Thursday, March 15, 2007
Tom Maguire, guest-blogging at Instapundit, links to a the New York Times interview with Senator Hillary Clinton, in which she suggests that up to 75,000 US troops may remain in Iraq beyond 2008 under her plan for Iraq.
Two stunning paragraphs open the Times report:
WASHINGTON, March 14 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.
In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain 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.
Maguire notes some initial reactions:
Ahh! Let's hear thunder from the left - Matt Stoller of MyDD says "Wow... This is a very dangerous roadmap for the Democrats.
The Agonist tells us that "Democrats will now have a clear choice between a pro-war candidate and candidates who are clearly for ending the war.
For lightning from the right, Captain Ed Morrissey describes Hillary's willingness to have
Maguire himself notes this passage form the Times article:
Mrs. Clinton has said she would vote for a proposed Democratic resolution on
(Senator Barack Obama, a rival of Mrs. Clinton, has said that if elected president, he might keep a small number of troops in
You have to give Hillary Clinton, or at least whatever trusted advisors are responsible, credit for nerve. I hesitate to commend her further, given her record, but the new reports on her plan for Iraq are just short of stunning to the degree she charges rightward of her left-leaning political base.
I think somebody at Hillary Central has decided that she needs to put one awfully noticeable stake in the ground. She’s decided that the situation in
Sen. Clinton must have calculated that she’s taken as much damage as she will for her pro-war votes and positions thus far, and however the surge goes, there’s no more left side downside than she’s already suffered. Either that, or she’s decided
How that squares with actual Democrat bills in both houses of Congress is anybody’s guess. But Sen. Clinton has decided that
She may call 75,000 troops limited all she wants, but I’m sure Sen. Obama’s idea of limited and Sen. Clinton’s are orders of magnitude apart.
From a practical standpoint, it is entirely possible that Coalition forces could effectively continue ongoing peacekeeping, security, and counterterrorism operations that have been the bulk of our operations in
Either way, Hillary Clinton just doubled down on her political stake in the war in Iraq.
Links to this post:
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]