Hillary: Troop Drawdown Was Inevitable, Not Sign Of Progress
Hillary on Bush's speech:
"Regrettably, the President did not seize the opportunity tonight to offer the American people a candid assessment of the challenges that we continue to face in Iraq, or offer a change in course to his failing strategy. Instead, he portrayed an unavoidable reduction in U.S. troops to pre-surge levels as a marker of progress. Redeploying over the next year five of the twenty combat brigades currently deployed in Iraq will merely bring our total number of troops back to the same level that existed before the President announced his escalation in January of this year. As was discussed during General Petraeus's testimony this week, troop levels in Iraq must decrease by this amount regardless, in order to avoid extending Army deployments beyond 15 months and straining our military even further than it already is."What the President told the American people tonight is that one year from now, there will be the same number of troops in Iraq as there were one year ago. That is simply too little too late, and unacceptable to this Congress and the American people who have made clear their strong desire to bring our brave troops home.
"The Commander-in-Chief has the authority to issue the order to greatly accelerate the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, and to bring so many more of our troops home so much faster. They have done everything we have asked of them and more, but are now stuck in the middle of a civil war. I continue to implore the President to change course, bring our troops home faster, and end this war responsibly as soon as possible."
Comments (9)
Daniel wrote on September 14, 2007 12:39 AM:The night's highlights also include Giuliani opening his wide stunningly wide, McCain being interviewed in front of military personel waving flags, and Fox News's over-the-top coverage. Sean Hannity was really obsessed with that MoveOn ad.
www.campaigndiaries.com Excited about NH! wrote on September 14, 2007 1:47 AM:Huge news out of NH, where Jeanne Shaheen is announcing she IS running for Senate! More info here!
irishamerican wrote on September 14, 2007 3:31 AM:This is exactly why HRC unfavorables are so damn high.
Her advisors might think it is smart politics, but all you ever get out of her are these statements AGAINST something without ever saying what SHE would do. I hope the hell either JE or BO win the primarys, hell Al Gore is my choice. I just really hate the careful triangulation of HRC. If she ends up winning the nomination because of media coronation, I don't give a shit who the Rethug Nominee is. It could be the worst NeoCon of all of them (Rudy), I will stay home. Period.
stay home then. Hillary is the nominee and start crying about it.
90% progressive record in the senate and do you forget what the clintons did in 8 years in the white house? oh yea, PEACE AND PROSPERITY.
Jan wrote on September 14, 2007 7:58 AM:I think there are some key phrases in here that are going to irk the WH.
The main thing is, she lays the blame squarely where it belongs -- on Bush, who refuses to be held accountable for HIS own failed policies in Iraq.
In response to these posts, yes, I agree; no problem if you aren't going to vote for Hillary Clinton but please stop the friggin' whining.
And, yes, I do remember peace and prosperity under President Clinton. Stats tell us a large majority of the country thought we were going in the RIGHT direction when he left office. That's what we remember.
Stats tell us a large majority think we are going in the WRONG direction now as Bush leaves office. It's a no-brainer.
More than this statement, I'm looking to see Bush's response to Clinton's letter to Bush. This will be the first time (I think) that we will see Clinton v. Cheney.
So far Cheney has won his battles with Lieberman, Edwards, Wolf Blitzer, Tim Russert...
We'll see what Clinton v. Cheney looks like with Bush's response.
Round 1 to Clinton, imo.
President Bush’s Message, “Not On My Watch”
That should be the media’s headlines over the weekend after hearing the President make his 8th primetime television speech about Iraq to the American people.
While I’m not a supporter of John Edwards, he said it best tonight during his paid for commercial that was aired not long after the President spoke.
"In January, after years of evidence that military actions cannot force a political solution, the president announced a military surge to force a political solution. In May, he vetoed a plan to end the war, demanded more time to show the surge could work, and Congress gave it to him. Now, after General Petraeus reports the surge has produced no progress toward a political solution, what does the president want? More time for the surge to work, when all of us know it won't."
The President informed the nation tonight that he expects to leave a U.S. presence in Iraq way beyond his presidency. He said Iraqi leaders "have asked for an enduring relationship with America.” The mission keeps changing, have you noticed?
What happened to, “Missions Accomplished” Mr. President?
Con't... Coonsey's View
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
irishamerican
100% agree with demwinger. Let me add my heartfelt plea (different this time than it was in 2000 when I pleaded that your element vote for Gore):
Please don't let the saloon door hit you in the elephant on your way out of the party. The rest of us lifelong progressive liberal Dems will still be inside preparing to raise a toast to the first woman president in the glorious history of our nation.
I have a new name for you irrational Hillary-haters. "Hannity's Hillogynists"
HST wrote on September 14, 2007 1:10 PM:What does Hillary propose to actually DO as a powerful US Senator about ending the war other than point the finger at Bush?
I don't dislike her, but I have lost patience with impotent, meaningless rhetoric from all our legialtors (including BO, Biden, etc...). She and they all claim they will "fight" for us and fight to bring our troops home. When? She and they aren't fighting for anything at all. All they are doing is issuing statements and positioning themselves not to be hurt by the fact that they are DOING nothing to end the war.
In Hillary's case I would think she has a special obligation to do something meaningful to end the war since she was one of the key votes in favor of getting us into this whole mess.
FYI to the Hillary people out there: I'm not a Hillary basher. I am simply another Democrat who's sick and tired of the do nothing, capitulate-rather-than-stand-up-for-your-beliefs Democrats who refuse to use the power of the purse to end the war mostly because it represents a political risk to themselves. Hillary is only one of many, but she's an important one given her aspirations. Yes, I'll vote for her if nominated, but I'll hold my nose whether it is her or any of the other members of Congress who could actually do something to stop the war but who prefer to bamboozle everyone into thinking that statements imploring that jackass Bush to do anything to end the war mean jack shit.
Anonymous wrote on September 14, 2007 1:14 PM:I can't believe she bankrolled Bush for four years.
She have any other "experience"?
