Union Leader: Retired Army General says neither she nor Hillary Clinton oppose the war

Is this about saying (0.00 / 0)

"I was wrong." 
Boy, that was a weird article. I think if I were a candidate, I'd as soon not have a public supporter like that.  She's all over the map. 
Since this is the issue that worries me the most about Hilary,  and one that keeps me from supporting her in the primary, I will be very interested to see how the campaign responds, or uses, this.

We believe in prosperity & opportunity, strong communities, healthy families, great schools, investing in our future and leading the world by example. We are Democrats; we are the change you're looking for.

---

by: bloomingpol @ Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 15:40:15 PM CDT

Yeah, so point one (0.00 / 0)

pick surrogates that can finish a sentence without contradicting themselves.

I agree -- the short term is about just a crazy bad surrogate talking herself in circles.

But it's the trend I'm starting to see here that worries me. I really feel we need clarity on this, really above most else. So let's hope she comes out very quickly and says "Read my lips: I oppose this war"

Or maybe not that phrase exactly...

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 16:09:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It is interesting that the same (0.00 / 0)

Lt. Gen Kennedy has a diary right here on BH about her support for Hillary.

Perhaps she can clarify her remarks about Hillary and war opposition.

I have no evidence, nor could one ever get such evidence, but I have long been of the notion that the Clinton campaign is largely unconcerned with appealing to the Democratic base, and is instead focusing on reaching the  "swing voters" and the right.  Call it the Kerry effect - despite a candidate who (at the time - I don't feel so now about the Senator) was not terribly inspiring, the left worked overtime to defeat Bush.  I think the calculation now for Clinton is that Democrats will vote for her in the general, so why waste time courting that element?

Of course, the strategy is fundamentally flawed, since the people at large are firmly with democrats on the war, so surrogate talk like this ends up sounding far-right.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 17:20:11 PM CDT

Well, it's a moot question anyway. (0.00 / 0)

There is no war.  There's an occupation and an effort to get basing rights that nobody's keen to give, although, at one time, the Kurds gave grudging assent.
As regards health care for veterans, instead of trying to fix the VA, why not fold them into the universal health care system so they can get appropriate care wherever and whenever they need it?

---

by: hannah @ Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 18:38:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hillary and the war/occupation (0.00 / 0)

Dean Barker is right: Too much of this reminds one of the Kerry strategy: aim exclusively for the tiny middle. I note Kerry is not president today. I also note your average American can easily discern poll-driven candidates from courageous ones. Someone please tell me when the last time an all-things-to-all-people strategy actually worked in a presidential, or senatorial for that matter, contest.

---

by: Burt Cohen @ Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 12:01:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

More on the same (0.00 / 0)

Quote of the Day
October 6, 2007

'From the Republicans, we get the message that the most
important thing to hold on to is fear itself. The
terrorists are out to get us. From the Democrats,
heavily armed with thermometers, barometers and
windmills, comes the usual timidity. They behave as if
their hearts would stop if they actually took a tough
stand.'

Columnist Bob Herbert
New York Times
October 6, 2007

---

by: Burt Cohen @ Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 12:26:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Withdrawal in 60 days (0.00 / 0)

Mike, you know I agree with you that an unclear position is risky, but there is good news in the story too.

Kennedy said she agreed with Clinton's position to withdraw, as Clinton has said, "the vast majority" of U.S. troops from Iraq while leaving behind a relatively small counter-terrorism force.

"Senator Clinton has it exactly right," said Kennedy. "If she is elected, her plan is to bring together the chairman of the joint chiefs, the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Council and get them to create a plan that will have the withdrawal begin within 60 days."

There's wriggle room there, of course, but it's clearer than the debate statement. And yes, it would be nice if Senator Clinton said it herself.

---

by: JimC @ Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 16:22:47 PM CDT

Technically, Bush can say he's beginning withdrawal now (0.00 / 0)

If he wants.

I'm not so much concerned when Hillary will *begin* withdrawal.

But if the situation improves, or falls apart, or the public gets skittish about it will she have the guts to get us out of there?

Nixon came in with a plan to get us out of Vietnam. "Peace with honor" he said.

Here's the thing, whether our candidates can say it or not, the only way we will get out of Iraq is when we stop thinking in terms of withdrawal with honor.

There's one way to get out -- and that's to get out.

If Hillary wants to pretend that there's  significant circumstances that would alter that, that's fine. But it shows she's already making it far too complicated.

After all the pundits with domino theory and vietnamization and the whole bit, we did in 1975 what we could have done in 1968 -- we left completely.

If there is adversity or unexpected twists to this thing, do you trust Hillary to carry through?

Hillary has never opposed the war. She's opposed LOSING the war. And that's not the same thing.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 20:37:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well put (0.00 / 0)

We need clarity. I tend to think she's against the war and just isn't saying so, but I can't really prove it. This is the most important issue in the country; she owes primary voters a clear position on it. Maybe Dean's right that she's looking toward the general election, but first we have to have a few Democratic primaries.

---

by: JimC @ Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 22:44:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The bigger picture (0.00 / 0)

Whether or not Hillary opposes the war at this point is of little consequence; the real question is what she would do about it, and how her plan would stack up against plans of a Republican nominee with doublespeak.  Can we win with a nominee who can't draw a clear, concise, one-sentence distinction between her/his plan to bring the troops home* (*eventually) and the Republican's plan to "transition the mission" or "stand down as the Iraqis stand up" (which isn't happening)?  Don't forget, Iraq is a key issue, but it's not the only issue for which we desperately need a Democrat in the White House right now, and because it's the most significant issue in the election, we have to be careful to make the public see that there is a real, substantive difference between the plan of the Democratic nominee and the plan of the Republican nominee; if we're serious about taking back the highest office in the land, we need to pick a candidate who fits that criterion.

For me, the choice is loud and clear:
"The Choice on Iraq"


--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 23:10:29 PM CDT

Can You Believe Her (0.00 / 0)

As Hilary Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all say how they agree that the war should be over none of them will do it.

If Hillary expects to win the nomination she needs to get herself together. She needs to take a position against the war and for the withdraw of all troops not just combat troops or a few of them but all of them. She cannot have people saying that she is "for the war".

The nominee needs to have a clear position on the issues.

To have a winning candidate we need someone who is clear on the issues and does not have people bringing them down.

Obama/Biden '08

---

by: bullfrog523 @ Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 19:11:53 PM CDT