Did HRC Flip-Flop On Iraq?

This is what she said yesterday:

"“I think we can bring home one to two combat brigades a month,” she said. “I think we can bring nearly everybody home, you know, certainly within a year if we keep at it and do it very steadily.”

In truth, that's pretty much in accord with her previous statements. Unlike Bill Richardson, she'd leave a residual force in Iraq, but at the rate of two combat brigades a month, most of the troops would be redeployed in a year. Clinton isn't able to say that not a single US troop would be in Iraq by the end of her first term, although Richardson has made explicit that promise.

So -- not a flip-flop. But still a good way for Richardson to draw attention to himself.

Comments

I haven't followed this story closely, but I'm surprised Richardson would criticize HRC so forcefully, given what I thought was a pretty obvious campaign to be somebody's running mate. It's certainly not a foregone conclusion Hillary's going to be the nominee, but she's certainly still got a very strong shot, and would still have to be considered the favorite. I can't imagine this will help his chances with her. Perhaps the Richardson campaign's polling concludes there's a strong possibility Clinton will finish third in Iowa. Anything's possible, but I strongly suspect a third place finish in Iowa would mortally wound the queen. Alternate (conspiracy) theory: Hillary asked him to make the flip-flop charge, to give her an opportunity to dominate the diminishing pre-Christmas news cycle with her robust, substantive rebuttal (a rebuttal which, if successful, would directly counter one of the Obama campaigns principal talking point advantages over Clinton among anti-war Democrats).

Posted by Jasper | December 21, 2007 1:26 PM

On which issue hasn't she?

Posted by Paul | December 21, 2007 4:15 PM

Huh. Jasper, just read your comment. That's a pretty devious and thus possibly accurate thought.

Posted by Paul | December 21, 2007 4:18 PM

I liked this comment on MyDD:

"Bill Richardson has a perfectly valid point.

Hillary Clinton has made numerous ever-shifting positions about Iraq, and about the only real thing that we can trust that she'll actually do is continue to not tell the truth.

All through 2003/2004/2005, Clinton defended the Invasion of Iraq, praised Bush publicaly for being "resolute", and made public statements indistinguishable from fellow NeoCons Joe Lieberman & John McCain (Saddam, a man with no weapons, had to be overthrown, at the cost of billions of dollars and millions of lives).

Then she shifted her position around 2006 to being critical of Donald Rumsfeld (only when that was in vogue) and the "management" of the War (but not the immoral concept). Yet she disagreed with the idea of any withdrawal timetables or any policy (such as John Murtha's) calling for an end to the illegal occupation.

At the 11th hour, in 2007, she shifted again and started talking about bringing troops home, however, Richardson is correct that she has stated very clearly that she wants combat troops and Iraq combat missions to still remain (why?), and was dismissive of the idea of a full withdrawal.

Now, there is a shift once again, perhaps too subtle to be called a "flip-flop", but one that is not lost on anyone really paying attention. Her statement about having almost all troops out in a year is a dramatic departure from her language 9 months ago and certainly from a year ago. And it is also quite different from the statements that she made in the media only just 2-3 months ago about having troops remaining there for the next 10 years and even beyond her administration. Recall, in the debates that she said she would not commit to getting troops out by 2013 (Dodd did, Kucinich did, Gravel did, Richardson did, Edwards would not but said he didn't "expect" any left).

So, it is a completely valid point that Clinton is waffling all over the place on Iraq depending on either the audience, the polls, or on what she thinks will get her elected, or whatever. Tell that to the families of the dead soldiers.

Unlike Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel or Ron Paul or Bill Richardson, etc. there is no consistency or overall principle or logic behind what she says. She just tacks and shifts and jukes and jives around the issue to try and place herself in some preconceived "safe" political place that has to be readjusted from month to month. Meanwhile real people are dying there each and every day, and billions of taxpayers dollars are being thrown out the window.

Simply put, Hillary Clinton has no crediblity on either Iraq or Iran. She was wrong years ago, she is wrong now. And she has never stopped marketing the phony propaganda and White House talking-points."

Posted by Stephen Cassidy | December 22, 2007 1:28 AM

And I add that Richardson has taken it on the chin for advocating for a complete withdrawal of US forces from Iraq within one year. He has been accused of pandering to the voters by the editors and other candidates and their supporters, even though his reasoning on why we must withdraw can't be refuted.

At the Presidential debates Clinton, Obama and Edwards refused to pledge to bring our troops home by 2013. That's the message the political, media and military establishment in D.C. want to hear. That's the safe message, the one that fits CW. These people don't want to hear that the invasion - which they supported - was a grave error.

But the voter in Iowa is smarter. The voter wants a commitment from the candidates. Yesterday, Clinton was asked at forum when she would "bring the boys home."

Her response was designed to create the impression "nearly" everyone was coming home in a year, and protect her from losing support of anti-war voters.

When Clinton appears on the national talk shows and at the Presidential debates it's all about leaving Iraq "safely" and "responsibly" implying that Richardson's call for a complete withdrawal within a year is irresponsible and continuing the U.S. military presence in Iraq to fight terrorism, train the Iraqi army and provide security for the government.

Yet, when face to face with the Iowa voter, Clinton flips. It's nearly everyone out in 12 months. She deserves to be criticized for her inconsistency. And she deserves to be criticized for her deception on Iraq.

What you are also missing is Clinton offers a continuation of the current approach to U.S. foreign policy. As noted by William Arkin of the Washington Post earlier this year, "Clinton made it clear once again that she is a realist and a Washington fixture, demurring on the question of a "world free of nuclear weapons," a notable departure from the other candidates. Clinton supports a "global effort to reduce the terrible dangers of nuclear weapons," but she stops short of rhetorically committing herself to disarmament, preferring "sensible near-term steps."" http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarn ing/2007/08/bill_richardson_the_man_who_ wo.html

Richardson offers a strikingly new and honest approach to foreign affairs. As Arkin states:

"Now read how Bill Richardson handled the question of new nuclear warheads: "We do not need a new generation of nuclear weapons," he says, speaking as a former Energy secretary. "Under my administration, we will lead the world toward the reduction of nuclear arsenals, not their augmentation," he writes.

And then he tied it together with other objectives to make it real: "The Non-Proliferation Treaty commits non-nuclear states to forego nuclear weapons, and it also commits the nuclear weapons states to the goal of nuclear disarmament. Too often, this aspect of the Treaty is forgotten. In order to get others to take the NPT seriously, we need to take it seriously ourselves. We should re-affirm our commitment to the long-term goal of global nuclear disarmament, and we should invite the Russians to join us in a moratorium on all new nuclear weapons. And we should negotiate further staged reductions in our arsenals, beyond what has already been agreed, over the next decade."

Richardson also excels at answers on Russia, Iran and North Korea, on Pakistan, and on actual moves he might take to reduce the chance the nuclear weapons or nuclear materials would make their way into the hands of terrorists. "Negotiations to reduce our arsenal also represent our diplomatic ace-in-the-hole," Richardson writes. "We can leverage our own proposed reductions to get the other nuclear powers to do the same -- and simultaneously get the non-nuclear powers to forego both weapons and nuclear fuel enrichment, and to agree to rigorous global safeguards and verification procedures."

It is on Iraq though, that Richardson really shines. "I believe that we need to withdraw all of our troops within six months," he writes. "Other than the customary Marine contingent at the embassy, I would not leave anyone behind. And if the embassy isn't safe, they're coming home too. No airbases. No troops in the Green Zone. No embedded soldiers training Iraqi forces, because we know what that means. It means our troops would still be out on patrol -- with targets on their backs."

We are spending $10 billion a month on Iraq, Richardson says. "Of the many ways in which Mr. Bush's ill-conceived war has distracted us from our real national security needs, this is the most dangerous," he concludes. "There is not a single sign that Iraq is improving. To the contrary, every indication is that it's getting worse, and a smaller force will do nothing to change that."

And so Bill Richardson says something that the other candidates evidently can't or won't: "A regional crisis is worthy of military intervention. A true threat to our country's security is worthy of war. But a struggle between a country's warring factions, where both sides hate the United States, is not worthy of one more lost American life.""

Anyone that thinks Clinton will remove most, if not "nearly" all, U.S. troops within a year of taking office isn't paying attention. Clinton relies upon the architects of the Iraq morass and those that have deemed the surge successful to advise her of the course of action to take in Iraq. We can expect her advisers plan for Iraq will be a hawkish plan. Read my diary at http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/11/5/1610 18/509

Are we ever going to leave Iraq under Clinton? I highly doubt it. Go back to the question of why did we invade? Did we really care about Saddam's supposed WMD or was it the fact Iraq has some of the world's largest proven oil reserves? We are building an embassy the size of Vatican City in Iraq and our military bases are designed for a permanent occupation, equipped with "complete with first-run movie theaters, rental car agencies, Starbucks, Burger Kings, Subway sandwich shops, swimming pools, yoga studios, and shopping complexes. The U.S. is lengthening most of the existing runways at the air bases, fortifying the walls and blast barriers, and really digging in. There is not one single indicator to lead people to think the U.S. has any plans whatsoever of total withdrawal." Read http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archive s/interviews/000710.php#more

Posted by Stephen Cassidy | December 22, 2007 1:32 AM

"one to two combat brigades a month"--identical to Obama's suggestion (e.g. MTP after the JJ dinner), except for one difference: she sent them there.

Posted by JC | December 22, 2007 11:36 PM