WASHINGTON - Seeking to convince voters that she can end the Iraq war, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has touted her role in the congressional effort to force President Bush to bring the troops home.
"I've been working day in and day out in the Senate to provide leadership to end this war," Clinton recently told an audience at George Washington University, contrasting her experience with that of rival Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.
Clinton has been a vocal war critic and introduced three bills last year to curtail the U.S. military role in Iraq. The New York senator has also aggressively questioned administration officials involved in the war.
But since Democrats took control of Congress, Clinton has done relatively little to advance legislation to force the Bush administration to withdraw from Iraq, according to congressional records and lawmakers and staff members who have worked on the issue.
Instead, Clinton largely remained on the sidelines of the congressional debate, her legislation ignored as the Senate focused on measures developed by lawmakers who were more central to the legislative drive to end the war:
* Clinton played a marginal role in Democratic efforts to confront the president's troop "surge" early last year and later in developing the party's legislative strategy of tying money for the war to a timeline for a withdrawal.
* None of her war-related proposals -- which often mirrored measures introduced by other senators -- ever came up for a vote.
* She did not work with moderate Democrats who built GOP support for bipartisan antiwar legislation to overcome Republican-led filibusters.
* And Clinton not only did not develop any measures to mandate a pullout deadline, she actively opposed them until early last year.
"She lent her voice to the Democratic Party's criticism of the administration, which was important," said Julian Zelizer, a Princeton University historian who has written extensively about the current Congress. "But she certainly was not at the head of the move to legislate the end of the war."
Obama was equally peripheral to the Iraq war debate, but he has not claimed a similar leadership role. He has argued instead that his opposition to the war in 2002, two years before he was elected to the Senate, makes him the superior candidate.
In contrast to both Democrats, Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, was a leading voice in the debate, arguing for more troops in Iraq.
Clinton, who voted to authorize the war, has made her Senate experience -- along with her eight years as first lady -- a cornerstone of her argument that she is best prepared to be commander in chief "on Day One."
In Des Moines last summer, she announced a three-step plan to end the war, discussing her legislation "to begin bringing our troops home within 90 days" and to revoke the war authorization Congress gave President Bush.
"It is long past time that the president ended American combat involvement in Iraq's multi-sided, sectarian civil war. . . ." she said. "That is what I have been trying to do in the Senate."
In a March 17 speech in Washington to mark the fifth anniversary of the invasion, she explained that ending the war had been her "mission in the Senate."
And she pointed to another bill she introduced last year. "I've started laying the groundwork for a swift and responsible withdrawal beginning in early 2009 by demanding that the Pentagon start planning for it now," Clinton said.
Clinton has earned the support of some of the war's fiercest critics on Capitol Hill. Sixteen members of the House Out of Iraq Caucus recently signed an open letter praising Clinton as "the candidate with the stature, strength and experience needed to end this war as quickly and responsibly as possible." (More than 20 caucus members are backing Obama.)
"For years, Sen. Clinton has been committed to finding any and all possible ways to get the president to reverse his failed policies in Iraq and end the war," said senior Clinton advisor Philippe Reines, noting her three visits to Iraq, her work on the Armed Services Committee, her speeches in favor of a withdrawal and her legislative proposals.
Yet, while Clinton introduced Iraq-related bills -- as have scores of lawmakers -- other senators wrote the war-related legislation that was actually considered, handled delicate negotiations over compromise proposals and worked to round up votes.
These included Delaware's Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Michigan's Carl Levin, the chairmen of the Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) early last year asked them to draft a resolution with Republicans opposing Bush's surge plan to send about 30,000 more troops to Iraq.
Biden and Levin were among a small group of Senate Democrats that Reid regularly convened in his second-floor Capitol office to strategize about Iraq legislation. The group included not only members of the Democratic leadership but other lawmakers interested in Iraq, such as Rhode Island's Jack Reed, an Army veteran, and Wisconsin's Russell D. Feingold, a staunch war opponent.
The group did not include Clinton.
Clinton did not work on the anti-surge resolution that Biden and Levin developed, according to Senate aides who asked not to be identified when discussing Senate negotiations. She did sign onto the legislation after it was introduced, as did 17 other senators.
She also did not collaborate with a second bipartisan group of senators led by Republican John W. Warner of Virginia, who drafted an alternative resolution.
On Feb. 16, 2007, as senators were debating the surge, Clinton filed her first Iraq-related bill of the new Congress, a proposal to halt the surge and to link continued authorization for the war to a troop withdrawal.
She rounded up no co-sponsors. And her bill was referred to the Foreign Relations Committee, becoming one of dozens of pieces of Iraq-related legislation that were never debated.
Obama's only legislation to end the war, which would have stopped the surge and mandated a phased withdrawal, was similarly shunted off to the committee after he introduced it on Jan. 30, 2007.
Most of the Capitol was at that time focused on the next question in the Iraq debate: Would Democrats try to restrict money for the war?
Once again, other lawmakers played the leading roles in that intraparty debate.
Feingold pushed for a withdrawal deadline enforced by a funding cutoff. Levin and Reed drew up an alternative that conditioned additional funding on a withdrawal timeline.
Clinton was simply one of 51 senators who ultimately voted for the Levin-Reed plan. She did not participate in the Senate debate in the week leading up to the March vote on the measure, according to the Congressional Record.
Two months later, in May, Clinton announced that she and Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) would introduce legislation to end the authority for the war in Iraq, an idea that Biden and Levin had explored earlier in the year but then dropped.
Like her earlier legislation, Clinton's proposal never came up for a vote.
In July, Clinton trumpeted a bill she planned to sponsor that would require the Pentagon to give Congress a report on contingency plans for redeploying U.S. forces from Iraq.
But again, other senators had taken the lead in pushing that concept. Just a week before, Republicans Warner and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana had introduced a measure to do essentially the same thing.
Clinton did not work with the senior GOP lawmakers, however. Her proposal went nowhere.
Nor did she participate in efforts by centrist Democrats, such as Nebraska's Ben Nelson or Indiana's Evan Bayh, to write legislation with moderate Republicans. Aides to Maine's Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, two of the most influential moderate Republicans, said they never heard from Clinton's office.
By then, Clinton, who was courting antiwar Democrats still angry about her vote to authorize the war, had embraced the strongest antiwar legislation pushed by Feingold. That proposal, which Clinton had voted against a year earlier, would have cut off funding for all but a limited number of military missions.
At a September hearing on Capitol Hill, Clinton told Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, and Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior U.S. commander in Iraq, that their upbeat reports on the surge required "the willing suspension of disbelief."
And in December, she attracted eight co-sponsors, including Obama, for her bill calling on the president to seek congressional approval for any long-term security agreements with Iraq.
But when Democrats pushed anew for legislation mandating a withdrawal in December and then again in February, Clinton wasn't there. She missed the votes.
© 2008 The Los Angeles Times
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
42 Comments so far
Show AllHay Lady Godiva. Wouild you want a whore who didn't fuck?
I also don't understnd, why the phrase "something sucks",
when meaning it's no good is sensible.
hilite wrote:
There is no doubt that for Hillary, Israel's security is the highest priority of American foreign policy. She won't, therefore, genuinely advocate a US withdrawal from Iraq until the supposed threat that it poses to Israel's security has been totally neutralized.
i don't think that hillary is that concerned about israel. but she is concerned about aipac support, i.e. aipac money.
that's why obama chose lieberman as his mentor.
they all have to suck up to aipac to some degree, hillary more than obama bec her carpetbagger state is new york. so she has no wiggleroom at all
but did you guys see mccain pledging fealty to israel a few weeks ago, with lieberman whispering in his ear?
so they all, all have to do the aipac dance. and aipac wants war, aipac wants iraq destroyed and a puppet government installed for at least 100 years.
obama has been dancing this dance with the least fervor, and so the aipac neocons are trying to make sure that hillary gets the job.
Hillary Geraldine Ferarro and Randi Rhodes -
THREE FUCKING WHORES
THREE FUCKING WHORES
RANDI IS ONE
SHE IS ONE TOO
THEY ALL RAN OFF WITH THE GARBAGE MAN
THEY ALL RAN OFF AS FAST AS THEY CAN!
THATS HOT IT IS IN AMERICA LAND
WITH THREE FUCKING WHORES
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3O2GJIpSQH4
http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/
War is military action between two opposing forces, so why is this crime that's taking place in Iraq called a war. I'll tell you why, the media have one objective and that is to ease the American consience, particularly the clowns in Washington. The Iraq operation is nothing more than an oil grab coupled with genocide all tied in with disposing of old military gear so great profits can be made building new ones.
British forces are now simply sitting it out at Basra airport because Iraq is a shambles, no set aims, unless you call killing Muslims an aim, US forces are stuck in the green zone for the most part coming out to bomb or strafe a village just to show willing and give the media something to print or televise.
The Republicans only hope is to get the electorate so pissed off they stay at home in November, but you do so at your peril.
American troops will leave Iraq exactly the same way they scrambled out of Vietnam but it will be during a Democrat Presidency so he will take the blame and come 2012 the Republicans will be back again planning another disaster, perhaps a bigger and better 9/11.
This is a poorly conceived and executed Los Angeles Times article. It makes it seem like Senate Democratic party leaders were actually trying to do something to end the wars. In reality, there are just a handful of elected Democrats that even spoke against the war.
In terms of legislative action, very little was done. Obama and Hillary voted for more and more war funding - and that's what the LAT article should have focused on. That's what counts - not measures that don't come up for a vote.
Ironically, the troop "surge" was Democrat John Kerry's idea back during the last Presidential contest. It's very much a Democratic Party kind of plan.
I think this LAT article is trying to find a distinguishing issue between the Democratic Presidential contenders and Republican candidate John McCain. It fails miserably in that objective.
You know what? Screw the Democrats! Screw Clinton and screw Obama! The Democratic party is a complete disgrace. Worthless at best! These idiots can't even nominate a candidate. They are just itching to lose again because it appears they like being abused by Republicans. That's why their leaders protect Bush from impeachment.
Believe it or not all that is needed to stop the war is a simple majority in either the House or the Senate to vote against an appropriation bill. But that's too much to ask of the DimWits. They would rather roll over.
The Democrats don't want to stop the war because they fully support the furtherance of empire and the reaping of the spoils of war. They are in full agreement with the rape and plunder of Iraq and the aim of world domination. Neither Hillary or Obama really plan to end the war. That's just election year rhetoric designed to win anti-war votes. If they are against the war why did they always vote to fund it? Both will keep tens of thousands of troops there in order to prop up the puppet Iraqi government and keep the oil and profits flowing westward. Obama actually wants to increase military spending. His mentor was Joe Lieberman, McCains best buddy.
When enough people wake up to the fact that Democrats and Republicans are both bought and paid for by the same powerful interests maybe 3rd parties will have a chance. As long as you think Democrats are the answer we are doomed. We need a mass defection from the DimWits to a third party that actually represents people and is genuinely anti-war.
God damn the Democrats! Dump the Dims and vote for a 3rd party!
Some disturbing facts about Hillary:
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/hillary.html
All pant suit, no hat and no cattle
There is no doubt that for Hillary, Israel's security is the highest priority of American foreign policy. She won't, therefore, genuinely advocate a US withdrawal from Iraq until the supposed threat that it poses to Israel's security has been totally neutralized.
Hilary(ious) Clinton is a LIAR period. calling it anything else is absurd.
I've gotten pretty tired and "sleep deprived " pulling long shifts, but never fabricated false memories of events as a result..
not only did she tell a baldfaced lie.. she insults the country with her " I mis-spoke " crap
The Audacity of Hope
It seems rather odd
when it's brave to only hope
and I ain't beggin for a little just poke
but I dare ya
please have a bit of hope!
Say what is a blessing that's short of the bolt
and what will it take us, to get truly smote?
BRING OUR TROOPS HOME >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
She is such a liar! She promoted this war and voted against amendments to require U.N. approval.
Now she hopes we will believe that she has changed.
Election year Hillary now cries:
"I was fooled by the president's lies!"
But however that's so, new war votes will show
she's still more ambitious than wise
In chinese astrology , it is said that the pig or boar (clinton) are gullible and can be easily hypnotised by the snake (cheney ) , the opposing sign of the pig. How else does it explain how she believed bush and cheney about iraq and wmd`s ? etc,etc... This woman cannot be trusted. She basically is a republican pretending to be a democrat... Come on CODE PINK , time to turn it on and do whatever it takes to make sure this lying tyrant does not become the democratic nominee...i`d love to see a woman presdent someday , but clinton is not the one...Let`s give Obama a try ...OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT 2008.
Hillary keeps saying she will bring the troops home, but what about
the troops left behind to fight to protect the oil wells and all that other
stuff owned by so called American Interests. It is those interests that
has HIllary and Obama in confusion. How involved is Albright in the
Middle East? I mean financially..So many of both parties that are financially
involved I don't see any way out. Disguised as Loyalty to the Troops, it really is loyalty to Cheney and his gang of profiteers..We still have not seen the Internal Revenue records of both Billaries, what are they hiding?
Yale and Harvard haved not produced very good people..and this is the proof.
"I've been working day in and day out in the Senate to provide leadership to end this war, at least when I am not out dodging bullets from Serbian snipers..." said Clinton, who is best known for working day in and day out in 2003 to START THE WAR
Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq. She shouldn't even be considered as the nominee. She's a neocon war hawk and supports the weapons industry/military industrial complex. Peace is the last thing she wants. Who would be crazy enough to vote for such a lying hypocrite?!
See the video and news report: Obama campaigned for Joe Lieberman in Connecticut in 2006.
Obama went to Hartford and campaigned for Lieberman at the Connecticut Democrats' annual fund-raiser, the Jefferson Jackson Bailey Dinner on March 30, 2006. According to Associated Press writer Stephanie Reitz, Obama and Lieberman entered the room together and "worked the crowd in tandem," despite the considerable contingent of antiwar candidate Ned Lamont's supporters who often booed Lieberman. In his keynote address, and with Lamont in the room, Obama told the crowd "I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf."
Video: http://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/jefferson-jackson-bailey-obs...
News report: http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_r...
She's running for President, guys. We are in worse trouble than you think if she is the only senator who can be counted on to make good decisions. Levin and Biden are not fly-by-night men. Instead of all the ire why not get out there and support the Obey bill to limit our continued presence in Iraq? That would do a lot more good in the long run.
Coming to a theater near you. A triple x-rated flick. Getcherrocksoff watching the threesome between Hillary Clinton, Joe Leiberman and John De Long Dong McCain. Nothin' could be finer in Carolina than to see those three pickin' and a lickin' in the mornin'.
Obama actually went to Connecticut and campaigned with and for Lieberman. Neither Clinton did so.
bob k....i know for a fact slick willie did campaign for lieberman and hillary was at least supportive. i know obama did give one of his condescending/i have a larger view of things/lets get beyond our "partisan" fights speech for lieberman, too.
Bye, bye Hillary. Don't let the door hit you on the way out!
By the way andersdl it was Obama, not Hillary, who campaigned for Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman in 2006 when he ran against anti-war Democrat Ned Lamont. Get your facts straight.
Gee - whata shocker- Hillary caught lying. What amazes me is that Hillary (and Byatcha boy Billy) claims the press gives Obama a free ride. Meanwhile the Rev Loudmouth gets played over and over on the tube while nothing has been mentioned of Hillary's claims of dodging sniper fire in Bosnia and being an active player in bringing peace to Ireland. I guess the good news is that Obama is gaining on her in PA despite it all. Seems like Americans know a liar when they hear one!!
This LA Times story skews some facts and lamely attempts to portray Hillary as MIA in the antiwar struggle in Congress.
The 51-47 (2 NV) vote in the Senate on March 29, 2007 was on H.R. 1591, Congressman David Obey's bill which tied Iraq funding to a withdrawal time-line for combat troops — not a "Levin-Reed plan." The Senate version of the bill (S. 965) was sponsored by Senator Byrd — again, not Levin or Reed.
In any event, both Clinton and Obama voted for the bill; McCain voted against it. The bill passed both the House and Senate, but even though it only presented a GOAL for withdrawing combat troops by a certain date, Bush vetoed it and the House failed to override the veto.
The LA Times goes on to say that when Senate Democrats "pushed anew for legislation mandating a withdrawal in December and then again in February, Clinton wasn't there. She missed the votes." Of course, this concluding paragraph omits the fact that Obama also missed those doomed-to-fail votes. Gee, I wonder what the candidates were doing in December 2007 and February 2008? Could it be that they were busy campaigning? Duh!
More important, the Times also fails to mention the strongest antiwar legislation considered by Congress: the Feingold-Reid Amendment (S.Amdt. 3164) to the 2008 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, which REQUIRED the safe redeployment of combat troops from Iraq by June 30, 2008. That bill failed in the Senate 28-68 (4 NV) on October 3, 2007. Hillary voted for it, and McCain voted against it. Obama didn't vote. So, which candidate is REALLY missing in action?
Furthermore, the Times neglects to mention that Hillary is cosponsoring Senator Bernie Sanders' bill (S. 2398) which — following revelations of many crimes and horrors committed — ends the use of Blackwater, DynCorp, Triple Canopy and other mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama does NOT support S. 2398. He has said he will not rule out use of mercenaries.
Instead, Obama introduced S. 674, which offers only the "Sense of the Congress" that mercenaries who commit crimes should be prosecuted by the Department of Defense — but, it would be up to DOD to make the rules and do the prosecuting. Moreover, Sense-of-Congress resolutions do not make law and are not enforceable.
Again, which candidate is more antiwar?
Now, here's the kind of reporting that inspired Saturday Night Live to spoof the media's anti-Hillary/pro-Obama bias: "Obama was equally peripheral to the Iraq war debate, but he has not claimed a similar leadership role. He has argued instead that his opposition to the war in 2002, two years before he was elected to the Senate, makes him the superior candidate."
First, as I've demonstrated, Obama's role was MORE peripheral than Hillary's — not equally peripheral — to the antiwar debate in Congress. Second, what the hell does the Times mean, "he has not claimed a leadership role?" Isn't trumpeting his alleged 2002 antiwar speech and excoriating Hillary's war authorization vote at every campaign stop claiming superior "leadership?" Oh, the rhetorical devices the media employs in pursuit of their corporate agendas!
(For anyone who still believes that Obama is antiwar because of his 2002 speech — for which no video or audio recording exists — see former Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendell's 2007 book, "OBAMA: From Promise to Power," which reveals that Obama reluctantly gave the speech in order to seek campaign contributions and political influence from wealthy antiwar Democrats in Chicago. mdswatch posted about it here on March 1, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/28/7343/)
Perhaps, the biggest omission in the LA Times comparison of the candidates' antiwar zeal is Obama's stupid pledge to expand the "war on terror" — which all intelligent people know is not a real war; it's an excuse to jack up oil company and munitions company profits — by bombing and invading Pakistan, which he calls "the right battlefield." Even John McCain choked on that one! Not only is Obama less antiwar than Hillary, he's actually more pro war than McCain! And he's dense, to boot.
Then there's one last omission in the Time's story: Ralph Nader is by far the most antiwar of all the candidates.
metaldog...u pretty much nailed it on the head. the task before us is to open up our democracy and get beyond our political duopoly.
as for hillary: her triangulating political soap opera run is finally coming to an end and i'm chuckling while watching it all go down
One more thing to add to the WHAT CLINTON DID OR DIDN'T DO List:
The Clintons will probably campaign for Independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman against whatever Democrat candidate he runs against in 2012, just as they campaigned for Joe against anti-war Democrat Ned Lamont in 2006.
MetalDog April 3rd, 2008 2:01 pm:
"However, the electorate is controlled by the 'two' party system. R's and D's draw districts together, they control ballot access, etc. etc."
Thanks for the reply, MetalDog. At the risk of beating a dead horse, why? Who decides that two parties out of, how many?, draw the lines or control the ballots? Why not have an impartial body make the districts and say who can or cannot vote?
I mean, what if there were, for arguments sake, only one party in congress? If the Republicans or the Democrats were totally wiped out, what would happen? Would that one party that remained decide the districts and decide who can vote?
More of the Dem Bs on why they can't stop the war.
41 Senators could block the funding at any point. At any time. Even at their nadir, the Dems had 45 Senators.
The Dems have deliberately avoided strategies that could actually stop the war. You've seen a lot of what I call 'political theater' that pretends to be actions to stop the war, but which everyone who's paying attention knows won't. We've seen 'non-binding' resolutions in the House. We've seen Reid in the Senate deliberately keep these proposals in separate bills that everyone knew would be vetoed. That again is a deliberately attempt to pretend to oppose the war without actually stopping it.
Meanwhile, look at what's happened to the funding bills that are required to keep the war and the Pentagon funded. Reid and Pelosi both promised right after the last election that none of these would be interfered with by the Congress. We've seen them fulfill this promise. We've seen the leadership actively sheppard these bills through the Congress and work to make sure they pass. We've seen the Pentagon budget requests sail through Congress, again supported by the leadership. In fact we've seen the Dems competing to see who can increase these the most.
We've seen both Clinton and Obama support all of these bills up until this last year. They've voted for these funding bills. They've actively supported making sure the war continues. In the last year, they both supported the bloated Pentagon budgets. Both in the last year did cast symbolic votes against the latest supplemental funding bills for the war. But that was only in the case where the leadership already knew they had enough votes to pass the bill, so the opposition was purely symbolic.
You've never seen either make any attempt to actively organize or support a filibuster to block the funding of the war. That's the key point, as this was always the one effective measure that's always been available to the Democrats anytime they wanted to exercise it. The deliberate decision not to exercise the one effective method of stopping the war can only be interpreted as support for the war.
Both Hillary and Obama have pledged that we will still have troops in Iraq in 2012.
If you want to elect candidates that will end the war, don't vote Democrat.
Clintok can try voting to cutoff war funding but she won't because this doesn't fit her value system. When will the American people start standing for people instead of standing for captial?
The Iraq fiasco and Hilary's obfuscation surrounding it are the main reason why she is absolutely the last Democrat I would ever vote for her. History will show that she irreparably destroyed her political connection with progressives due to her craven cowardice and joining with the choir when war fever was at its' height.
jlocke123 - yeah, that would be better. However, the electorate is controlled by the 'two' party system. R's and D's draw districts together, they control ballot access, etc. etc. Third party involvement is an uphill battle, to say the least -- but not impossible. The main difficulty is that most Americans learn we have a "two"-party system, figure the case is closed on that one, and perceive choices where there is none. How it is that more don't perceive as lunacy the notion that two pro-corporate parties can adequately represent 300 million supposedly 'free' people is well beyond my powers of comprehension.
KEM -- Dems didn't have a majority in Congress until after the '06 midterms, did they? Prior to that, they had a slim majority in the House, but a minority in the Senate. Am I wrong about that? That said, I do agree with your point. To ask a Congressional Democrat why his party doesn't do X, Y or Z, you get a rapidly evolving response. First, it's "because we don't control Congress". Then, it's "we have only a slim majority -- not enough to do anything useful!" It makes one wonder what their excuse would be if they owned all 535 seats.
KEM PATRICK April 3rd, 2008 1:33 pm:
"When did the democrats have the necessary majority to control Congress; I do believe that was three years ago, ___ not LAST YEAR. "
KEM PATRICK, help me understand something. Doesn't the US have a kind of perennial coalition government? Doesn't this lack of an opposition party, untainted by collaboration only serve to confuse the electorate? Wouldn't it be better to support parties that can forestall putting their beaks in the feeder long enough to let the current government fall and then take over with unsullied hands?
Wait a minute, wait a minute, I'm totally confused by the authors wording. Am I missing somethng?
First Levey states, "Hillary has been a vocal critic of the war and __LAST YEAR __ Hillary submitted three bills to curtail the U.S. military role in Iraq". __ LAST YEAR!!
Next paragraph, the author writes, "But since the democrats took control of Congress, Clinton has done little to advance legislation, to force the Bush administration to withdraw from Iraq".
When did the democrats have the necessary majority to control Congress; I do believe that was three years ago, ___ not LAST YEAR.
Hillary has indeed been against the war,___ ever since Bush got his vote by (77) senators on prop 114. Bush then forced the UN inspectors out of Iraq and told everyone Saddam had WMDs, had purchased uranium from Africa and was a threat to our safety and had been part of the 9-11 plot, was in cahoots with Osama bin Ladin, etc. Which were all lies told after Bush managed to have the Director of the CIA alter the 2002 NIE report.
I just do not see how Hillary could have been vocally and actively against the war LAST YEAR, ___ but has not been SINCE the democrats have been in control of Congress. That does not make any sense to me, it just reads like an unfair Hillary bashing article.
Clinton is in the game of amassing more power for herself and her family not in helping the American people or the globe for that matter. In her roll as New York senator she has not worked for a better America as a whole but for the well-being of her constituents. She has used the placement of her name as Senator to look for the more powerful offices available. This is her goal not the well-being of America or the human race, now truly in peril.
Look at her earmark spending record or those bills she wants for New York City at the expense of what's needed nationally? No, Clinton is in this for Clinton not for America's place in the world or its greater good. That became clear with her twisting the facts of her trip to Bosnia. Anything to win at whatever cost.
That is the case for most politicians. There are a few that have a larger point of view, Kucinich or Ron Paul and a few others that ran to put the issues of America before America. Few people read these comments and so the beat rolls on. A Clinton and McCain defeat would be a step forward for the USA and the world.
The fabulously ridiculous US legislature never ceases to amaze me. Clinton, Obama and other politicians can, as I understand "earmark" projects that the Army doesn't want or need (ex: clothing, vehicles or whatever is made in that legislators district). They, however, "magically" can't control the spending on items used solely for Iraq occupation (up to 500 Million US this year I am told). That is money above and beyond the normal operating budget of the military, which is, I believe, another half trillion dollars.
Forgive me but I live in a democracy. We have a legislature. Every year our elected leaders vote on an annual budget for the military. If the majority doesn't want to, say, continue the occupation of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, then no money is approved for that purpose. If they do, then it is. Case closed. Explain to me again how it works in America?
Friggin politicians are all the same. How long does it take to bring the 'murdering marines' home ? The Iraqi occupation needs to end and it doesnt take long to bring ALL americans back home. Its what the iraqis want.
You don't end a war by authorizing it. Indeed, that's how you start one.
I have not seen any clear plan for resolving the Iraq crisis which we have created. I don't think we would still be there if the "Government" of Iraq had capitulated on the PSA. I think the oil industry would be paying for the security of the oil infrastructure and every one else would be fighting it out. That is one vision of Iraq's future. I am looking for a better one. Any ideas anyone?
IMPEACH HILLARY!!! That way she can't be elected, or at least we'll have a head start if the lesser of three evils doesn't win the nomination!