Hillary on the surge: "It's working"

[almaty 19]

Or GWB. But then - the joke's on us all there isn't it...

yeap, a bad practical joke on us and the world

[mawilson 2,133]

What does she mean by "the new war"?

Nuking Iran?

Lets hope not...

I think it's already been decided - just a matter of "when".

Just like the Iraq war was planned long before 9/11.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What does she mean by "the new war"?

Nuking Iran?

Lets hope not...

I think it's already been decided - just a matter of "when".

Just like the Iraq war was planned long before 9/11.

I think its unlikely - given the amount of public opposition there is to Iraq. I think anyone who pushes to start another full-scale war will not only run the economy into the ground (at the least - people at home will start to really see the effects of that massive expenditure) but discard the few remaining shreds of credibility that the US has in the international community.

As I see it - the future of the 'war on terror' (as far as these unilateral military adventures go) will depend largely on how quickly they can get the army out of Iraq without the whole thing collapsing like a pile of cards. Even with the general's report in September - likely the best he'll be able to show is 'modest improvement', but even then it will be a long way off until they can start scaling back US troop levels in any significant way.

That said - I can't see much public support for another 'regime change' operation.

[almaty 19]

i agree.. i think the american public is tired of dirty long lasting wars..USA needs to pick on Grand Caymans...Luxenborg or Belize....Reagan did it with other countries

[mawilson 2,133]

I think its unlikely - given the amount of public opposition there is to Iraq. I think anyone who pushes to start another full-scale war will not only run the economy into the ground (at the least - people at home will start to really see the effects of that massive expenditure) but discard the few remaining shreds of credibility that the US has in the international community.

As I see it - the future of the 'war on terror' (as far as these unilateral military adventures go) will depend largely on how quickly they can get the army out of Iraq without the whole thing collapsing like a pile of cards. Even with the general's report in September - likely the best he'll be able to show is 'modest improvement', but even then it will be a long way off until they can start scaling back US troop levels in any significant way.

That said - I can't see much public support for another 'regime change' operation.

Another major terrorist attack on US soil could change all that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think its unlikely - given the amount of public opposition there is to Iraq. I think anyone who pushes to start another full-scale war will not only run the economy into the ground (at the least - people at home will start to really see the effects of that massive expenditure) but discard the few remaining shreds of credibility that the US has in the international community.

As I see it - the future of the 'war on terror' (as far as these unilateral military adventures go) will depend largely on how quickly they can get the army out of Iraq without the whole thing collapsing like a pile of cards. Even with the general's report in September - likely the best he'll be able to show is 'modest improvement', but even then it will be a long way off until they can start scaling back US troop levels in any significant way.

That said - I can't see much public support for another 'regime change' operation.

Another major terrorist attack on US soil could change all that.

No doubt. I just wonder if the political climate prior to 9/11 was as aggressive as it is now. In some respects I think we become our own worst enemy. Which of course is what those folks count on...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What does she mean by "the new war"?

If you plan to be President of the United States, you better always have your eye on the "next war", even if you don't know where/when it might be. It's part of being Commander in Chief. Just part of the job.

[no name 1]

August 21, 2007Rivals criticize Clinton for saying Iraq policy 'working'WASHINGTON (CNN) — White House hopeful Hillary Clinton is taking heat Tuesday from some of her Democratic rivals over recent comments suggesting the president's surge policy in Iraq is "working."

The remarks came during an address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention Monday, in which the New York Democrat said the president's Iraq policy was leading to success in "some areas."

"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it's working," she said. "We're just years too late in changing our tactics."

"We can't ever let that happen again," Clinton added. "We can't be fighting the last war. We have to keep preparing to fight the new war."

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson quickly jumped at the chance to highlight Clinton's seeming praise of the president.

“The fact is the surge is not working," he said in a statement. "I do not give President Bush the same credit on Iraq that Hillary does."

Meanwhile, David Bonior, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards' campaign manager, called Clinton's comments "another instance of a Washington politician trying to have it both ways."

Though Bonior did agree with Clinton that there was "progress" in Al Anbar, he said "by cherry-picking one instance to validate a failed Bush strategy, it risks undermining the effort in the Congress to end this war."

Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communication's director, charged that Bonior was distorting Clinton’s position.

"Senator Edwards was right on Sunday when he said that all the Democrats would end the war and that the differences between them were small," he said. "He is wrong today to distort Senator Clinton's opposition to the surge in a sad attempt to raise his flagging poll numbers."

"The fact is that while Democrats, including Senator Edwards and Senator Obama, acknowledge progress in Al Anbar, Senator Clinton opposed the surge from the start and believes there is no military solution to the war in Iraq," Wolfson added.

– CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

[Sheriff Uling 3]

There's a new war... Yeah!!!

[GaryC 7]

"The fact is that while Democrats, including Senator Edwards and Senator Obama, acknowledge progress in Al Anbar, Senator Clinton opposed the surge from the start and believes there is no military solution to the war in Iraq," Wolfson added.

Kind of proved her wrong didn't it. Winning in Iraq is the worst news a democrat can get. All they have been saying is "we already lost" or "we can't win". They invested in defeat and now that there is hope we can win she is doing the only thing she can, get on the "we can win" bandwagon and hope the American people catch amnesia.