<p>Sally Quinn just came back from an around-the-trip world. The consensus from overseas is that there is over there a lot of excitment about Obama, not because he’s perceived as soft on int’l relations but because he represents the non-ruling class (by comparison).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She has said that she regrets the vote and that if she knew then what she knows now, she would not vote the same way again.</p>
<p>What she has not done is apologize for the vote. The point she is making is that she cast the vote, she’s responsible for the vote, and she’s not going to try to weasel out of that responsibility with a cheap apology.</p>
<p>You take your best shot. If you’re wrong, you’re wrong. Accept responsibility and move on.</p>
<p>I think it’s important to remember that the vote was 77-23. Not only did all of the candidates who were in the Senate vote for authorization. Edwards was a co-sponsor of the authorization bill and his apology doesn’t change that.</p>
<p>Here’s why attacking Clinton’s vote is a non-starter. In May 2003, 70% of the US population supported the invasion of Iraq. Today 70% disapprove. Those who disapproved then aren’t going to vote Republican. Those who approve today aren’t going to vote Democratic. That means that the election will be determined by who best addresses the 40% of the US voters who changed their mind between 2003 and 2007.</p>
<p>HRC is talking about being in Iraq until the cows come home. Personally, her war stance worries me.</p>
<p>We have eight (?) fully-equipped bases, built in concrete, in Iraq.</p>
<p>That position gives us the chance to corner that oil market.</p>
<p>If we leave, the Chinese are likely to go in, abandoning some of the smaller niche oil markets of Sudan, Nigeria, Ghana etc. </p>
<p>For that reason, Iraq doesn’t have a Vietnam end point. Withdrawal? Pshaw! Wouldn’t it be nice if a candidate fessed up to that reality instead of telling us fairy tales as if we were five years old?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where? She’s said nothing like that. In fact, she has explicitly stated that she does not want permanent US bases in Iraq and wants to assure the Iraqis that the US is not interested in their oil.</p>
<p>I wish that just one of these debates would forgo the silly questions about not being feminine or black enough and ask each of the candidates point blank what they envision for Iraq. But, so far, nobody is really asking that question.</p>
<p>It’s a very difficult question. All of the foreign policy think tanks (Brookings, Iraq Study Group, etc.) see the need for residual US forces. I don’t think anyone has THE answer yet. But, it sure would be entertaining to hear the candidates discuss.</p>
<p>The motivation for Clinton’s questioning of Pentagon planning is to try the get a handle on how we even get out of Iraq logistically. It’s really difficult because we are going to be trying to move close to 300,000 US personel and equipment down highways that are totally under the control of militias in the south – where there is no longer any security.</p>
<p>Oh! Nooooooww she doesn’t want the bases? Now that they are already built and staffed and armed?</p>
<p>We can’t get out of there because of all the boogeymen on the highway? They don’t want us to leave?</p>
<p>OOooooohhh.</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that the pink-coated one is a “flip-flopper”? Perish the thought! (She has explicitly stated the need to secure U.S. continuing interests in the region - formerly by keeping a relatively large residual force? or maybe now she thinks she’ll accomplish it by not talking to the people who matter…) </p>
<p>The only experienced diplomat in the field, Richardson, says there is no need for ANY residual forces, and that they can all be brought home safely within six months or less. And we have only $97 billion to accomplish it. And further, that it is our ability to do that quickly, which we have, that will force the Iraqis (if anything can) to step up to the plate. If they choose, of course.</p>
<p>“What she has not done is apologize for the vote. The point she is making is that she cast the vote, she’s responsible for the vote, and she’s not going to try to weasel out of that responsibility with a cheap apology.”</p>
<p>Nothing stops her from making an expensive one, admitting her role in the Big Lie of 1998, or admitting that she was one or would have been one of the war-mongering sheep.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where has she said that?</p>
<p>Her plan for leaving Iraq includes a massive diplomatic effort with all of the countries in the region, including, specifically, Iran and Iraq.</p>
<p>What she said was that she would not promise, in advance, to meet with Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinejad, Assad, and Kim – without precondition – within the first 12 months of her Presidency.</p>
<p>Here’s a recent foreign policy speech, including this bit on Iran:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Full text and video:</p>
<p><a href=“http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=278112[/url]”>http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=278112</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No forces until the follow up question was asked about protecting the embassy. Then, he replied that we might have to keep the usual Marine color guard that we have protecting each Embassy. So, his well thought out plan is to pull all US troops out of Iraq, but leave a few hundred Marines to protect the thousands of US citizens in the Green Zone embassy. Excuse me for being sceptical, but that so-called “plan” doesn’t seem particularly realistic based on the reporting of conditions in Baghdad that I have seen. He didn’t address his “plan” for protecting a supply route to the embassy, given that the troops holding Baghdad Airport and protecting the supply route from Kuwait would be gone. Maybe he plans to contract with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard for security. Not to be cynical, but that so-called “plan” seems more like it was conceived in the middle of a campaign rally.</p>
<p>NOTE: My personal view is that we should burn the embassy and all of our bases as we pull every last American civilian and soldier out of Iraq and let the Iraqis, Iranian, Turks, Syrians, and Saudis do with Iraq as they see fit. But, that’s just me. I do recognize those who believe we have some moral obligation to try to leave as little chaos and genocide as we can.</p>
<p>It’s not just Iraq. (i.m.o.) In general, I don’t think HRC is particularly oriented toward int’l affairs to begin with. That’s what bothered me about her lame response on Mon. night. She seemed even uncommitted to the int’l activity, period. (As it pertains to problem-solving, not waging war.) She’s lukewarm about aggressive diplomacy, lukewarm/noncommittal about an Iraq exit plan & date, etc. To me, this is the other concern I have about the “hidden” residual refusal to vote for her. This is the kind of last-minute reason people state <em>after</em> election (not when being polled, often) which was a deciding reason for them. (“I just had worries that he/she was much more/less capable in the internat’l arena, more/less so in the domestic area.”) I think HRC is perceived as, and is, much more focused on domestic issues and is “trained” to be so.</p>
<p>"We have eight (?) fully-equipped bases, built in concrete, in Iraq.</p>
<p>That position gives us the chance to corner that oil market.</p>
<p>If we leave, the Chinese are likely to go in, abandoning some of the smaller niche oil markets of Sudan, Nigeria, Ghana etc."</p>
<p>Bullseye! Reality speaks. No matter which party representative ends up controlling the White House at the end of the coming political bloodbath, he or she will have to admit that we do indeed have a compelling economic interest in Iraq, ergo the need for continued manning of the bases we’ve installed there. What percentage of our fossil fuel dependent population do you think won’t care if China ends up controlling most of the Middle Eastern oil supply?</p>
<p>I actually had to work this afternoon and I came back to lots more pages…</p>
<p>I am really beginning to wonder if the real reason that Interesteddad has become Hillary’s unofficial campaign manager is that he found out that she really graduated from Swarthmore… and that she hates frat boys with a passion. (or did she marry one?) and now she just wants to get even? ;)</p>
<p>Ahh, sokkermom. We have a connection. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She’s on the Senate Armed Services Committee. First Senator from New York to ever finagle a spot on that committee.</p>
<p>sokkermom: </p>
<p>Nope. The Swarthmore grad in the news recently is neocon Robert Zoellick who just got appointed head of the World Bank to succeed Wolfie. Head of the DCCC, Congressman Chris Van Hollen gets a little press every once in a while. Unofficially, Obama is leading the Swarthmore polling.</p>
<p>Clinton went to Wellesley and Yale Law School. Obama went to Occidental for two years, transfered to Columbia, and then to Harvard Law School. So there’s a liberal arts college connection for both of the top Democratic candidates. The frat boys are in the White House. Bush’s binge drinking has been well-documented. Cheney flunked out of Yale and then proceeded to rack up two DUIs in eight months back in Wyoming.</p>
<p>idad has been a longstanding Dem champion–and has generally backed up his voice with well-researched information. I’ve learned a ton from his posts. And mini’s posts.</p>
<p>Hate the play, but don’t hate the playah.</p>
<p>Yes, I knew about the Armed Services Committee. No, cheers, I don’t hate i-dad. I like to poke fun at him. I don’t think he’s that thin-skinned. I was surprised to see the Swat reference, because I, too, thought HRC was a Wellesley grad. </p>
<p>I just mean that her focus is much less overseas than here. It’s a little bit of a concern because this is increasingly important in our presidents, as we are increasingly less isolationist, more global.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How can that be? I could have sworn I heard somewhere that she was the Democratic Senator from Punjab, India. Oh, that’s right…it was an Obama campaign memo circulated to the media.</p>
<p>She did start the Senate India Caucus. And, she has been out front on Darfur. She has met most of the heads of state in the world over the last 15 years, visiting 82 countries.</p>
<p>I have no earthly idea who foreign policy in a Clinton administration would play out (how can you predict?), but I think she’s well positioned to change the perception of the US in the world. Electing a woman would be an immediate change in the face of the US compounded by the dramatic shift away from the neocons. Combine that with the immense popularity of Bill Clinton around the world (see the Clinton Foundation) and there is an opportunity for real outreach.</p>
<p>I’m just curious, Idad. You are such a bully supporter of both Hill and Bill. What do you make of Mini’s indictments against the Clinton Administration’s actions in Iraq? Does it hold any credence in your mind?</p>
<p>I understand and respect Mini’s position. However, Mini and I come from very different places on the political spectrum.</p>
<p>My fundamental disagreement with Mini is that he holds the view that everything is the United States’ fault and absolves people like Sadaam Hussein of any responsibility. For example, he glosses over the fact that Hussein refused to allow the UN Oil for Food Program to get underway for several years and, when it did, Hussein systematically abused the system for his own purposes rather than the distribution of food and medical supplies the Shia population that he was perfectly happy to kill off. </p>
<p>I tend to take a more centrist position. I totally agree that the United States has made many mistakes in supporting brutal dicatorships in the Middle East and continues to make fundamental mistakes in isolating countries like Iran. I would agree with Mini that we need to take a long hard look at the pluses and minuses of economic sanctions. Is it beneficial to push countries into a corner? I agree with Mini that we need to pursue a less belligerent, less imperialistic foreign policy. As the world’s preeminent military power, we need to be very cognizant of resentment when we overreach and when we fail to understand that other countries have as much legitimate right to do things “their way” as we do. </p>
<p>However, I reject Mini’s model of the United States as the evil empire. I also reject the model that other countries are always as pure as the driven snow. I thought that Bill Clinton was reasonably reserved in his approach to Sadaam Hussein. After all, he could have invaded Iraq. Sadaam was his own worst enemy…a truly evil dictator.</p>
<p>Politically, we share nothing in common. Politicians I view as being on the lunatic fringe (like Dennis Kucinich), Mini views as being too conservative. I respect his opinion, but his political views, IMO, are probably not realistic and certainly not viable in the election booth. As Mitt Romney would say, “I don’t think Mini could get elected in France.”</p>
<p>What I expect from leaders is a good faith effort to fully explore the options, get a range of opinions, and give it there best shot. I’ve read enough Presidential histories to know that mistakes are inevitable. Governing is not only an imperfect science, but there are usually no clearcut answers. Every decision is take a little here, give a little there, and just try to make a reasonable decision. </p>
<p>For example, I don’t fault our intelligence community for being extremely concerned about Sadaam’s potential weapons programs. The complete screw up of missing his nuke program in 1991 and the games he was playing banning the inspectors from 1996 on had everyone, including the IAEA, concerned. They got it wrong. It happens. It’s happened since the beginning of time and I can’t imagine that it won’t continue to happen for all eternity. Government officials are human. They screw up.</p>
<p>My problem is that Bush set up an administrative mechanism that not only ignored dissenting views, but punished them. That’s a recipe for disaster. It’s vitally important that a President structure his or her administration to provide the President with the full range of available information.</p>
<p>BTW, for anyone interested, here is a detailed plan for Iraq that Clinton outlined in a speech two weeks ago:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=2366[/url]”>http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=2366</a></p>
<p>It’s a long read, but as comprehensive as anything you will see from a Presidential candidate.</p>
<p>Start pulling troops out within 60 days and continue steadily until they are gone, as quickly as can be done safely. No permanent bases. No patroling. </p>
<p>Begin a major diplomatic effort with all of the neighboring countries, including the specific need to begin immediate diplomatic efforts with Iran and Syria and continue no matter how difficult. </p>
<p>Continue aid to Iraq IF the government is viable. If not, shift the US aid to provincial leaders for basic reconstruction. Organize a UN mission to work with the Iraqis and replace the US role. </p>
<p>Institute a multi-billion refugee relief program in the neighboring countries to handle the refugee outflow, provide basic food, medicine, housing, and education, and to reduce the strain on those countries.</p>
<p>Her hope is that our troop withdrawal will reduce violence in Iraq, but if violence increases, so be it. It will not stop our pullout. As painful as the sectarian violence may become, we can’t stop it militarily in the absence of an Iraqi political solution.</p>
<p>She outlines three potential ongoing US military roles in Iraq:</p>
<p>a) a force in the region to target Al Queda training operations</p>
<p>b) A possible training function for the Iraqi security forces, but ONLY if the Iraqi government becomes viable, which it currently shows no signs of becoming.</p>
<p>c) A possible deployment of US troops to the Kurdish north to deter invasion of that autonomous region. The Kurdish region is relative stable, but under pressure from the south, east, and north – a flashpoint that we might be able to deter.</p>
<p>Enjoy. This is the way to learn about the candidates in way that goes beyond the 60 second soundbytes.</p>