Hillary Urges Start of Troop Pullout in 90 Days

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 05:28:14 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

On Hillary Clinton's website today, she unveils a new message on Iraq.

U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has called for a 90-day deadline to start pulling American troops from Iraq.

"Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war," the New York senator said in a video on her campaign Web site, repeating a point included in a bill she introduced on Friday.

As to Hillary's bill, introduced yesterday:

Clinton's bill would cap the number of troops in Iraq at the January 1 level, prior to Bush's decision to add 21,500 to the approximately 130,000 soldiers already there.... [and] would require congressional authorization to exceed her proposed cap on U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Hillary also has a clear message for President Bush:

"If George Bush doesn't end the war before he leaves office, when I'm president, I will," Clinton said in the video.

More...

How is this Hillary message different from the last one?

At a January 17 news conference after visiting Iraq, Clinton repeated her call for a phased redeployment as a way of pressing the Iraqi government to shoulder more responsibility for security. But she stopped short then of proposing a deadline for doing so.

Big Tent Democrat isn't impressed with Hillary's change of heart.

What I want to know is why she thought a war with Iraq in 2002 made strategic sense, even if the intelligence was not wrong and stovepiped. Because, Senator Clinton, this is perhaps the most serious question we ask of our Presidential candidates- when do you think we should use military force? Your vote FOR the Iraq war in October 2002 was wrong on every level. It is a vote that must be explained

I respect Big Tent's view, but I am content with Hillary's response. I really don't care about why she voted for the war any more than I care why individual members of Congress voted for the Patriot Act. In the case of the Patriot Act, I'd give my support to any who promise to repeal its most intrusive powers, even if they once voted for it.

I'm practical. I want out of Iraq. Legislators make mistakes. Let's move forward and give our support to all the Democrats who currently say end the war now, bring the troops home or stop the funding.

You can watch her webcast here.

< Dallas Morning News Recaps Libby Blog Coverage | Senate Blocks Iraq War Resolution >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Hillary Urges Start of Troop Pullout in 90 Days | 17 comments (17 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Well I care why she voted for this war (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by patchwork2 on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 06:29:48 PM EST

even if you do not.

I care that children were killed--their legs and arms blown off. I care about human life and the disregarding of the consequences of a pre-emptive war on those human lives--they did not deserve to be maimed or killed because of the flippant attitude of an American president who lusted for their stuff--and the calculating attitude of those in our Senate, such as Sen. Clinton, who perceived her spot would be to jump on this bandwagon, just in case it was a total and complete success--and if not--well we could all forgive her and we could all forget about that vote--four frikkin years later and now, she does an about face , blames Bush for his screw up, as she mostl likely calculated she could

Why? Why did she vote for this slaughterhouse? Why did she vote to support Bush';s pre-emptive doctrine of killing and murder and pundering? Why? If you have an answer I would eagerly seek to read it. If you do not have and answer as to why she voted for this, other than the absurd "I was duped" I cannot consider your view viable at all.

And she gets worse by the day with her spin.

Patch she knows who butters her bread (none / 0) (#5)
by bx58 on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:34:04 PM EST

Read Chomsky or Mearsheimer and Walt if you want to find out why she can't make up her mind.

She is a NY Sen who gets truckloads of money from Jewish constituents who are using their constitutional right to influence the policies of their elected representatives.

Almost choked on that...

The situation in the Middle East reminds me of the Civil War yankee who asked the rebel why he kept on fighting, and he said "because you're down here."

We are over there. They're not building bases in Canada and Mexico.


That is an insult and it is wrong (none / 0) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 12:52:06 PM EST

You wrote:

he said "because you're down here."

That rebel soldier wasn't fighting other rebel soldiers because they were Baptist and he was Catholic.

No one on his side was planting bombs in the market areas of Atlanta or Petersburg or anyplace else in an attempt to terrorize the population to support either the Baptists or the Catholics.

He also wasn't part of a group that started the war with a terrorist attack on New York, and he wasn't supported by another country that had declared it would destroy a third country, and it wasn't engaged in a search for weapons of mass destructions.

Get your comparsions straight. Study some history.

Now. He was fighting because the North had decided that the Union must remain. The South wanted to leave the Union. It was called "State's Rights" but the real issue was the right to own slaves. We think that was 100% wrong, but at that time many people thought slavery wasn't all that bad.

So the North was there because of that noble belief. That all men are created equal and have the God given right to be free, and to live under our constitution which gave them such things as Freedom Of Religion.

Kinda reminds me of what we're trying to do in Iraq and through out the ME.

Too bad you can't support it.


So jim, you are equating our motive for (none / 0) (#10)
by bx58 on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 05:40:15 PM EST

invading Iraq with the North's invasion of the South? You really believe that?

You believe that while Bush and his cronies have their own ideas; funny how propaganda works.

Tell me where it's our God-given right to meddle in the Middle East? Give me chapter and verse please.


: bx58 (none / 0) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 08:51:43 PM EST

Believe? Are you aware that many people believe Lincoln wasn't interested in the issue of slavery, and only brought it in when support for the war he was fighting to preserve the Union faded?
Would you not agree that the first was noble and the second nobler still? Have you never started to correct one mistake and wound up correcting one bigger still? Would you have told the widows of those who died at Gettsburg their loved ones' lives were "wasted?"
You really should try and think logically and quit parroting what you read on these blogs. The carnard you use has chin whiskers.
As for God given rights to "meddle in the ME," where do you get such things? Would you not agree that to try and give liberty to a culture and a country who has had none is also a noble cause?
What noble cause do you espouse? The right to continually say that your country is always wrong?
What can you bring to the table that says that war is always wrong? That nothing is greater than than the teeny weeny self you clutch inside you and hold so dear??
At best our time on this earth is short. Should we spend all of it worrying over such weighty details as where the nearest coffee shop is? If we lose a day, a year, or even more... What is that compared to finding a soul to take into the eternity we face?

Clay lies still, but blood's a rover;
Breath's a ware that will not keep.
Up, lad: when the journey's over
There'll be time enough to sleep
Housman

OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#12)
by Sailor on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 08:11:55 PM EST

"He was fighting because the North had decided that the Union must remain. The South wanted to leave the Union. It was called "State's Rights" but the real issue was the right to own slaves. We think that was 100% wrong"

sailor (none / 0) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 09:02:06 PM EST

What nonsense.

First, it was a reply to a comment bx58 made.

So if you are sincere, I expect you to complain about his. But you aren't and you won't.

Secondly, bx58's comment was an attempt to juustify the killing that the terrorists have done in Iraq by attempting to use a phony analogy comparing our Civil War to the terrorists in Iraq.

I merely set the record straight. Something you object to.

Gosh sailor, you are so transparent.


: Jim, I was comparing the attitude of the (none / 0) (#16)
by bx58 on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 09:35:41 AM EST

rebel soldier to the attitude of many Middle Eastern natives, not the motives or goals of the Civil War and the Iraq War. You're the one who made those comparisons.
"I merely set the record straight." Thanks Jim.
As "noble" wars go this disaster is at the bottom of the list. Hillary Rodhams refusal to acknowledge a mistake voting for this disaster will help her with the Likudniks and she knows it.

Bigotry (none / 0) (#11)
by Jason Van Steenwyk on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 07:39:24 PM EST

Wow. You don't have to scratch too hard to find the Jew-bating bigotry in this crowd!


: Thanks Jason for dropping the (none / 0) (#15)
by bx58 on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 09:19:51 AM EST

anti-semite bomb. I'll just keep quiet now.
Wouldn't want to offend anyone by bringing up the obvious fact that Hillary is in a tight spot trying to placate both the anti-war hardleft and the warrior Zionists among her constituents.

: Heeey (none / 0) (#17)
by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 06:43:43 PM EST

How do you know that bx isn't a self-loathing Jew instead of just another anti-semite??

Talk about flip-flops (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Al on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 06:34:14 PM EST

Surely it says something about how principled Hillary Clinton is. Unless she offers another good explanation, the most likely one is that she is simply pandering. And yes, she may momentarily say something that you agree with, but how reliable is she?

pull out troops now, ho ho ho (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by diogenes on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:23:35 PM EST

Remember 1964 when the Democrats accused another man from Arizona of being a warmongerer, won the election in a landslide, and poured in even more troops?
If and when Hillary wins, the Iraq mess will again spill over into Kuwait/Saudi Arabia without US troops present (as it did in 1991 before GW Bush), and she'll have the Gulf of Persia resolution and pour in more troops than McCain or Bush would dare to.

Judgement Matters (4.66 / 3) (#3)
by gaardvark on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 06:42:02 PM EST

My issue with Hillary's vote on the war, is that I think judgement matters, for our presidents. The president, imo, needs to set the vision for the nation and get the big decisions right. On the defining issue of our time, Hillary was wrong and refuses to acknowledge her mistake.

An article in the NYT, Clinton Gives War Critics New Answer on '02 Vote, she says I'm welcome to support someone else... and at this point, for me, it's ANYONE else!

These are different issues (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 11:58:13 AM EST

I am happy to see her move on present policy.

But her judgment in October 2002 on Iraq is a very legitimate issue and her performance in discussing it is very poor.

: She and Bill are classic co-dependents (none / 0) (#8)
by Dadler on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 12:04:22 PM EST

And co-dependency doesn't breed honest self-criticism. In any way.

Political pandering?? (none / 0) (#18)
by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 06:46:40 PM EST

From a CLINTON?? Oh, say it aint so!!