a clear plan in Iraq so that we can focus our resources in the right ways to prevent it from again reaching our shores.

America has a big job to do now. We must set reasonable goals to finish what we started and successfully turn over Iraqi security to Iraqis. We must deny terrorists the prize they are now seeking in Iraq. We must repair the damage done to our reputation. We must reform our intelligence system so we never go to war on false premises again. We must repair the breach with the Muslim world. And we must continue to fight terrorism wherever it exists.

Like all Americans, I hope the Iraqi elections are a true expression of democracy, one that is committed to majority rule, minority rights, women's rights, and the basic rule of law. I hope these elections will finally put the Iraqi people on the road to real security and independence.

If these elections succeed, we should be able to start drawing down our troops, but we should also plan to continue to help secure the country and the region with a smaller footprint on an as-needed basis. I call on the President both for such a plan and for a full and honest accounting of the failures of intelligence – something we owe not only to those killed and wounded and their families, but to all Americans.

We have to continue the fight against terrorism and make sure we apply America's best values and effective strategies in making our world and country a better and safer place. We have to do what is right and smart in the war against terrorists and pursuit of democracy and security. That means repudiating torture which undermines America's values. That means reforming intelligence and its use by decision makers. That means rejecting the Administration's doctrine of preemptive war and their preference to going it alone rather than building real international support.

I know when America leads with its values and fearlessly faces the facts, we make the best decisions. That is what is missing at the highest levels of our government, and what we desperately need now – answers to the questions about Iraq that only the President can provide. I hope he will level with the American people and provide us those answers in his Annapolis speech and give us the plan that has been sorely lacking.

Sincerely yours,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

http://justhillary.com/herwords/iraqletter.php

So here we have Hillary essentially attempting to take credit for Bush's Iraq pullout policy..........This is what we will be up against when she runs

 

[Annie]

She isn't going to be able to do this so easily; remember Rathergate. More at site, as well as links:

http://www.opinionatedbastard.com/archives/000621.html

November 12, 2005

I scooped the New York Times: We start pulling out in 2006

So the entire blogosphere missed the biggest story of the week, as did all of the newspapers, and both Senators Kerry and McCain: The Pentagon announced on November 8th that they would be reducing the number of American troops in 2006 down to about 92,000.

I more or less expected the papers to miss this. They've never quite gotten the war on terror, or understood exactly how the “rotation plan” works; the Pentagon was able to slip a troop increase of about 30,000 troops past them this quarter. But two of the most famous Senators spent the week arguing back and forth about what troop levels should be. Much ado about nothing? No, much ado about ignorance! I've always assumed that Senators had access to better (classified) information then me. I guess I was wrong...

Kerry said we should cut troop levels by 30,000 troops in Iraq by the end of the year. Um, Senator, there are currently 170,000 troops in Iraq, up from 140,000 prior to September. The Pentagon quietly raised the number of troops in Iraq for the October and December elections by overlapping the OIF-4 rotations against the OIF-3 rotations. That overlap ends in the first quarter of 2006, so the US was already going to reduce forces by 30,000 troops. This is so typical of Kerry. I think he has CEO disease; he gets a briefing and thinks it is his idea. “Bush should be doing exactly what he..er..is doing”, he'll thunder.

Meanwhile, McCain gave a speech to counter Kerry, saying we needed more troops in Iraq. Well, I agree with that, I just don't think they should be US troops, they should be Iraqi troops. We're training 7-10,000 new troops a month in Iraqi. Those troops are about 3-4 times more effective then our own troops; after all, its their country. So by the end of the year, when we rotate those 30,000 troops home, there will be more then enough Iraqi troops to replace them. By August, we'll have 270,000 Iraqi troops in Iraq, which compares well to the previous regime which had more troops, but they were inadequately trained. Saddam didn't even provide food or uniforms for half of them.

As for how I caught this when the press missed it, remember how I suspected that we were planning on reducing forces in Iraq in 2006? Then there was this announcement by the DOD of the new troop rotations? And then I noticed that the UN mandate has been extended through 2006, but that the Iraqis have the ability to cut it short if they want?

At first, I thought maybe I was getting it wrong, so I talked to a couple of people and they just sort of shrugged. Then I watched a newsreport by the internal DOD news channel saying it and I thought “aha!”. Finally, I asked the DOD directly and they confirmed it:

The story about the 92,000 troop rotation for 2006 seems to be implying that we'll be drawing down our troops in 2006.

This briefing makes it more explicit.

Can I have confirmation that this is true? This seems like pretty big news...

 

[Bonnie]

She isn't going to be able to do this so easily; remember Rathergate. More at site, as well as links:

http://www.opinionatedbastard.com/archives/000621.html

She's a chameleon in pantyhose... :cof:

 

[Annie]

She's a chameleon in pantyhose... :cof:

I can't imagine people actually voting for her! Then again, I felt the same in 92 and 96!

 

[Bonnie]

I can't imagine people actually voting for her! Then again, I felt the same in 92 and 96!

Oh I can....

 

[Stephanie]

That letter just shows how ole Hillary can talk out of both sides of her.................................mouth.. :teeth:

 

[Bonnie]

That letter just shows how ole Hillary can talk out of both sides of her.................................mouth.. :teeth:

LOL MMMM HMMMMMM

 

[Annie]

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012405.php

November 29, 2005
Hillary Takes A Stand

Hillary Clinton has been under considerable pressure to join antiwar Democrats in attacking the administration and bailing on the war effort. Today she finally issued a statement of her position on the war, in the form of a 1,600-word email to supporters. Clinton took what was probably the most predictable approach. She bashed President Bush:

I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the president and his administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war. *** Given years of assurances that the war was nearly over and that the insurgents were in their 'last throes,' this administration was either not being honest with the American people or did not know what was going on in Iraq.
At the same time, Clinton made no apology for her pro-war vote, nor did she term it a "mistake" as some other Democratic Senators have done. She did, however, try to spin the vote as something other than an outright authorization of war:

In her letter to voters, the senator cited prewar assurances from the White House that the United States would use the United Nations to resolve the issue of Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction.
"Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the president authority to use force against Iraq," she said.

Most significantly, I suppose, Clinton declined to join the stampede of Democrats calling for immediate surrender in Iraq:

It is time for the president to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor. *** America has a big job to do now. We must set reasonable goals to finish what we started and successfully turn over Iraqi security to Iraqis.
This makes no sense, of course. President Bush's plan for "finishing this war with success and honor" is exactly what Clinton calls for, i.e., "successfully turn[ing] over Iraqi security to Iraqis."

No doubt Clinton's approach, which recalls her husband's policy of triangulation, will be hailed as another shrewd move by the mistress of calculation. But I wonder. There is a certain sourness in the position Clinton has staked out: the war was a mistake which I voted to authorize only because I didn't know the facts; ever since, it has been bungled horribly; nevertheless, we have no choice but to see the mistake through to the bitter end. It smacks, somehow, of the purse-lipped, take-your-medicine feminist First Lady of the early days of Bill Clinton's presidency.

It strikes me that Hillary's cod-liver-oil approach to Iraq could well lose to a more emotionally satisfying, back to the '60s antiwar campaign in the Democratic primaries, or, in the general election, to a proponent of President Bush's idealistic vision of the Iraq war as a key element in the nation's long-term strategy for defeating Islamic terrorism.

 

[Annie]

and another:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/11/finish-is-exquisite-word-choice.html

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

"Finish" is an exquisite word choice.
"Finish the war" means something different from "end the war," right? Or will it mean whatever you need it to mean, later?

Just a thought about a very carefully crafted quote from Hillary Clinton:
"We must set reasonable goals to finish what we started and successfully turn over Iraqi security to Iraqis."


UPDATE: "Complete" is the word choice of President Bush, in today's speech on the war. Speaking of the troops fighting in Iraq, he says we must "complete their mission." "Mission" is a much stronger expression than Senator Clinton's "what we started." Do you think we should complete our mission or finish what we started? Or do you think they're the same thing? I don't.

 

[Bonnie]

There is a certain sourness in the position Clinton has staked out: the war was a mistake which I voted to authorize only because I didn't know the facts; ever since, it has been bungled horribly; nevertheless, we have no choice but to see the mistake through to the bitter end. It smacks, somehow, of the purse-lipped, take-your-medicine feminist First Lady of the early days of Bill Clinton's presidency.

OH REALLY!!!

If Bush Lied so did Democrats!
By Doug Hagin (11/29/05)

“Bush lied!” “Bush misled us!” “The President withheld intelligence!” We have heard these particular statements from Democrat politicians pretty much non-stop in recent months. These Democrats are desirous of leading Americans to believe that they only voted to approve the invasion of Iraq because President Bush duped them.

Naturally, the followers of Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi are only too willing to buy the lies the Democrats are spreading. Yes, yes, I did say lies. Frankly, the lies being told about the lead-up to the Iraq War, and the vote to approve it, are coming directly from the Democrats, not the White House!

As they have tried to placate their Leftist base, by accusing President Bush of misleading them to support the Iraq invasion, they have stopped supporting our troops, as they deserve to be supported. Yes, that is a harsh charge to level, but it is a just charge as well. The fact is this, for all their bluster about being solidly behind our armed forces, the Democrats and those who are parroting their false claims of being misled are undercutting our troops!

The Democrats cannot at once claim to support the military and blast their mission as one based on lies. The cold fact is this, it is the political left, which is talking of cutting, and running (Rep. Murtha), it is the political left, which has accused our troops of torture and targeting civilians (Dennis Kucinish). It is the left, which has called our troops the problem (Ted Kennedy). Guess what, that AIN’T supporting the troops!

So let us look at the statements of these poor, misled Democrats BEFORE the Iraq invasion. Let us recall their own words, their declarations about Saddam, WMD, and Iraq as a threat to America. While we take this trip down memory lane, let us recall the intelligence they saw was exactly the same as the president saw. Then let us decide if the Democrats were misled then, or are just trying to appease their increasingly Leftist base now.

What did John Kerry say? "According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons." Congressional Record, October 9, 2002

Hmmm, is this the same John Kerry who repeatedly called the Iraq war the wrong war at the wrong time?

How about Senator Clinton? "In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002.

Did she lie about WMD? If President Bush is a liar, then Senator Clinton is as well.

Let us hear what Charles Schummer said about the threat of Iraq. "[It] is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

Was he misleading himself into voting for the war? Did he lie for oil as President Bush has been accused of?

What of Senator Jay Rockefeller? What did he say about Iraq before Selective Memory Syndrome, a common Leftist malady struck? "We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. ... [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

How about failed lifeguard Ted Kennedy? What did he think about Saddam? "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

Remarks at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, October 27, 2002

Democratic Senator Chris Dodd had this to say. "There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed, to quote President Bush directly."

Congressional Record, October 8, 2002

Finally let me close with the words of President Bill Clinton! "In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now - a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

"[Let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too." Remarks at the Pentagon, February 17, 1998

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." Remarks at the White House, December 16, 1998

Was Bill Clinton helping Bush mislead Democrats with these words? Was he plotting to assist George W. Bush in misleading us into a war on false pretenses over two years BEFORE Bush was elected? If you are a Leftist then you have to believe this if you believe Bush lied.

http://www.americandaily.com/article/10425

 

[Annie]

OH REALLY!!!



http://www.americandaily.com/article/10425

Yup, that's what I meant Bonnie. They are not going to be able to do this as readily in the future, not politicians and not MSM. Others are watching and listening, and THEN writing. Those that really read around, tend to be among the 'influential minority' of shaping opinion. It's really quite interesting.

http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/167/report_display.asp