<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/washington/15clinton.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/washington/15clinton.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin</a></p>
<p>Yup. That’s what Bill wanted too - overthrow Saddam Hussein, set up a permanent U.S. military presence outside of Arabia, protect U.S. “vital interests” (read: oil).</p>
<p>The usual bipartisan foreign policy…Stay the course.</p>
<p>Isn’t that what Afganistan is for? Don’t we already have troops in Kuwait, Saudi Arbia and elsewhere in the region. I thought one of the ideas behind this was to eventually move our bases out of SA, as Meca is an issue with us being there. </p>
<p>This was what I thought would happen all along…it’s not as if we left Germany or Japan or Korea is it? </p>
<p>And no, I don’t support it, I expect it.</p>
<p>Afghanistan has no oil, and no presence on the Straits of Hormuz, and no links to the pipeline to Turkey. U.S. is out of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Egypt, soon Saudi Arabia. Iraq is critically to U.S. vital interests, which is why Clinton/Tenet had to spread the big lie among his own party that landed us in the mess we are in today.</p>
<p>well yea, this is something I thought from day 1. We’re weren’t there to liberate, we were there to move in. All the more reason to break the bush/clinton hold on the country. no? </p>
<p>At one time weren’t we building 14 permanent bases around Iraq? </p>
<p>While I don’t agree with it, hasn’t that been US policy for the last 100 years?</p>
<p>Panama, Gaum, Phillipines etc… as you point out, both parties play this game.</p>
<p>For those of you interested in delving beneath the headlines, there’s the think-tank paper, “Things Fall Apart: Containing the Spillover from an Iraqi Civil War”, from the Brookings Institute that likely serves as as the basis for Sen. Clinton’s thinking:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/analysis/jan2007iraq_civilwar.htm[/url]”>http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/analysis/jan2007iraq_civilwar.htm</a></p>
<p>I believe that the thinking in this paper also served as a background for much of the Baker-Hamilton Commission thinking.</p>
<p>Clinton’s call for maintaining a US troop presence along the Kurdish border and wester Anbar province (the Syrian border region) fits with the refugee catch-basin approach posed by the Brookings report.</p>
<p>Make no mistake. Iraq is a very serious mess for reasons that extend far beyond Iraq’s borders. Agree or disagree with the conclusions of the Brookings report, it’s 145 pages will give any reader a better understanding of the challenges facing US foreign policy as soon as Iraq devolves into all-out civil war.</p>
<p>Her thinking is likely little different after things fell apart than Bill’s were before the U.S. invaded - she’s just a little more careful with her language. </p>
<p>Of course, that’s what comes with being “astute, intelligent, and experienced.” ;)</p>
<p>"She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops. </p>
<p>. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.” </p>
<p>“So it will be up to me to try to figure out how to protect those national security interests…"</p>
<p>(Brookings has little if anything to do with it, though the most interesting thing in the paper is “managing the Kurds”. Giving the Kurds their independence would either result in their being crushed immediately by the Turks, or, alternatively, drive them further into the arms of the Iranians, with whom they are already close. Meanwhile, they are just biding their time…)</p>
<p>It’s nice to see that Hillary has at least some element of pragmatism and hasn’t (yet) fallen prey to the get-out-now crowd whose strategic vision extends about as far as next Tuesday. She recognizes the strategic importance of the area and is willing to put some effort into keeping it from devolving into total chaos - good for her. </p>
<p>I would like to see how someone could take the counter-position to this and then try to rationalize the existence of US troops in Korea, Europe and (especially) the Balkans (“especially” since this region has the least strategic importance to the US). Strategic regions are worth protecting - the fact that the Middle East has been a strategic region worth fighting for has been the official US position since the Carter Doctrine.</p>
<p>“I would like to see how someone could take the counter-position to this and then try to rationalize the existence of US troops in Korea, Europe and (especially) the Balkans (“especially” since this region has the least strategic importance to the US). Strategic regions are worth protecting - the fact that the Middle East has been a strategic region worth fighting for has been the official US position since the Carter Doctrine.”</p>
<p>They could, but then hypocrisy knows virtually no bounds in either party, certainly not the Party of Appeasement and Family Values. </p>
<p>“the fact that the Middle East has been a strategic region worth fighting for has been the official US position since the Carter Doctrine.”</p>
<p>You got that right. We wouldn’t be in Iraq today if it wasn’t for the Clinton/Tenet lies of 1998, and how that prepared the Dems - Levin, Biden, & Co. - to then accept the “slam dunk” four years later. </p>
<p>Isn’t it amazing how much we can agree on? ;)</p>
<p>Hillary has always been all about pragmatism–as in, what will get me ahead. That’s why i can’t understand the rabid conservative dislike of her for her “liberal” positions. There’s just not enough there to hate, and certainly not enough there to vote for.</p>
<p>Which is why I pray she doesn’t get the Dem nomination. The haters will keep hating, and fervently enough to keep her from getting elected, while those who want real change have to hope for…what? I can’t imagine what I’ll be anticipating if she gets the nod.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know about anybody else, but a litte pragmatism in the White House sounds pretty good to me about now. I think 8 years of fundamentalist religious jihadists running the White House is gracious plenty.</p>
<p>Well, yeah, if I didn’t think all her pragmatism consisted of “what will get me elected?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isn’t that the fundamental organizing principle of a democratically-elected government?</p>
<p>It’s not a bad thing to appeal to the majority of the voters.</p>
<p>Of course, there are alternatives to “what can get me elected” pragmatism in the race:</p>
<p>a) The “I’m not going to say anything except platitudes about hope” approach.</p>
<p>b) The “I used to be fer it, but now I’m ag’in it because the lunatic fringe primary voters of my party told me I had to be ag’in it” approach.</p>
<p>c) The “I built this 27,000 sq ft house and racketball complex just to help the po’ folk” approach.</p>
<p>d) The “I’m the candidate of family valyoos…just ask my ex-wives” approach.</p>
<p>
Amen, InterestedDad…say it!!!</p>
<p>Yeah, I’m fer the war, I’m agin the war, for it, agin it…</p>
<p>Anyway, that’s not the main point. The main one is, the depth of animosity toward her is so deep, and so ingrained, that even living in a blue state I am aware of it. I don’t get it, she seems so bland I dn’t see what the shoutin’s about, but the fact is it’s there, and nominating her would be a dreadful mistake.</p>
<p>Believe it or not, Dads, there are other candidates not named Clinton or Bush.</p>
<p>Does anyone know what Obama’s position is on the subject? After all, he is the only clean candidate (according to Sen. Biden). I predict he will beat Hillary Clinton and be the Democrat nominee.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m keeping an open mind. The only significant Democratic candidate I would refuse to vote for would be Edwards. If he were to be the nominee, I would tell my daughter and her civic responsibility speech to go jump in a lake and I would not vote in the Presidential race this time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obama doesn’t have any positions. That’s his greatest strength. He plays to the imagination.</p>
<p>BTW, I have to give Sen. Clinton credit for political creativity. By saying that she would keep a limited troop presence in Iraq after pulling the troops out, she is the only candidate who has staked out a position with some appeal to the two very contradictory strains of polling data:</p>
<p>a) a strong desire to end the war
b) a strong rejection of a precipitous knee-jerk withdrawal</p>
<p>She continues to position herself for the general election.</p>
<p>“I predict he will beat Hillary Clinton and be the Democrat nominee.”</p>
<p>Nope. Not happenin’. Vice-pres maybe, with Edwards as Pres. Obama could walk on water, and America would still not nominate a black man for Pres. I’ve popped popcorn and pulled up a seat close to the telly. The jostling for position among the Democrats is about to get veeerrry interesting—already started, actually, with the Hilary/Obama opening salvo having hit the news last month (two years before the election. That must be some kind of record!).</p>
<p>Hilary has too much baggage, too. She engenders an almost visceral response from too many voters. Our memories aren’t nearly as short as she hopes.</p>