<p>Is she for troop withdrawl or not?</p>
<p>If so, when?</p>
<p>It is quite clear that she favors a continuing, long-term military presence in Iraq to defend U.S. “vital interests” -</p>
<p><a href=“Clinton Says Some G.I.'s in Iraq Would Remain if She Took Office - Series - NYTimes.com”>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E6DB1E31F936A25750C0A9619C8B63</a></p>
<p>In fact, her position is very similar to GWB’s. Once the “surge” ends, whether successful or not, there will be a long-term U.S. military presence in the country, somewhat smaller is size, just not on the streets of Baghdad.</p>
<p>In related news, Halliburton stock has risen more than 10% this week; their dividend rose 20%, and on Wednesday, their chief moved to Dubai:</p>
<p><a href=“HAL Interactive Stock Chart | Halliburton Company Stock - Yahoo Finance”>HAL Interactive Stock Chart | Halliburton Company Stock - Yahoo Finance;
<p>Thank you for that article mini.</p>
<p>"With many Democratic primary voters favoring a total withdrawal, Senator Clinton appears to be trying to balance her political interests with the need to retain some flexibility. "</p>
<p>So, she will still continue to deploy soldiers to Iraq and keep a military presence there. Does that mean that we will continue to see US casualities?</p>
<p>For what? Did she say, “oil” ???</p>
<p>“So, she will still continue to deploy soldiers to Iraq and keep a military presence there. Does that mean that we will continue to see US casualities?”</p>
<p>One would assume. This isn’t Korea. The Clinton/Bush goals of control of the oil pipelines/permanent military bases in the Middle East outside of Saudi Arabia remain intact (which is one of the reasons that Republican opposition to Hillary is somewhat strange - she embodies their goals and objectives.)</p>
<p>“For what? Did she say, “oil” ???”</p>
<p>Oil, Israel, and other “vital U.S. interests”. Heck of a lot more honest (and consistent) than GWB.</p>
<p>Most of her campaign speeches have talked about “Bringing the Troops Home!”</p>
<p>Maintaining troops there and continued deployment doesn’t sound all that consistent with bringing the troops home to me. 
</p>
<p>Oh, the political rhetoric. But Murtha and most of the Dems have always favored a continuing military presence, just one pulled to the borders, or back into bases. Bush’s long-term plan is not very different.</p>
<p>We are dealing with bipartisan foreign policy here. The political process accentuates rhetorical differences, but we should recognize them for what they are. Hillary has NOT wavered, which is where she has differed from GWB who embodied the neo-cons dream of a “democratic” (read: corporate capitalist) bulwark in Iraq. GWB is still pursuing this pipedream (note the duo entendre) with the plan to ensure oil profits for his buddies, as ID has so clearly delineated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Halliburton last month completed a stock-swap program that separates itself from former subsidiary KBR Inc., the U.S. military contractor and engineering/construction outfit. The two have been frequent targets of criticism in recent years because of KBR’s more than $19 billion in Pentagon contracts to be the sole provider of food and shelter services to the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats in Congress have claimed KBR benefited from ties to Vice President Dick Cheney, who once led Halliburton.</p>
<p>I’m not sure Hillary hasn’t wavered.</p>
<p>From another AP story today: "Less than two months ago, Clinton was asked in an ABC interview whether she would sign legislation with a deadline for a troop withdrawal. “Well, at this point, that’s not possible. But if I were president, I would certainly work with the Congress to begin to withdraw troops,” she replied. "</p>
<p>Again this could be semantics. One person’s “balancing political interests” could be another’s “wavering”! ;)</p>
<p>I live in NH. Hillary has received a lot of press here in the past few weeks. She has clearly been pandering to the “Bring the Troops Home” crowd. I’d call her recent statements about maintaining the same troop numbers as are there now (and continued deployment) as blatant “wavering”, - but that may just be me.</p>
<p>“Halliburton last month completed a stock-swap program that separates itself from former subsidiary KBR Inc., the U.S. military contractor and engineering/construction outfit.”</p>
<p>Halliburton stock is rising for, among other reasons, the increasing pressure GWB is putting on the Iraqi "government’ (I think the quotes are now warranted) to prime future oil and gas revenues for non-Iraqi interests. Halliburton will be among the prime beneficiaries.</p>
<p>They’ve made their money off the pork zone (which is now getting barraged daily), and it is time to move on.</p>
<p>The great thing about Senators is that they have a record.</p>
<p>Clinton voted for the conference report of the Iraq Emergency Appropriations bill that was approved and sent to the Commander Guy for signing into law.</p>
<p>The provisions of the bill:</p>
<p>a) No troops to be deployed unless they are certified to be combat ready. Readiness requirement can be specifically waived in writing on a deployment by deployment basis by the President.</p>
<p>b) No troops to be deployed for more than 365 days (210 for Marines. Can be specifically waived in writing on a deployment by deployment basis by the President.</p>
<p>c) No troops to be deployed without the required than 365 days at home. Can be specifically waived in writing on a deployment by deployment basis by the President.</p>
<p>d) President must report to Congress by July 1, 2007, whether the Iraqi goverment has lived up to its commitments to allow pursuit of all Sunni insurgents and Shia militia and taken steps to disband Shia militia. Made progress on the oil sharing, de-Bathifaction, regional goverments, and reconstruction outline by the administration as benchmarks back in January. Whether sectarian violence has been significantly reduced. And, whether the Iraqi goverment is respecting the rights of minority political parties.</p>
<p>If the President certifies all of the above, troop redeployment must commence by Oct 2007 and end within 6 months. If the President does not certify this, then troop redeployment must begin on July 1st and end within 6 months.</p>
<p>Regardless of the provisions above, all of the funds in appropriations bill can be used for an immediate orderly redeployment.</p>
<p>After the required redeployment is complete, the Secretary of Defense may not deploy US troops in Iraq for any purpose other than the following:</p>
<p>(1) Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the U.S. armed forces; </p>
<p>(2) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions; </p>
<p>(3) Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach; and </p>
<p>(4) Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces.</p>
<p>Here’s the full summary of the Iraq language.</p>
<p>Again, Senator Clinton voted for the enactment of this Bill, thus it represents solid evidence of her position.</p>
<p>mini:</p>
<p>I posted the more recent and detailed comments of Sen Clinton from last week about the continued presence of troops in Iraq. These, of course, are more current than the 2 month old NYT article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These seem quite consistent with the Senate/House bill sent to the President that she voted for.</p>
<p>And, as usual, she refused to define the “vital U.S. interests” she seeks to defend. Or has she now in fact flip-flopped and believes that those intersts have evaporated? (in two months)</p>
<p>I’m not sure what you are trying to say.</p>
<p>This is from a political commentator from May 16, 2007:</p>
<p>"…Mrs. Clinton has yet to stake out a consistent position that she has stuck to on the issue of Iraq. Look, it is fine to have candidates who change their minds, but why must she be so fuzzy, vague, and inconsistent all at the same time, often on the same day? She is either a flip-flopper like John Kerry, or she is trying to smooth and nuance her way around everything.</p>
<p>Things like today are the reason why quite a few Democrats are reluctant to support her. Count me among those people who would like to know what a candidate stands for before I vote for them. Hillary is making it very difficult for me to figure out where she stands on the biggest issue in the campaign. To me, this strategy may be safe, but it wont be a winning formula next November."</p>
<p>It must be me. I fail to see the inconsistency. Clinton has consistently called for a reployment of combat troops from Iraq. She has voted for every piece of legislation that accomplishes that. She has sponsored legislation ending the authorization for the Iraq war on October 1st.</p>
<p>She has outlined, in some detail (more than any other candidate), the limited role of residual troops.</p>
<p>a) Protecting the embassy and other US civilians</p>
<p>b) A buffer force to keep the Kurds and Turks from going at each other and to keep the civil war from spreading to the relatively stable Kurdish region</p>
<p>c) An anti-al Qaeda force in Anbar province.</p>
<p>d) A special operations capacity.</p>
<p>e) The possibility of a training effort for the Iraqi military IF the Iraqi government can establish sufficient goveranance and control to warrant that investment…an outcome she sees as unlikely.</p>
<p>mini: what more “vital interests” do you want her to specify? That’s a pretty complete list.</p>
<p>sokermom: how about identifying “a political commentator”?</p>
<p>“mini: what more “vital interests” do you want her to specify?”</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>I want to know, quite specifically, what “oil interests” she plans to defend militarily in Iraq and how, what “our interests” are that she plans to defend militarily in Iraq and how, what interests of which regimes she plans to defend militarily in Iraq and how, what intersts of Israel she plans to defend militarily in Iraq and how?</p>
<p>I expect her list would look virtually the same as George Bush’s (and that of hordes of Democrats and Republicans alike.)</p>
<p>Hillary was in Iraq in full body armor on January 13, 2007. She gave an exclusive interview to ABC. </p>
<p>From ABC: "Instead of sending more U.S. troops to Iraq, as President Bush plans, Clinton said it is time to start re-deploying U.S. troops out of Iraq. </p>
<p>“That would really demonstrate to the Iraqis that we don’t have an open-ended commitment,” she said. “We are not going to be here providing protection for their leaders, which we do. We are not going to be here standing by and trying to be called in from time to time as they see fit. That is not in the cards.” "</p>
<p>Tell me again. What is it that she is NOW saying? :eek:</p>
<p>Is reploy even a word? (“Reployment from”? Post #34) Come to think of it, I’m not sure what “re-deploy out” means either. I’m pretty sure it meant to WITHDRAW troops.</p>
<p>I guess if you use double-speak, no one really knows what you are saying, and it is easier to deny ever saying anything meaningful! (Example: this week’s vote.)</p>
<p>You are right, ID. Hillary is consistent after all. She can flip-flop on every issue and then deny it. She is politically flexible.</p>
<p>I can’t comment on your one sentence quote because I don’t know when and where it came from</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>None, beyond the oil interests controlled by the Kurds. For all intents and purposes, there are no oil interests to defend in Iraq right now and there won’t be until the civil war plays out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She outlined them. The US embassy personnel. The stable Kurdish region. The pursuit of Al Qaeda.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>None…except for troops along the northern border to protect the stable, independent Kurdish region from being overrun by the civil war in the south. That’s the reason for pulling out. The civil war makes it impossible to identify a viable regime. Iraq doesn’t have a regime or a functioning government.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s the part I need some context for relating to your quote above. I suspect she was refering to the region.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not a difficult word. It means take troops that are deployed in one place and deploy them in another. For example, when you send a battalion from a US base to Iraq, you “redeploy” the troops from the United States to Iraq.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The same thing she said in the January interview you cite. It is time to start redeploying troops out of Iraq.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where’s the flip flop?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Re-deploy out = withdraw</p></li>
<li><p>Post #34 says “Reployment”. Reployment= Bring IN</p></li>
</ol>
<p>1 is NOT consistent with 2. It is not a difficult concept!</p>
<p>She was originally in favor of withdrawing troops within 90 days after she took office, or earlier. She is “now” in favor of maintaining troops in Iraq, possibly at the same level as they are now (indefinitely?). That smacks of a flip-flop, no matter how one tries to deny it.</p>
<p>Wow. I made a typo in a forum post. So sue me.</p>