Hillary: I too will heal Iraq by returning it to the state of nature; Update: Flashback — Hillary shrugs at ethnic cleansing

posted at 5:18 pm on March 17, 2008 by Allahpundit

I take the Krauthammerian line on Hillary, that she has no principles beyond her own political preservation, so the fun of reading a speech like this is figuring out precisely what percentage of it is abject bullshinola, designed to help her squeak through the primary but otherwise rescindable as circumstances warrant. Will she really order the withdrawal of U.S. troops within 60 days of being inaugurated? Depends. Will she maintain sufficient combat troops in the region for targeted strikes on Al Qaeda, a la Baker-Hamilton? Depends. Will she, in fact, hand the whole endeavor over to the UN, relying on them to “engage countries around the world” to secure Iraq knowing that no one but no one will be equal to that task? Depends; what do the polls look like? This is why she has those “new conservative friends” of hers: When Obama talks about this stuff, we believe him. When she talks about it, we wink.

Anyway. Let’s focus on what he and she have in common: The “tough love” approach to occupation by which withdrawing the thin green line between basic order and total chaos is somehow an inducement to reconciliation. Wake me when we try this approach with Karzai and the Taliban:

Now, withdrawal is not risk-free, but the risks of staying in Iraq are certain. And a well-planned withdrawal is the one and only path to a political solution. The only way to spur the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future and to ensure that we don’t bear that responsibility indefinitely. The only way to spur other countries to do their part to help secure stability in the region. The commitment to staying in Iraq has driven President Bush’s foreign policy. It looks like it would drive Senator McCain’s foreign policy as well, but it will not drive mine. My foreign policy will be driven by what is in America’s national security interests…

The most important part of my plan is the first step, to bring our troops home and send the strongest possible message to the Iraqis that they must take responsibly for their own future. No more talk of permanent occupation, no more policing a civil war, no more doing for the Iraqis what they need to be doing for themselves. As president, one of my first official actions will be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my Secretary of Defense and my National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to start bringing our troops home within the first 60 days of my taking office. A plan based on my consultation with the military to remove one to two brigades a month, a plan that reduces the risks of attack as they depart.

She’s also planning to crack down on the black market in oil that’s funding the insurgency, which surely hadn’t occurred to Petraeus until the Smartest Woman in the World floated the idea. Exit question via Captain Ed: Now that the Democrats’ foreign policy debate has devolved into a debate between Hillary and Sinbad, would it be bad form to point out that she’s likely lying again? If it’s any consolation, Obama thinks she’s a liar too (although he’s not the one who benefits from it!):

Update: How far is she willing to go to get U.S. troops out of the country? This far. One year ago, almost to the day:

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain in Iraq after taking office would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

Asked if Americans would endure having troops in Iraq who do nothing to stop sectarian attacks there, Mrs. Clinton replied, “Look, I think the American people are done with Iraq. I think they’re at a point where, whether they thought it was a good idea or not, they have seen misjudgment and blunder after blunder, and their attitude is, what is this getting us? What is this doing for us?”

“No one wants to sit by and see mass killing,” she added. “It’s going on every day! Thousands of people are dying every month in Iraq. Our presence there is not stopping it. And there is no potential opportunity I can imagine where it could. This is an Iraqi problem — we cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. If we had a different attitude going in there, if we had stopped the looting immediately, if we had asserted our authority — you can go down the lines, if, if, if.”

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Clinton and Hobbes.

Exurban Jon on March 17, 2008 at 5:20 PM

Ah, of course. Run the hell away because massively scary boogeymen that might happen aren’t as bad as the boogeymen we’re currently defeating.

NeoconNews.com on March 17, 2008 at 5:20 PM

Headlines I’d love to see:

“Hillary’s Sinbad Problem”

Chuck Schick on March 17, 2008 at 5:23 PM

When Obama talks about this stuff, we believe him.

We do? When it comes to Iraq he’s saying one thing while his (former) advisor says something else.

seanhackbarth on March 17, 2008 at 5:24 PM

Who is going to pull out faster?

I think Hillary wins on that point. After all she has an expert at her disposal in that area of expertise.

Calling Billy Jeff. Mr. Billy Jeff.

fogw on March 17, 2008 at 5:26 PM

How about this? Clinton won’t stop ethnic cleansing in Iraq but pushed to have her husband get involved in Rwanda in 1994. Sounds like the standard Democratic foreign policy approach: only get involved in places where it isn’t in the U.S.’s interests to do so.

seanhackbarth on March 17, 2008 at 5:29 PM

So basically…

Ummmm…

Reading through it…

Ahhh, getting it now…

So, basically, what Hillary’s saying is: Oooooo, McCain is too hot. And oooOOOOooo Obama’s too cold.

But mmmmmm, Hillary’s juuuussssst right.

So there you have it: Triangulation New! and Improved! and Coming Soon! as Hillary’s Goldilocks solution to Iraq.

Typhoon on March 17, 2008 at 5:29 PM

Hillary dredging for the kook votes.

tarpon on March 17, 2008 at 5:36 PM

Mark my words:

Whoever is going to be President will not do anything. They will try or at least pretend to apease the loonies on the Left.

Things will remain the same. Only circumstances and events on the ground will dictate the next move.

We’ve seen enough politics in our lifetime, all this talk about doing this or doing that is bunch of baloney.

It’s just election rhetoric.

Those people want to be President. They’ll do anything you order them to do.

Tell them to crawl on their bellies and suck your toes, they’ll do it.

Indy Conservative on March 17, 2008 at 5:37 PM

“Screw the damn Iraqis — what’s in it for us?”

Downright Churchillian, isn’t it?

Cicero43 on March 17, 2008 at 5:41 PM

My foreign policy will be driven by what is in America’s national security interests…

Explain to me how giving AQ and Iran a new playground to launch attacks against us and our allies, is in our security interests.

ThePrez on March 17, 2008 at 5:44 PM

Just like “Blinky” Pelosi and “Dusty” Reid, if Hillary can’t not have a lawyer bill for an hour, it just doesn’t show up on her radar screen. These people have no idea the dangers that we face or the damage they are doing to our country. (No $5.00/barrel oil from Canada, but $108+/barrel from Iran is OK).

Just wait until the Democratic Convention, and then the election.


“How far is she willing to go….?”

Indeed, how far…….?

Seven Percent Solution on March 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM

How are we going to deal with the black market in oil if we are not there. I mean if we just pull out and the whole country goes to hell anyway what difference does it make?

Terrye on March 17, 2008 at 5:58 PM

Explain to me how giving AQ and Iran a new playground to launch attacks against us and our allies, is in our security interests.

ThePrez on March 17, 2008 at 5:44 PM

That horse done be out of the barn.

MB4 on March 17, 2008 at 5:58 PM

“Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean, we’re going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. Our military’s meant to fight and win war. That’s what it’s meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. But I’m going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious.”
- George W. Bush

Me thinks that Hillary may have been reading some of George’s old speeches.

MB4 on March 17, 2008 at 6:02 PM

The only way to spur the Iraqis people on welfare to take responsibility for their own future and to ensure that we don’t bear that responsibility indefinitely.

The most important part of my plan is the first step, to bring our troops federal funds home and send the strongest possible message to the Iraqis welfare recipients that they must take responsibly for their own future.

She makes those changes and she might have a shot at the Republican base, eh? The Iraqi’s don’t need our support but Compton does?

Casper the Friendly Host on March 17, 2008 at 6:07 PM

That horse done be out of the barn.

MB4 on March 17, 2008 at 5:58 PM

Really? Because last I checked the number of attacks al Qaeda launched from Iraq on other countries was zero.

Id imagine once they stopped dying and getting captured they can concentrate on that again.

Chuck Schick on March 17, 2008 at 6:08 PM

Typhoon, if that’s Hillary’s idea of triangulation she should talk to her husband more. It’s clunky. Definitely not like Bill Clinton who played it so well Republicans never new what hit them.

seanhackbarth on March 17, 2008 at 6:19 PM

Is it really thousands dying every month? Are there reliable numbers? From my limited knowledge of the present situation I would doubt that an honest count ever approaches a thousand much less thousands.

snaggletoothie on March 17, 2008 at 6:28 PM

Typhoon, if that’s Hillary’s idea of triangulation she should talk to her husband more. It’s clunky. Definitely not like Bill Clinton who played it so well Republicans never new what hit them.

seanhackbarth on March 17, 2008 at 6:19 PM

Well I didn’t say she was good at it.

If she was, maybe she wouldn’t need the likes of Rush and Allah propping her up.

Typhoon on March 17, 2008 at 6:32 PM

Really? Because last I checked the number of attacks al Qaeda launched from Iraq on other countries was zero.

Id imagine once they stopped dying and getting captured they can concentrate on that again.

Chuck Schick on March 17, 2008 at 6:08 PM

You might want to read the comment

Explain to me how giving AQ and Iran a new playground to launch attacks against us and our allies, is in our security interests.

ThePrez on March 17, 2008 at 5:44 PM

that I responded to.

Or maybe you don’t think of American troops as “us”.

MB4 on March 17, 2008 at 6:37 PM

Is it really thousands dying every month? Are there reliable numbers? From my limited knowledge of the present situation I would doubt that an honest count ever approaches a thousand much less thousands.

snaggletoothie on March 17, 2008 at 6:28 PM

There are reliable numbers for American and allied troop deaths.

Other deaths, not so much.

MB4 on March 17, 2008 at 6:41 PM

Hillary is just demonstrating that she has no stance of her own. Hillary is communicating to the terrorists that the good old days of the 1990′s where the response for a terrorist attack was to bomb a empty training camps. Hillary is demonstrating that one forgets that after 15 years under Secret Service protection that the world is a dangerous place due to extremist zealots who can’t be reasoned with and only understand force.

Hog Wild on March 17, 2008 at 6:42 PM

Well I didn’t say she was good at it.

Typhoon, this is further evidence Clinton would be a better match-up with McCain.

seanhackbarth on March 17, 2008 at 7:30 PM

It is official, Hillary has placed her political bet against success in Iraq.

Howard Wolfson has also stated emphatically that Clinton will pull out troops regardless of realities on the ground or the advice of military commanders on the ground.

Brilliant!

Clinton says “we cannot win” Iraq war
Mon Mar 17, 2008 by SphereBy Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Democrat Hillary Clinton charged on Monday the Iraq war may end up costing Americans $1 trillion and further strain the economy, as she made her case for a prompt U.S. troop pullout from a war “we cannot win.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1440646120080317?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

“Let’s be clear: withdrawal is not defeat,” the former first lady said in a Washington speech.

“Defeat is keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years, defeat is straining our alliances and losing our standing in the world, defeat is draining our resources and diverting attention from our key interests,” she said…

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson was pressed on whether she would proceed with troop withdrawals within 60 days of taking office, regardless of any upsurge in violence or countervailing advice from U.S. commanders.

“The answer is yes,” he said.

http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/431425

moxie_neanderthal on March 17, 2008 at 10:01 PM