Hillary Clinton admits "new military tactics" in Iraq are working

JaJae · 08-20-2007, 03:35 PM

New military tactics in Iraq are working but the best way to honor U.S. soldiers is "by beginning to bring them home," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told war veterans Monday.

Print Story: Clinton, McCain split on Iraq pullout on Yahoo! News

Hillary is the first of the Democratic presidential candidates to stop the rhetoric of saying there's no political progress in Iraq. As of late more and more politicians are claiming there is a military progress going on in Iraq. The only person who doesn't seem to admit as of now is Hagel, who has been a long critic of the war and hasn't been there recently.

With a Democratic presidential candidate essentially stating the surge is working, where do you think this will go? The last polls showed roughly 45% of Americans supported military action in Iraq, which had gone up from previous polls. Now with so many Democrats, liberals and much of the liberal media all seeming to come to a consensus on military progress, it will be interesting to see how the American public looks at the war in Iraq for the upcoming election. Any progress in Iraq is bad is for the Democrats. Clinton is essentially saying "Hey look, the surge is working so let's come home." I don't think that is going to be the popular opinion of Americans. I think if people believe we're making progress in Iraq the shift of people who want us over there will grow in support. It will also be an interesting test with the other Democratic candidates. The last Democratic debate conveniently didn't ask the candidates on their opinion of progress in Iraq. However, with Clinton coming out now and making headlines saying it's working it will be interesting to see how the other candidates fire back or if they agree with her.

Thorgrim · 08-20-2007, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Print Story: Clinton, McCain split on Iraq pullout on Yahoo! News

Hillary is the first of the Democratic presidential candidates to stop the rhetoric of saying there's no political progress in Iraq.

Lie, she never said there is any political progress in Iraq, the parliament are on recess and did jack shit while they were around before that, infact Sunnis have split away from the Iraqi government, governors are being assasinated, the political process in Iraq is going downhill

JaJae · 08-20-2007, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Lie

I never claimed she did say there was political progress in Iraq. However, she is the first person to stop the rhetoric of only stating there is no political progress in Iraq. Democrats used to rant and rave all day and night about how horrible Iraq was in every possibly way. Then they started only saying there is no political progress in Iraq and conveniently ignored the military aspects of it. She is the first person to break this rhetoric.

motivez · 08-20-2007, 03:48 PM

You left this part out of your one sided analysis of the article:

Originally Posted by Hillary Clinton

"I do not think the Iraqis are ready to do what they have to do for themselves yet," she said. "I think it is unacceptable for our troops to be caught in the crossfire of a sectarian civil war while the Iraqi government is on vacation."

Originally Posted by JaJae

Hillary is the first of the Democratic presidential candidates to stop the rhetoric of saying there's no political progress in Iraq.

And, I don't see anything in the article that indicates she said anything about political success. She said there have been some limited military successes in certain regions, but that it's years too late.

Considering her audience though, this is kind of expected. She'll pander to whoever she needs to in order to boost herself up, and she has to try extra hard not to seem weak on defense.

JaJae · 08-20-2007, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

You left this part out of your one sided analysis of the article:

It's irrelevant to the fact that a Democratic presidential candidate thinks we're making political progress in Iraq. Of course she wants to come home, she's a Democratic presidential candidate... they all want to pull out and are running on that as their primary campaign. The question is, what will America think of this... admitting military progress and then wanting to pull our military home.

They can't keep up with the rhetoric of ignoring the military progress anymore. It's been the elephant in the room nobody wanted to talk about. But it's been going on for too long and with the reports coming out shortly the Democrats have to start getting prepared to start saying things which will give Americans confidence that they know what they're talking about in Iraq.

If the Democratic candidates are saying there's no military progress in Iraq, but all the generals on the ground and the media are saying the opposite they're going to shoot themselves in the foot come election time.

motivez · 08-20-2007, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's irrelevant to the fact that a Democratic presidential candidate thinks we're making political progress in Iraq.

Once again, I'm not seeing anything in that article that says she thinks we're making political progress in Iraq.. in fact, the word "political" isn't even in the article's text.. so care to share the source of this divination?

Lastly, considering her audience and the fact that she's a known panderer, I wouldn't expect her to harp on any military failures..

JaJae · 08-20-2007, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Once again, I'm not seeing anything in that article that says she thinks we're making political progress in Iraq.

That was a typo, I meant to write military. The point is a Democratic presidential candidate is coming out and saying we're making progress on the military front in Iraq. Gone are the days they only harped on the political disaster and pretended the military progress didn't exist. This could have serious consequences on the upcoming election and media coverage of Iraq. The Democratic leader is about-facing the party right now.

David Octavius · 08-20-2007, 04:06 PM

Dude, what are you trying to say? Tactical progress does not mean shit if the political solution is not there. All it means is that our politicians have an excuse to keep our soldiers there longer, which can lead to more of them getting seriously hurt or dying - and if a political solution doesn't come, then they are dying for nothing but forgoing defeat just a few months longer.

I am happy the soldiers were given some much needed help and they are securing SOME areas, but if this political problem persist the tactics will inevitable fail, its just a matter of time

JaJae · 08-20-2007, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Dude, what are you trying to say? Tactical progress does not mean shit if the political solution is not there. All it means is that our politicians have an excuse to keep our soldiers there longer, which can lead to more of them getting seriously hurt or dying - and if a political solution doesn't come, then they are dying for nothing but forgoing defeat just a few months longer.

I am happy the soldiers were given some much needed help and they are securing SOME areas, but if this political problem persist the tactics will inevitable fail, its just a matter of time

They're equally important, but you can't have political progress without the military progress. What this shows is that some progress is being made in Iraq and what was previously claimed impossible by the Democrats is coming to a reality. This could change the perspective of Americans on the war in Iraq and whether or not they want to continue under the leadership of Petraeus. The UN is also now involved in the political aspects which again is going to only win over people who float on their ideology of Iraq.

David Octavius · 08-20-2007, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

They're equally important, but you can't have political progress without the military progress. What this shows is that some progress is being made in Iraq and what was previously claimed impossible by the Democrats is coming to a reality. This could change the perspective of Americans on the war in Iraq and whether or not they want to continue under the leadership of Petraeus. The UN is also now involved in the political aspects which again is going to only win over people who float on their ideology of Iraq.

I agree with that...though I would not say equally important.

Its one thing to have tactical success when a political solution as least seems feasible, its quite another to have some success and have no solution at all. Our soldiers are not incompetent, we've had tactical success in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, but we eventually lost ground because we could not find a political solution to bring the Shia, Sunni and Kurds together.

This isn't Germany or Japan, defeating the government does not win the war, the government of Iraq has almost no control over the Shia militias or the Sunni insurgents not to mention AQ. So even if the government could get its shit together (and that is a big IF), it is way to weak to stand on its own without a strong political unity among the three major sects, and because of this we are still there and why we will be there indefinitely despite "tactical" success.

RMNIXON · 08-20-2007, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I never claimed she did say there was political progress in Iraq. However, she is the first person to stop the rhetoric of only stating there is no political progress in Iraq. Democrats used to rant and rave all day and night about how horrible Iraq was in every possibly way. Then they started only saying there is no political progress in Iraq and conveniently ignored the military aspects of it. She is the first person to break this rhetoric.

That will be enough for Daily Kos!

RMNIXON · 08-20-2007, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

That was a typo, I meant to write military. The point is a Democratic presidential candidate is coming out and saying we're making progress on the military front in Iraq. Gone are the days they only harped on the political disaster and pretended the military progress didn't exist. This could have serious consequences on the upcoming election and media coverage of Iraq. The Democratic leader is about-facing the party right now.

You were getting ahead of the new talking points. When they are forced to shut their pie hole about the military failure the gradual shift will be the political one. It is a legit subject, don't get me wrong. But it will not be discussed in the spirit of finding solutions if you get my drift? It will be another barrage of rock thowing at the Administration. Some are so anti-Bush fixated that even to recognise a military sucess without more complaint is not something they are capable of doing.

David Octavius · 08-20-2007, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

You were getting ahead of the new talking points. When they are forced to shut their pie hole about the military failure the gradual shift will be the political one. It is a legit subject, don't get me wrong. But it will not be discussed in the spirit of finding solutions if you get my drift? It will be another barrage of rock thowing at the Administration. Some are so anti-Bush fixated that even to recognise a military sucess without more complaint is not something they are capable of doing.

Do you really believe mainstream liberals are that myopic that all they care about is making the republicans look bad? Thats hard to believe. If your going by negative comments like "the war has been run poorly", "we have a bad strategy", "there is no political solution feasible with us there" then to me that is legitimate complaints that are backed up by the evidence.

And dissent of this kind is needed to ensure accountability and to put together a plan that does work if the one we are doing now doesn't.

I can understand you feeling this way for the fringe that call Bush Hitler or think he has nothing but the best intentions for our country. I truly believe has great intentions for us, I just think the way he is going about it is absolutely wrong.

Galactic Gigolo · 08-21-2007, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

You were getting ahead of the new talking points. When they are forced to shut their pie hole about the military failure the gradual shift will be the political one. It is a legit subject, don't get me wrong. But it will not be discussed in the spirit of finding solutions if you get my drift? It will be another barrage of rock thowing at the Administration. Some are so anti-Bush fixated that even to recognise a military sucess without more complaint is not something they are capable of doing.

We were being told one, two, three, four years ago that there were military successes in Iraq and that things were turning the corner. Shockingly, they turned out to be false. Can you not see why people tend to air on the side of doubt when we've been dealt four and a half years of half truths about the state of the war?

thomez · 08-21-2007, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

With a Democratic presidential candidate essentially stating the surge is working,

Saying that there is military progress is not saying that the surge is working, the goals of the surge were stabilization so that political compromise could take place in Baghdad and that political compromise could not be farther from taking place than right now. They are on vacation and the Sunni bloc just quit.... how that equates to "the surge is working" I'll never know.

thomez · 08-21-2007, 07:00 AM

Claiming that the surge is working because there is military progress is like Romeo Cornell claiming the offense is working when the receivers run great routes and get open, even if there is nobody that can throw them the ball.

RMNIXON · 08-21-2007, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Do you really believe mainstream liberals are that myopic that all they care about is making the republicans look bad? Thats hard to believe. If your going by negative comments like "the war has been run poorly", "we have a bad strategy", "there is no political solution feasible with us there" then to me that is legitimate complaints that are backed up by the evidence.

No, not mainstream liberals. I would never paint with such a broad brush. But the far left, much of it involved in netroots, yes I do! Perhaps not that myopic in their thinking, but in their political selfishness. I can understand some politician in some back room meeting who suggest good news in Iraq might be a problem, but you must wonder about some of the grass roots people in a party who view it the same way.

RMNIXON · 08-21-2007, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Galactic Gigolo

We were being told one, two, three, four years ago that there were military successes in Iraq and that things were turning the corner. Shockingly, they turned out to be false. Can you not see why people tend to air on the side of doubt when we've been dealt four and a half years of half truths about the state of the war?

Again, if you read my second post you will see I said that this is a legit subject of debate. Political progress is important. I just do not trust a certain very vocal segment on the left, the one protesting the loudest about military failure, to be honest in that debate. That is my prediction and I stand by it.