Hillary Hedging Her Bet on Iraq?

[GaryC 7]

It sticks out like a sore thumb. During Hillary Clinton's answer on Iraq last night, after offering her three-point plan on how to withdraw from the country, she added, almost as an afterthought:

"But if it is a possibility that Al Qaeda would stay in Iraq I think we need to stay focused on trying to keep them on the run as we currently are doing in Anbar province."

(By the way, anyone else notice the way Keith Olbermann, hardly bothering to look objective even in a moderating role, in his question about al Qaeda taking over Iraq kept insisting that it goes "against all prediction"?)

Back to Hillary, her Anbar Addendum was similar to her answers on meeting with dictators or retaliating to a terrorists attack on the United States that she's offered in previous debates, which have generally helped boost her experience and toughness quotient at Obama's expense. She tried the same thing last night by saying she'd pursue al Qaeda, whether in Anbar province or wherever. Only in this case her answer didn't work as well.

That's because it sounded like Clinton would be willing to stay in Iraq if the surge appeared to be succeeding. This is the kiss of death with the Democratic base, which wants the U.S. out of Iraq without conditions. While Clinton can afford to out-tough Obama on certain foreign-policy matters (i.e., retaliating against a terrorist attack and refusing to meet with Castro), Iraq is a non-negotiable matter at this point.

Of course, as the title of this post indicates, Clinton might be hedging her bets. As the frontrunner currently holding a double-digit lead, Clinton can afford to say things that will anger the base, but help make her more electable in the general election. Stories like this one about how the surge is working are becoming more prevalent. Dropping hints every now and then that she would continue "to keep them on the run," as she said, might be a necessary price to pay.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/...er_bet_on_ira_1

[Dr_LHA 3]

We will stay in Iraq for years, maybe at a reduced size, but we're going to have to stay their for the long haul so that country doesn't go to #######. Any candidate you says otherwise is a fool or a liar.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yep Hillary is as two-faced as they come.

[Dan J 277]

Anyone who is smart would realize that cutting and running now could be a really bad idea. A Democrat could probably manage to stay in Iraq, if the security situation demands it.

Getting out of Iraq would help the GOP politically more than anything. There is too much resentment against the Republican party for both getting us into the mess and the poor handling of it. Without a withdrawal before the election, there is little to no chance a GOP candidate would be elected President.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Yep Hillary is as two-faced as they come.

Nice 6,By the way who you likin for president?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Anyone who is smart would realize that cutting and running now could be a really bad idea. A Democrat could probably manage to stay in Iraq, if the security situation demands it.

Getting out of Iraq would help the GOP politically more than anything. There is too much resentment against the Republican party for both getting us into the mess and the poor handling of it. Without a withdrawal before the election, there is little to no chance a GOP candidate would be elected President.

I disagree. I don't think its that simple - I think any presidential candidate (especially the Republican ones) would have to distance themselves from Bush - but as far as Iraq goes, if a pullout results in that country collapsing into a civil war the person behind that decision would end up taking the heat for it IMO. As I see it - its actually better politically for them to maintain a status quo, that way the onus is still on Bush/Cheney, rather than them being held responsible for a massive, sudden deterioration.

Yep Hillary is as two-faced as they come.

Nice 6,By the way who you likin for president?

Honestly undecided at this point.

[Dan J 277]

Anyone who is smart would realize that cutting and running now could be a really bad idea. A Democrat could probably manage to stay in Iraq, if the security situation demands it.

Getting out of Iraq would help the GOP politically more than anything. There is too much resentment against the Republican party for both getting us into the mess and the poor handling of it. Without a withdrawal before the election, there is little to no chance a GOP candidate would be elected President.

I disagree. I don't think its that simple - I think any presidential candidate (especially the Republican ones) would have to distance themselves from Bush - but as far as Iraq goes, if a pullout results in that country collapsing into a civil war the person behind that decision would end up taking the heat for it IMO. As I see it - its actually better politically for them to maintain a status quo, that way the onus is still on Bush/Cheney, rather than them being held responsible for a massive, sudden deterioration.

How many people think that far ahead? Most people vote with a very simple view of the issues. If the war is still going, and not much as changed, it will be very difficult for the GOP in 2008.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Dan + Gemvita

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Anyone who is smart would realize that cutting and running now could be a really bad idea. A Democrat could probably manage to stay in Iraq, if the security situation demands it.

Getting out of Iraq would help the GOP politically more than anything. There is too much resentment against the Republican party for both getting us into the mess and the poor handling of it. Without a withdrawal before the election, there is little to no chance a GOP candidate would be elected President.

I disagree. I don't think its that simple - I think any presidential candidate (especially the Republican ones) would have to distance themselves from Bush - but as far as Iraq goes, if a pullout results in that country collapsing into a civil war the person behind that decision would end up taking the heat for it IMO. As I see it - its actually better politically for them to maintain a status quo, that way the onus is still on Bush/Cheney, rather than them being held responsible for a massive, sudden deterioration.

How many people think that far ahead? Most people vote with a very simple view of the issues. If the war is still going, and not much as changed, it will be very difficult for the GOP in 2008.

It will be - but much worse if a troop pull out results in a civil war. Then the whole thing would have been basically pointless - who wants to be on the receiving end of "you betrayed the troops" and "those kids died for nothing"?

[Dan J 277]

Anyone who is smart would realize that cutting and running now could be a really bad idea. A Democrat could probably manage to stay in Iraq, if the security situation demands it.

Getting out of Iraq would help the GOP politically more than anything. There is too much resentment against the Republican party for both getting us into the mess and the poor handling of it. Without a withdrawal before the election, there is little to no chance a GOP candidate would be elected President.

I disagree. I don't think its that simple - I think any presidential candidate (especially the Republican ones) would have to distance themselves from Bush - but as far as Iraq goes, if a pullout results in that country collapsing into a civil war the person behind that decision would end up taking the heat for it IMO. As I see it - its actually better politically for them to maintain a status quo, that way the onus is still on Bush/Cheney, rather than them being held responsible for a massive, sudden deterioration.

How many people think that far ahead? Most people vote with a very simple view of the issues. If the war is still going, and not much as changed, it will be very difficult for the GOP in 2008.

It will be - but much worse if a troop pull out results in a civil war. Then the whole thing would have been basically pointless - who wants to be on the receiving end of "you betrayed the troops" and "those kids died for nothing"?

So really, damned if you do, damned if you don't. But if you do it at the right time, like after winning an election. Its likely people will have forgot and moved on by the time the next election comes around.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Anyone who is smart would realize that cutting and running now could be a really bad idea. A Democrat could probably manage to stay in Iraq, if the security situation demands it.

Getting out of Iraq would help the GOP politically more than anything. There is too much resentment against the Republican party for both getting us into the mess and the poor handling of it. Without a withdrawal before the election, there is little to no chance a GOP candidate would be elected President.

I disagree. I don't think its that simple - I think any presidential candidate (especially the Republican ones) would have to distance themselves from Bush - but as far as Iraq goes, if a pullout results in that country collapsing into a civil war the person behind that decision would end up taking the heat for it IMO. As I see it - its actually better politically for them to maintain a status quo, that way the onus is still on Bush/Cheney, rather than them being held responsible for a massive, sudden deterioration.

How many people think that far ahead? Most people vote with a very simple view of the issues. If the war is still going, and not much as changed, it will be very difficult for the GOP in 2008.

It will be - but much worse if a troop pull out results in a civil war. Then the whole thing would have been basically pointless - who wants to be on the receiving end of "you betrayed the troops" and "those kids died for nothing"?

So really, damned if you do, damned if you don't. But if you do it at the right time, like after winning an election. Its likely people will have forgot and moved on by the time the next election comes around.

They would have to do it after the election - I don't see how there's any choice. People have short memories - while Bush may have started the whole mess, they will certainly remember the person who causes it to go completely tits up. The Reps won't do it now because if the situation deteriorates (and there's every reason to suppose that it would) they would have to take the flak not only for that - but for starting it in the first place. As I see it - the Democrats have an advantage on this issue. That said - if the Democrats got a candidate into the White House, ordered a troop pull out - country collapses into civil war and then sometime in the intervening years there's another large-scale terrorist attack on US interest - that administration probably would lose its second term.

Of course its all very dodgy - because essentially we're stringing out the military presence and risking people's lives simply to protect people's political reputations.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Number 6

[Jasman0717 9]

Politics

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Anyone who is smart would realize that cutting and running now could be a really bad idea. A Democrat could probably manage to stay in Iraq, if the security situation demands it.

Getting out of Iraq would help the GOP politically more than anything. There is too much resentment against the Republican party for both getting us into the mess and the poor handling of it. Without a withdrawal before the election, there is little to no chance a GOP candidate would be elected President.

I disagree. I don't think its that simple - I think any presidential candidate (especially the Republican ones) would have to distance themselves from Bush - but as far as Iraq goes, if a pullout results in that country collapsing into a civil war the person behind that decision would end up taking the heat for it IMO. As I see it - its actually better politically for them to maintain a status quo, that way the onus is still on Bush/Cheney, rather than them being held responsible for a massive, sudden deterioration.

How many people think that far ahead? Most people vote with a very simple view of the issues. If the war is still going, and not much as changed, it will be very difficult for the GOP in 2008.

It will be - but much worse if a troop pull out results in a civil war. Then the whole thing would have been basically pointless - who wants to be on the receiving end of "you betrayed the troops" and "those kids died for nothing"?

So really, damned if you do, damned if you don't. But if you do it at the right time, like after winning an election. Its likely people will have forgot and moved on by the time the next election comes around.

They would have to do it after the election - I don't see how there's any choice. People have short memories - while Bush may have started the whole mess, they will certainly remember the person who causes it to go completely tits up. The Reps won't do it now because if the situation deteriorates (and there's every reason to suppose that it would) they would have to take the flak not only for that - but for starting it in the first place. As I see it - the Democrats have an advantage on this issue. That said - if the Democrats got a candidate into the White House, ordered a troop pull out - country collapses into civil war and then sometime in the intervening years there's another large-scale terrorist attack on US interest - that administration probably would lose its second term.

Of course its all very dodgy - because essentially we're stringing out the military presence and risking people's lives simply to protect people's political reputations.

"Bush started the mess" Osama started the mess! You have been hypnotized. The shite started way before Bush.

Edited August 9, 2007 by CarolsMarc

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Anyone who is smart would realize that cutting and running now could be a really bad idea. A Democrat could probably manage to stay in Iraq, if the security situation demands it.

Getting out of Iraq would help the GOP politically more than anything. There is too much resentment against the Republican party for both getting us into the mess and the poor handling of it. Without a withdrawal before the election, there is little to no chance a GOP candidate would be elected President.

I disagree. I don't think its that simple - I think any presidential candidate (especially the Republican ones) would have to distance themselves from Bush - but as far as Iraq goes, if a pullout results in that country collapsing into a civil war the person behind that decision would end up taking the heat for it IMO. As I see it - its actually better politically for them to maintain a status quo, that way the onus is still on Bush/Cheney, rather than them being held responsible for a massive, sudden deterioration.

How many people think that far ahead? Most people vote with a very simple view of the issues. If the war is still going, and not much as changed, it will be very difficult for the GOP in 2008.

It will be - but much worse if a troop pull out results in a civil war. Then the whole thing would have been basically pointless - who wants to be on the receiving end of "you betrayed the troops" and "those kids died for nothing"?

So really, damned if you do, damned if you don't. But if you do it at the right time, like after winning an election. Its likely people will have forgot and moved on by the time the next election comes around.

They would have to do it after the election - I don't see how there's any choice. People have short memories - while Bush may have started the whole mess, they will certainly remember the person who causes it to go completely tits up. The Reps won't do it now because if the situation deteriorates (and there's every reason to suppose that it would) they would have to take the flak not only for that - but for starting it in the first place. As I see it - the Democrats have an advantage on this issue. That said - if the Democrats got a candidate into the White House, ordered a troop pull out - country collapses into civil war and then sometime in the intervening years there's another large-scale terrorist attack on US interest - that administration probably would lose its second term.

Of course its all very dodgy - because essentially we're stringing out the military presence and risking people's lives simply to protect people's political reputations.

"Bush started the mess" Osama started the mess! You have been hypnotized. The shite started way before Bush.

Osama, 9/11 and Iraq are poles apart. Bush, as the duly elected leader of this country is responsible for Iraq. Iraq is what I was talking about. Not Osama Bin Laden, and not 9/11.

[Dan J 277]

Anyone who is smart would realize that cutting and running now could be a really bad idea. A Democrat could probably manage to stay in Iraq, if the security situation demands it.

Getting out of Iraq would help the GOP politically more than anything. There is too much resentment against the Republican party for both getting us into the mess and the poor handling of it. Without a withdrawal before the election, there is little to no chance a GOP candidate would be elected President.

I disagree. I don't think its that simple - I think any presidential candidate (especially the Republican ones) would have to distance themselves from Bush - but as far as Iraq goes, if a pullout results in that country collapsing into a civil war the person behind that decision would end up taking the heat for it IMO. As I see it - its actually better politically for them to maintain a status quo, that way the onus is still on Bush/Cheney, rather than them being held responsible for a massive, sudden deterioration.

How many people think that far ahead? Most people vote with a very simple view of the issues. If the war is still going, and not much as changed, it will be very difficult for the GOP in 2008.

It will be - but much worse if a troop pull out results in a civil war. Then the whole thing would have been basically pointless - who wants to be on the receiving end of "you betrayed the troops" and "those kids died for nothing"?

So really, damned if you do, damned if you don't. But if you do it at the right time, like after winning an election. Its likely people will have forgot and moved on by the time the next election comes around.

They would have to do it after the election - I don't see how there's any choice. People have short memories - while Bush may have started the whole mess, they will certainly remember the person who causes it to go completely tits up. The Reps won't do it now because if the situation deteriorates (and there's every reason to suppose that it would) they would have to take the flak not only for that - but for starting it in the first place. As I see it - the Democrats have an advantage on this issue. That said - if the Democrats got a candidate into the White House, ordered a troop pull out - country collapses into civil war and then sometime in the intervening years there's another large-scale terrorist attack on US interest - that administration probably would lose its second term.

Of course its all very dodgy - because essentially we're stringing out the military presence and risking people's lives simply to protect people's political reputations.

"Bush started the mess" Osama started the mess! You have been hypnotized. The shite started way before Bush.

You proved my point, people have very short memory. Iraq and the war on terror were two separate issues. Iraq was about taking down Saddam and the mythical WMD's. AQ had nothing to do with Iraq, until some of them came in the power vacuum caused by Bush's mistakes. So yes, Bush and the GOP is responsible for Iraq.

[jundp 191]

"Bush started the mess" Osama started the mess! You have been hypnotized. The shite started way before Bush.

Which Bush?