<p>It’s Ok Id. Your typo really doesn’t impact my point either way. ;)</p>
<p>Hillary has flip-flopped on the Iraq issue in my opinion. Her entire campaign to date has focused on her desire to get the heck out of Iraq. Now she wants to stay there for awhile.</p>
<p><a href=“HILL REDRAWING HER BATTLE LINE”>HILL REDRAWING HER BATTLE LINE;
<p>"March 16, 2007 – WASHINGTON - After recently vowing to quickly end the Iraq war if she becomes president, Hillary Rodham Clinton is now stressing a plan to keep some U.S. forces there indefinitely - a shift that analysts say shows she’s feeling heat from both Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani. "</p>
<p>“In a surprising move, Clinton has begun emphasizing her plan to keep U.S. troops, mostly special forces, in Iraq to hunt down al Qaeda remnants in Anbar province and protect Israel and other countries in the region from Iran after pulling the bulk of U.S. combat forces out of Baghdad.”</p>
<p>"Clinton’s statement now that she will “start” ending the war is a marked shift from her promise last month to Democratic National Committee members that “if we in Congress don’t end this war before January 2009, as president, I will.” </p>
<p>Strategists say her move also is an attempt to gain wiggle room if she wins the White House. </p>
<p>“It’s aimed at not boxing her in if she wins,” another Democratic operative said. “She’s finagling the bagel, which her husband did amazingly well, and for which she, as a senator, gets skewered.” "</p>
<p>Actually, the flop-flip is the other way around. In reality, I don’t think she has changed, though the campaign language will move one way or the other.</p>
<p>You know, like three-month “surge” when you mean 15-month escalation. That sort of thing. Or “war” when you mean “aggressive, hostile occupation”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s just poor reporting, setting up a strawman argument.</p>
<p>I’ve only been following the campaign closely (on a daily basis) since last fall. Hillary Clinton has been extremely consistent since I started following the campaign. </p>
<p>a) Start removing combat troops now.</p>
<p>b) She has always talked about a residual force after the bulk of combat forces have been redployed.</p>
<p>c) Regional diplomatic conference with all neighboring countries</p>
<p>d) Tie future reconstruction and training moneys to real signs of Iraqi progress.</p>
<p>She’s on the Armed Services Committee. She’s dialed into the Pentagon. She could just spout nonsense, but she knows that no military planner would draw down from 170,000 plus another 100,000 Blackwater mercenaries to zero in 6 months. That’s just silly talk.</p>
<p>I don’t know of any Democratic legislators knowledgeable about defense issues who have ever talked of drawing down to zero in Iraq in the short-term future. Levin certainly hasn’t. Biden hasn’t. Clinton hasn’t. Every bill brought forward by the Democrats, including the one vetoed by the Commander Guy, called for a residual force in Iraq. I cited the provisions of that bill up above.</p>
<p>So, any pundit setting up that notion is literally flailing at a strawman.</p>
<p>Or a strawwoman…:D</p>
<p>“She’s on the Armed Services Committee. She’s dialed into the Pentagon. She could just spout nonsense, but she knows that no military planner would draw down from 170,000 plus another 100,000 Blackwater mercenaries to zero in 6 months. That’s just silly talk.”</p>
<p>I think it’s silly ACTION to keep 'em.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That may be. But, debating the pace of the cut 'n run seems a little moot at this point. We should probably revisit in January 2009, when a draw down might actually start.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/05/18/cpa_documents/?source=whitelist[/url]”>http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/05/18/cpa_documents/?source=whitelist</a></p>
<p>Interesting article about some documents the CIA made available to the public without turning off the ability of the public to track changes.</p>
<p>Lots in there. What caught my eye is that in Dec 2003-Jan 2004, when many in Iraq were under the misapprehension that we’d be leaving in June 2004, attacks in the Anbar province went DOWN. </p>
<p>Article author points out that this puts paid to the White House theory that timetables increase violence.</p>