http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/default.aspx Do you think she's actually serious, or just trying to reach a broader demographic? Discuss.
She's serious. She can't run from the data. Nobody can. Dick Durbin said the same thing the other week: "The surge is working." This from a party whose Senate majority leader declared the war lost a few months ago...
She's going to be the new figure head on the war on terror. So she's just getting used to the new role she'll soon assume. And Republicans will be the ones opposing her methods of fighting the war on terror, just as the democrats opposed Bush's. Politics is nothing more then a good cop bad cop scam played on the American people. To the present the illusion of a democracy for the people, and by the people. That's why congress (representing the people) doesn't even bother to declare war anymore. Because what we think doesn't matter.
It's possible that she has changed her position (now that it has become popular to do so) but I have avoided politics for a little while now - I have taken a bit of a vacation from the circus. I do know that when she was asked about it, quite a few times, she refused to take any hardline stance (either for or against) and her voting record reflected that.
She championed the war and voted for it. Now, she's suddenly against it, but the manner of her opposition is in continuous flux. I posted a link here to a Washington Post story a few months ago highlighting the juicer bits of her waywardness. Some appreciated it, some didn't. At this point, I think everyone's mind is made up about this woman...
So "championing" would be the only visible strong stance (voting for the authorization bill that W took advantage of is not a "strong stance" in itself). I don't recall any war "championing" by Ms Clinton. She has appeared at all times spineless and compromising on the matter. And she has been proven wise: no one who took a strong stance on Iraq - pro or con - is currently favored for the Presidency next election.
This from the Times, April 23, 2004: Even as the war in Iraq proves unpopular with her core base of liberal supporters, not to mention some mainstream Democrats, Mrs. Clinton has emerged as one of the most prominent Democratic backers of the military activities. In recent months, in speeches and interviews, she has defended her vote authorizing the Republican president to wage war, argued for more troops in Iraq and sided with President Bush's contention that Saddam Hussein was, as she put it, ''a potential threat'' who ''was seeking weapons of mass destruction, whether or not he actually had them.'' Last week, with violence surging in Iraq, she stood by her decision to approve a Congressional resolution permitting military action there, though she did accuse the president of failing to build sufficient international support for the war and failing to plan adequately for the aftermath of Mr. Hussein's downfall. And she appeared to agree with President Bush's contention that the conflict in Iraq was part of the broader fight against terror, indicating that global threats like Mr. Hussein took on greater urgency in a post-Sept. 11 world. ''After 9/11, a lot of threats had to be looked at with fresh eyes,'' she said in the interview. Here's some more on her ever-changing position... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/another-chapter-in-hillar_b_48982.html http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/index.html
They really need to -+quota+- her wine rations. I've heard all sorts of silliness about current things not a one wants to hear, let alone deal with. She gets her snoot snorted with quaffs of wine, and it "all hangs out". Crazy notions, and all. I've already planned, I'm sure, on casting all 13 of my votes her way. As, this is typical fare.
Just because the surge may be working, it doesn't mean we're anywhere close to "winning the war" as there's no way to win the war. Heck, the war was already said to be accomplished when Bush did his fancy landing on an aircraft carrier. Everything else lies in the hands of the Iraqi government, which has been shown to not having come even close to reaching any of their benchmarks. So if we somehow manage to put a major crackdown on Iraq and all of a sudden no more insurgent attacks occur yet the Iraqi government still can't get their shit together, then what? Just like Vietnam, we can win the battles no problem, but it doesn't mean Iraq will come close to where we wish it would be. That's the problem with forcing democracies on others, it's the native peoples that need to make it happen, not us. We can only help, but the rest lies in the hands of their populace. - N
Sure she's serious, and trying to reach a broad consensus. She has experience trying to deal with successful surges not going in her favor.
So far, Hillary has been saying very similar things about the war and about W, right along. I don't see the large change in position. She's always been a compromiser with this administration, always taken the "respectable" line, always looked for central ground somewhere between W&Co claims and physical reality. She voted for the authorization (for invasion as a last resort, not kicking the UN inspectors out in a big hurry - but hey, we all assumed W was lying about that, so Hillary is responsible for pretending she wasn't being lied to), she saw real elections in the purple fingers and celebrated the reconstruction claims (we all knew that the reconstruction claims were phony and hiding massive fraud, and the ballots of the "elections" did not even carry the names of most of the candidates or allow some of the major parties, so Hillary is responsible for pretending she wasn't being lied to), now she sees progress in the surge as described by administration propagandists (we all know that any attributions of "progress" are willfully ignoring the disintegrating larger political context, so Hillary is once more responsible for pretending this administration is presenting reality to her and us). And all this time she has spoken out against various features or aspects of W&Co's prosecution of the war, scoring points off particularly obvious - and isolated - wrongs. This is nothing if not consistency in a politician. Her take on this war has not changed in the slightest.
Quit trying to pretend the vote for the use of force wasn't a vote for war. It was. Everyone knew it. That's why some Democrats actually had the guts to vote against it. What you're positing above is the propaganda the Hillary camp has thought about for two years and come up with to explain her original position. At least Edwards, a man with his own moral problems, has the decency not to try to deceive people, raised his hand and gave a very public mea culpa. Mrs. Clinton would never do that, though it might actually make her seem more human... Again: "In recent months, in speeches and interviews, she has defended her vote authorizing the Republican president to wage war, argued for more troops in Iraq and sided with President Bush's contention that Saddam Hussein was, as she put it, 'a potential threat' who 'was seeking weapons of mass destruction, whether or not he actually had them.'" (NYT). Hillary championed the war. She gave speeches about Saddam's danger, and argued he had WMD's because of what she knew from her husband's administration. This is all on the record. It's well known. So I find it even more amusing that you would sit here and argue there's no change if a person goes from "being one of the most prominent Democratic backers of the military activities" to advocating an eventual withdrawal. Obviously, a shift has occurred somewhere...
