Senator Hillary Clinton: "We are engaged in a war against heartless, ruthless enemies. If they could come after us again tomorrow, they would"

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Comments Senator Clinton recently made to a Democratic audience in Iowa...

"As a senator from New York, I lived through 9/11 and I am still dealing with the aftereffects," Clinton said. "I may have a slightly different take on this from some of the other people who will be coming through here."

Clinton said her view is that the nation is engaged in a deadly fight against terrorism...

"I do think we are engaged in a war against heartless, ruthless enemies," she said. "If they could come after us again tomorrow they would do so."

Clinton ... has refused to go along with suggestions that Congress use its power of the purse to bring the war to a halt.

"This will be a problem that will be left to the next president," the senator said. "We've got to figure out now, given where we are, how we go forward."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070127/ap_on_el_pr/clinton2008

[Alex+R 0]

Just what the Dems need now: a divisive candidate who's out of touch with most Dems

[DeadPoolX 9]

Huh. I read that article, and while I STILL can't say I really like ANY of the candidates running (Republican or Democrat), Clinton's words have earned her a little respect with me.

[garya505 2]

Well at least I can agree with her on one thing.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Hillary's Dovetail

Posted 1/17/2007

Throughout our involvement in Iraq, Hillary Clinton has been playing both sides of the street.

[...]

But Hillary the Hawk is sure to come back and haunt Hillary the Dove. While in Rye Brook, N.Y., in November 2005, for instance, she called immediate withdrawal a "big mistake."

"It will matter to us if Iraq totally collapses into civil war, if it becomes a failed state the way Afghanistan was, where terrorists are free to basically set up camp and launch attacks against us."

What to do then, instead?

"My approach is we tell them we expect you to meet these certain benchmarks and that means getting troops and police officers trained, equipped and ready to defend their people," Clinton said then — not unlike the new Bush strategy she opposes.

Clinton also said our forces could stabilize Iraq if they were to "hold" and "expand" areas of the country — again, sounds like the administration's new approach.

Campaigning for Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 presidential race, Clinton called for more forces. At a community college near Philadelphia just days before the election, she accused Bush of a lack of "effectiveness" and "strategic focus" regarding Iraq because the country "did not have enough troops." In the summer of 2005, she joined other Democrats in proposing to increase the Army by 80,000 troops — yet again, another of the president's positions.

The "faulty intelligence" angle also won't cut the mustard. Clinton told Larry King on CNN in April 2004 that she did not regret voting for war on Iraq because "the consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration."

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editori...253930152257576

Edited January 27, 2007 by Gupt

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Just what the Dems need now: a divisive candidate who's out of touch with most Dems

She's just written herself out of the presidential race. She'll never get nominated as a Democrat...which I'm happy about.

[garya505 2]

Just what the Dems need now: a divisive candidate who's out of touch with most Dems

She's just written herself out of the presidential race. She'll never get nominated as a Democrat...which I'm happy about.

That's probably correct, with almost everyone jumping on the anti-war bandwagon.

[GaryC 7]

Just what the Dems need now: a divisive candidate who's out of touch with most Dems

She's just written herself out of the presidential race. She'll never get nominated as a Democrat...which I'm happy about.

I have to agree with you there. She sounds like a hawk so the dems will not vote for her and we all know that she is just trying to move to the center to get votes and would wimp out when the chips are down. Thats why no republican will vote for her. She has no chance.

[Alex+R 0]

To be clear, Hilary is not pro-war. Even in that article you can see that. Hilary is for a phased troop redeployment, exactly as Obama is.

January 10, 2007

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the President’s Speech

on Iraq

"Based on the President’s speech tonight, I cannot support his proposed

escalation of the war in Iraq.

The President’s Iraq policy has been marred by incompetence and

arrogance as his Administration has refused to recognize the military

and political reality on the ground. American troops continue to serve

and sacrifice in Iraq, performing magnificently and bravely. But as our

commanders have said repeatedly, Iraq requires a political solution,

not a purely military one, and we did not hear such a proposed solution

tonight.

The President simply has not gotten the message sent loudly and clearly

by the American people, that we desperately need a new course. The

President has not offered a new direction, instead he will continue to

take us down the wrong road – only faster. The President’s speech

failed to adequately address the political situation in Iraq, rising

sectarian violence, mounting strain on our military, growing Iranian

influence, and festering divides over how to distribute oil revenues.

As I have said, as the American people have demanded, and as the facts

on the ground require, we need a new course and an end to the current

failed policy. I continue to urge a strategy that places pressure on

the Iraqi government to resolve the political crisis through phased

redeployment of U.S. troops, establishes an Iraqi Oil Trust to end the

stalemate over oil, and pursues an aggressive diplomatic strategy

including an international conference of the regional parties to

further the task of Iraq’s stability."

PS I know that was older than some of the other quotes, but I don't think the new quotes contradict her phased redeployment approach.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

NEW YORK -- A Washington Post-ABC News poll released yesterday shows that Hillary Rodham Clinton was the favourite of 41% of Democrats, twice the support of any of her rivals for the 2008 presidential nomination.

http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2007/...424482-sun.html

To all the Democrats who think Hillary can't win the nomination... I think you may be mistaking the vocal activist wing for the entire party.

[Alex+R 0]

NEW YORK -- A Washington Post-ABC News poll released yesterday shows that Hillary Rodham Clinton was the favourite of 41% of Democrats, twice the support of any of her rivals for the 2008 presidential nomination.

http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2007/...424482-sun.html

To all the Democrats who think Hillary can't win the nomination... I think you may be mistaking the vocal activist wing for the entire party.

That's very useful information. Thanks Gupt.

I'm going to work for Obama in hopes he'll get the VP half of the ticket then

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

She [Hillary] has no chance.

Man, don't I hope you're right. She better be ditched during the first few primaries. She'd be a nightmare of a President sputtering such nonsense. Almost sounds like Hillary W...

[Caladan 19]

Hillary's the frontrunner now because of name recognition and a gigantic campaign warchest. It's *very* early yet.

I think she could take the primary, maybe, though between Obama and Edwards that's not clear, but I can't see her taking the general as she seems to ignite the fanatic rightwing even more than her husband did.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm going to work for Obama...

I'd like to understand why so many people like Obama, given how little effort he has put in to actually differentiate himself from Clinton/Edwards/Richardson/Vilsack et al. Your thoughts?

[Fandango 1,440]

go Hil go!!! *muahahhahahahhaha*