Clinton Calls For Cap On Number Of Troops In Iraq
A day after Senator Barack Obama entered the Presidential race, his chief rival, Hillary Clinton, went on a variety of network and radio shows and called for a cap on troops in Iraq. Clinton said she is against President Bush's escalation, favors redeploying troops out of Iraq and wants economic aid conditions placed on the Iraq government to force progress towards various political goals.
Clinton's every utterance on Iraq is likely to undergo heavy scrutiny, particularly now that her two chief rivals -- Obama and John Edwards -- are both officially in the race and have both taken tougher positions on the Iraq war than she has. Clinton has a press conference on Iraq scheduled for this afternoon that will almost certainly get intense media coverage. We'll keep you posted.
Why has she waited to say this? I have to imagine she knew that Obama was in. She is never gonna win the nomination by going soft on Iraq.
January 17, 2007 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
They were happily triangulating and did not anticipate that Bush would escalate in the face of the ISG. It is very hard to triagulate effectively when one corner of the purported triangle is operating in another dimension altogether.
I am pretty sure that she has missed the boat.
global citizen
January 17, 2007 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heard her on NPR this am. She hasn't officially entered the race either but seemed pleased the interviewer wanted the scoop. She doesn't get harangued with that question nearly as much as Barack.
She also said this has been her position on Iraq for the last 18 months. If she wants the nomination we ought to hear more of this out of her. Thank you John Edwards for pressing the issue. And where is Bill? Love him or hate him, there's no one better at taking the pulse of the American people. How come she seems to be so slow off the mark here with him in her kitchen?
Interestingly afterward a commentator said she really wants to be president and knows this is her one chance. I dunno about that. This is probably McCain's last chance but Hillary's? Most don't get more than two bites at the apple to be taken seriously. But Reagan ran in 1968 and 1976 before getting elected in 1980. The first run was late, poorly organized and happened in the days when you could still have a brokered convention with a groundswell candidate. That's something we'll probably never see again in the rigidly idealogical Republican party. But for most yeah, two shots is it. That's a shame too because I think Edwards would be a great president someday but I just don't see him getting the nomination this year.
January 17, 2007 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why does Edwards get credit for this? Murtha has been saying this for over a year. Wesley Clark has been calling for more diplomacy for years. The Democrats actually ran a national campaign on this. Bush's escalation has received pretty much unanimous opposition. I could go on and on.
Edwards deserves credit for talking about poverty, but not as the first one to speak against this war.
January 17, 2007 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"That's a shame too because I think Edwards would be a great president someday but I just don't see him getting the nomination this year."
I disagree. If Gore doesn't run Edwards will emerge as the alternative to Hillary and may very well win the nomination.
You will see Obama fizz out as we approach the primaries. It will come down to Hillary and Edwards. And if Gore runs, watch out. Gore would instantly be a credible candidate.
January 17, 2007 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"and did not anticipate that Bush would escalate in the face of the ISG."
This demand that Hillary or Biden or whomever in the Senate "END THIS WAR NOW!" is childish.
Up till January 2007 Dems were a minority in both houses, powerless to even hold hearings much less end a war.
Dems understood, correctly, that this was all a political game. They had to win the argument politically. They did not have the power to end the war.
They hoped Bush would use the ISG report as a face saving exit strategy. Politically that would have been the best outcome for Dems. The war was Bush's fuckup, let him clean it up.
There was also the danger of taking ownership of Bush's war. The public sees Iraq as Bush's war. Bush will continue to be in the driver's seat the next 2 years, making all the decisions.
What Dems are doing now is the politically smart strategy. Hold hearings. Turn public opinion against the war. Make it difficult for the GOP to continue supporting the war. Put the screws on Bush. Force Bush to make difficult decisions.
This is the only power Dems have. They don't have the votes to cut off funding. Lieberman would vote with the GOP and would join the GOP in a filibuster. Besides politically it would be a dumb move.
Dems must win the political argument. Being right is not enough. Remember Dems were right about Vietnam but they lost the political argument and paid a heavy price.
January 17, 2007 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watch out for Richardson, Vilsack, and Clark. I agree Obamamania will fizzle out as will Edwards. Clinton will always be a player no matter what. But the resumes and accomplishments of Richardson, Clark and Vilsack will come into play more and more as their campaigns draw attention to their respective accomplishments which make Edwards and Obama look pretty "lame" since they have no political accomplishments, while the others only have cheap rhetoric.
While E & O can talk about what they want to accomplish and their vision, Richardson and Vilsack can say, "Hey, that's good. Look what I did to make that a reality." Similarly, Clark has a good record. Back in 2003 he was essentially saying what most people are now saying about Iraq.
January 17, 2007 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right gq that honor would go to Kucinich. But Edwards speech the other did seem pointed directly at Hillary.
January 17, 2007 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The war was Bush's fuckup, let him clean it up. There was also the danger of taking ownership of Bush's war."
That danger remains. Anybody who doesn't understand this point doesn't understand what happened culturally in this country after Vietnam in the 1980s. From Rambo to Reagan this country bought into the 'politicians didn't let us win" and "Morning in America" themes while ignoring the real lessons of Vietnam.
The only way we'll "win" this war is to send a million troops we don't have and do to Iraq what Russia did to Chechnya. Not gonna happen. Dems have no more responsibility to come up with a better plan to "win in Iraq" than they had to "fix" Social Security. And that includes withdrawal. What they should do is tell Bush this is his last shot. Hold him to his November timeline whether it works or not. He's painted himself into this corner. Keep him there, let Waxman do his work on Cheney and force him out this year. He ought to hire some of those 7 to 10 former US attorneys for his staff to expedite things. Get rid of Cheney and Bush's safety net is gone. See how fast he ends the war then all on his lonesome.
January 17, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would it go to Kucinich? Obama was against the war before it started.
January 17, 2007 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt Obama will fizz out and boy oh boy do we have a lot of candidates. A lot of good candidates.
It's way too early to make any predictions.
January 17, 2007 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"That danger remains. Anybody who doesn't understand this point doesn't understand what happened culturally in this country after Vietnam in the 1980s."
Dems must remember this. They have to think long term. Not this week or next month but 2008 election and beyond.
* The war in Iraq is not winnable.
* Democrats don't have the power to end this war. They can make suggestions but they have no power to implement them. Bush is going to be CiC the next two years. Democrats don't have the numbers to cut off funding and even if they did Bush can find the money elsewhere to continue this war. It is not in Hillary's or Biden's power to end the war.
* Dems have the opportunity to win the political argument which will help shape elections to come. Which means shaping public opinion. Which means avoiding the mistakes they made during Vietnam. Which means not taking ownership of this war when they have no power to implement policies. They couldn't do this during Vietnam because a Dem president had started the war. They can do it now. This is Bush's war. If Dems want to win the political argument it must remain Bush's war.
January 17, 2007 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
We shall see. I think Obamamania is going to carry the day. He's going to raise a ton of money and be the only candidate who can come anywhere near keeping up with Hillary.
Richardson definitely has big accomplishments, but I think there are just too many oppo research opportunities against him.
http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2006/06/bill-richardson-looking-like-go-for.html
http://www.slate.com/id/84864/sidebar/84866/
Clark has no purely political accomplishments, and I don't see him raising enough money or getting enough media oxygen to get another chance. Vilsack won't even win Iowa.
January 17, 2007 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mostly agree, except that we should not let what Joe Lieberman would do concern us whatsoever.
However, how are you sure that you're not misjudging where the American public is on on the war? How do you know that the Dems haven't already won the political argument?
January 17, 2007 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, I think you may be right politically, but you seem to misunderstand how Congress' power of the purse works.
January 17, 2007 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"we should not let what Joe Lieberman would do concern us whatsoever."
It is a numbers game. Dems need Lieberman's vote to stay in the majority. They don't have the votes to end a filibuster.
"How do you know that the Dems haven't already won the political argument?"
The war isn't over yet. A lot of people still think the war is winnable. When it is all over, when the last helicopter has left that is when the blame game will begin. It is imperative that Dems win that argument.
It is not enough to be right. You can be right and still lose the political argument. That is the political lesson of Vietnam.
January 17, 2007 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kucinich was roasted for saying the war was wrong in 2002 and even after the invasion in 2003. Long after Howard Dean (the anti war candidate) was saying "the invasion was a mistake, but we can't just leave", long before Murtha said anything but "we have to support the troops", Kucinich was calling for a UN coalition to take over the occupation from our troops because our people couldn't possibly shove democracy down their throats.
Now I'm not going to support Kucinich, didn't then. But the selective memory I see on the net I find surprising and not a little appalling.
As for Edwards getting credit instead of Murtha, Murtha isn't running for president and both Edwards and Hillary are. At this point she has to respond to that kind of pointed criticism and
I'm surprised she held back this long before speaking out on Iraq. She knows better than to get behind the curve and she let Edwards score an easy point.
January 17, 2007 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ohiomeister how do we overcome the filibuster? Maybe it would be good to put all those Repub senators on record by getting them to support a filibuster but I doubt it'd happen before summer. In the meantime if our senators give Bush the rope he needs to hang himself by summer his approval ratings will be underwater. Make the Repub senators walk down to the WH and tell him he doesn't have their support anymore like they did Nixon. We can finally stamp out warmongering or we can run the risk of taking the blame. It's worth the cost in lives and treasure to wait a few more months to never go through this again.
January 17, 2007 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink