Clinton: Voters can 'count on me' to end war
Following on the Iraq war debate on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, the Democratic presidential hopefuls are bringing the issue today to Pennsylvania, site of the next nomination showdown.
Hillary Clinton went first, using past statements by Republican John McCain and a former adviser to Democratic rival Barack Obama to frame voters' choice this way:
One candidate (McCain) wants to keep US troops in Iraq for as long as 100 years, one candidate (Obama) says he wants to withdraw from Iraq but it might be "just words," and one candidate (her) is "ready, willing, and able" to end the war.
"You can count on me to end the war safely and responsibly," she said before a town hall meeting in Aliquippa, Pa.
McCain has taken pains to clarify that his "100 years" remark is about a peacekeeping mission where US troops would not be in harm's way.
UPDATE: Blair Latoff, a Republican National Committee spokeswoman, issued this response on McCain's behalf: "Rather than listening to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, it is clear Senator Clinton is listening to the Democrats left-wing base. Her call for retreat from the war on terror would leave Iraq in chaos, and leave the US with the prospect of a wider and more difficult war.”
Former Obama adviser Samantha Power, who resigned last month from her unpaid post after a controversy over her calling Clinton a "monster," said in interviews in Britain that Obama's withdrawal plan was a "best-case scenario" that would he would revisit once he took the oath of office.
Obama, since the interviews by Powers, has reiterated that he plans to complete a phased withdrawal of US combat troops within 16 months of taking office. He plans town halls later today in Malvern and Levittown.
UPDATE: Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan issued this response: "Hillary Clinton's tired and discredited attack is just the same old politics that won't end this war that she voted to authorize, and won't change the fact that she has repeatedly misled the American people about her Iraq record. We're happy to have a debate with Hillary Clinton over who the American people trust to end this war, since Barack Obama is the only candidate who had the judgment to oppose the war from the very beginning, not just from the beginning of a campaign for president."
I hope she has a solid withdraw plan.
Pulling the troops out quickly won't end the war.
In fact if every NATO troop were to be pulled out today it wouldn't end the war.
The Muslim jihadists will still find a way to kill innocent people worldwide everyday.
And they'll strike the US mainland again as well.
They won't ever give up until Israel and the US are destroyed, be it by conventional, unconventional, or nuclear means. They have stated this purpose time and time again and have taken enough heads to drive the point home to any reasonable person.
I'm afraid any pullout would lead to terrorist attacks right here in the US that would make 9/11 seem like small fry.
"Warmonger" Mc, Cain hates war??? He said he will be in Iraq, 100 YEARS , how much more time would he be there if he did like war? Republicans don't like wars, were no richness on those countries are involve (Oil, Mines, Diamonds ,ETc) if a region is poor and miserable and there is dead and desolation, they don't care about it, at all!! AND THEY PROCLAIM THEY ARE THE PARADIGM OF CHRISTIANITY!!! ( THE CONSIDER THEMSELVES THE BEST CHRISTIANS IN THIS WORLD. Christians should preserve life at any cost, And REPUBLICANS, are producing, KILLING FIELDS, all around the world, is that the only motive they do not want ABORTIONS they oNLY WANT TO PRESERVE LIFE!! TO HAVE A LOT OF A NEW GENERATIONS TO SEND TO THE KILLING FIELS!!
I am one of those voters who is female and older but I am not backing Hillary. To vote for her just because she is female is totally irresponsible. I also, am not an African American older female but a white, 73 year old female with a Master's Degree. I am voting for Obama because I believe he says what is in his heart; And I believe that he holds the people, the country, our children and our elderly first. Hillary has always had the interests and welfare of Hillary first. Obama is a "we can do it"candidate; Hillary is an "I am the only one who can do it" candidate.
HILLARY'S POOR JUDGMENT leaves AMERICANS FOOTING THE bill...
.
THE WAR IN IRAQ IS HAVING SERIOUS NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON OUR ECONOMY and those who voted for the war (i.e. hillary) should be to blame, in part, for the state of the US economy.
Look how the WAR IN IRAQ is affecting the US economy...
$3,000,000,000… 3 billion dollars PER WEEK! That is the amount America is paying for the Iraq War PER WEEK, money that should have been used here, at home.
Add to this:
Interest. We are financing the war with borrowed money (e.g. treasuries) that carries interest; so in actuality, the war is costing the United States MORE THAN 3 billion dollars PER WEEK.
Higher oil and energy prices. Instability in Iraq is adding roughly 30 dollars per barrel as a premium.
High oil prices mean high utility bills. Due to high oil prices, demand shifts to other sources of energy - gas, coal, etc. - and greater demand will raise the equilibrium price of all sources of energy -- Can you say high energy bills?
Higher oil prices (a raw material used in the production of many goods, fertilizers, gasoline, diesel, plastics, etc.) mean higher prices of goods and services -- Can you say INFLATION?
Higher oil prices mean a higher trade deficit because most of our oil comes from foreign sources. A higher trade deficit means more money is leaving the country than is coming into the country -- Can you say Goodbye to your hard-earned money!
Our dollar is weak and getting weaker. Since we have a trade deficit and is growing in large part to the rising cost of imported oil, the value of goods and services we import exceeds the value of goods we export. You know that foreign car you're thinking of buying or the computer you're using, or that trip abroad you've been thinking of taking....well, guess what? It is going to cost more, Ceteris Peribus, because the dollar is weak and getting weaker.
Lastly, how do you think the world views our country since the argument was made for war? The evidence was weak and circumstantial, yet we rushed into war with Iraq thanks to hillary’s authorization.
The sad thing is most people take her word at face value and do not ascertain the facts. If they did they would see she is just "using words" without substance in hopes of getting votes. The smartest plan is that of Obama who will wiegh all matters and options before determining exactly when and how he will bring the troops home in sixteen months. I am thoroughly disgusted with the tired old worn out political tactics of the Clintons. She is folowing the Rove book chapter by chapter. I am curious of the outcome of the court hearing in Caifornia this month
in which both Clintons will answer to charges of fraud. What will she do and the media do if there is sufficient reason and evidence to bring this to trial? Will the media report on this then? Being charged with a felony charge of fraud of millions of dollars is quite different than attending a church where the pastor make inflammatory sermons. The Clintons must have a lot of clout with the media corporate officers to keep this out of the news. However it is a matter of public record in the California court documents. Reports state 39% of people do not trust Hillary. I do not trust her at all. She is using the same old ploy of telling people what they want to hear in order to get votes. We should have learned our lesson with Bush.
Just like we can count on Hillary's word about so many things...
Sniper-fire in Bosnia
Being alegedly against the Colombian trade agreement when her two senior spoksmen, Penn and Wolfson, have been publicly on the Colombian payroll for nearly a year, and her husband Bill has taken over $800,000 from the Colombians to help push their trade agreement.
Did Hillary not even look at her own tax returns to see Bill's $800,000? Or is this just another example of "misspeak?"
HILLARY'S POOR JUDGMENT VOTING FOR THE IRAQ WAR leaves AMERICANS FOOTING THE BILL
THE WAR IN IRAQ IS HAVING SERIOUS NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON OUR ECONOMY and those who voted for the war (i.e. hillary) should be to blame, in part, for the state of the US economy.
Look how the WAR IN IRAQ is affecting the US economy...
$3,000,000,000… 3 billion dollars PER WEEK! That is the amount America is paying for the Iraq War PER WEEK, money that should have been used here, at home.
Add to this:
Interest. We are financing the war with borrowed money (e.g. treasuries) that carries interest; so in actuality, the war is costing the United States MORE THAN 3 billion dollars PER WEEK.
Higher oil and energy prices. Instability in Iraq is adding roughly 30 dollars per barrel as a premium.
High oil prices mean high utility bills. Due to high oil prices, demand shifts to other sources of energy - gas, coal, etc. - and greater demand will raise the equilibrium price of all sources of energy -- Can you say high energy bills?
Higher oil prices (a raw material used in the production of many goods, fertilizers, gasoline, diesel, plastics, etc.) mean higher prices of goods and services -- Can you say INFLATION?
Higher oil prices mean a higher trade deficit because most of our oil comes from foreign sources. A higher trade deficit means more money is leaving the country than is coming into the country -- Can you say Goodbye to your hard-earned money!
Our dollar is weak and getting weaker. Since we have a trade deficit and is growing in large part to the rising cost of imported oil, the value of goods and services we import exceeds the value of goods we export. You know that foreign car you're thinking of buying or the computer you're using, or that trip abroad you've been thinking of taking....well, guess what? It is going to cost more, Ceteris Peribus, because the dollar is weak and getting weaker.
Lastly, how do you think the world views our country since the argument was made for war? The evidence was weak and circumstantial, yet we rushed into war with Iraq thanks to hillary’s authorization.
Hilliary does not lie! All she did was try to make the playing field between herself and a true American hero a little more even. That makes her perhaps envious and a little devious, oh what the hell a little lie isn't that bad. But it does show a tendency to exaggerate the truth if you don't care or think you can't get busted or nobody would believe a Clinton would lie. Or would they?
Is it an optical illusion or is Hilliary’s nose getting longer after each time she is interviewed about her personal and political experiences.
Nothing but a vote to separate our government from an obvious sense of entitlement by one candidates special interest groups, and lobbyist will allow a free democracy to survive.. The United States is bankrupt- voters can't afford to feed or shelter themselves let alone purchase gasoline for their cars..
Understand that "evil prevails when good people do nothing" The time has come to say goodbye to the clintons.
First off, I don't think Hillary's recent exaggerations are enough to assume that she won't keep her promise of taking us out of Iraq. It is human nature for people to lie or exxagerate (as Hillary did). I would be lying if I sat here now and said that I don't lie or exaggerate that often. Though Hillary isn't just another normal person, she has human characteristics and faults just like the rest of us. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't make it ok, but it makes it normal. Furthermore, her recent over-statements don't even compare to the lies that our current leader of the U.S. shoveled us. I honestly don't like some of the actions that Hillary has taken, but I firmly believe overall that she has what it takes. She has what it takes to lead our great country out of economic and foreign scrutiny. So to sum it up, don't judge, look foward to brighter things (like us finally ridding ourselves of the American Idiot that we empowered). And let's not let our mistake of empowering this fool, affect Hillary.
ha ha ha ha ha...
Sorry, I don't know what else to say to Hillary's statement "You can count on me to end the war safely and responsibly".
Hillary, you voted for that war. You dropped a vase and let it shatter. You can even then sit down and glue it back together, but it will never be the same. That is why we need someone with good judgement; someone we can trust; someone who will not make backdoor deals when professing against Free Trade Agreement.
I'm a New York resident and voted twice for Bill Clinton as president and Hillary Clinton as senator. However, the more I learn about them, the more I realize how power hungry they are. It seems like they will do or say anything to gain power or cling to it including lying or misrepresenting the facts repeatedly. I frankly have no trust in them now.
Kenel A.
First...Hillary is obviously more genuine than Obama..For those of you who care to really research, you'll find Obama is the hypocrite, not Hillary.
Obama gave an anti-war speech at an anti-war rally in 2002. It would have taken more guts to be "for" the war, for goodness sakes. If you'll read the entire statement Sen. Clinton made during the time the war resolution vote took place, you'll see that she did indeed call for inspectors to do their job, and war as a last resort, but I don't really expect you all to read the true story afterall. After entering the US Senate, it was a full 11 months before Obama spoke out against the war. He didn't take one tough stand at any time in the US Senate. Obama also praised Kerry, Kennedy, and Rockefellow for their votes...guess what...they all voted for the war resolution.
Obama is the one who will say anything to get votes. It isn't Hillary who says she doesn't take money from lobbyists, special intersts, and oil and gas employees. It is Obama who says this. Actually, he's based his whole campaign on this premise. His voters actually believe this, because most never go to Factcheck.org to see all the times and places he has misled.
FYI...Obama takes plenty of money from employees of oil and gas co., he has former "registered" lobbyists working on his campaign, he takes money from "friends" of lobbyists, he takes money from "firms" that hire lobbyists, he's paid the superdelegates more money to date(yes, this is legal) than HRC, he's taken more money from drug co.'s to date than HRC. It is Obama who actually voted for the Bush/Cheney energy bill that padded the pockets even further for the big oil execs.
Obama calls himself the unifier...Well, that's ironic, because as C. Roberts points out, during his short time in the US Senate, he made little attempts at working across party lines, but HRC, however, showed this ability time after time.
HRC is by far the most genuine of the two. I admit she's more complicated and easily misunderstood, and she's great fodder for the TV pundits who capitalize on voters who vote based on one liner tidbits without doing credible research.
HRC knows policy much more thoroughly than Obama....HRC has the passion to see her commitments to fruition, and HRC will work her heart out.
Just saw an article where a second controversial pastor/advisor/mentor of Obama's has been revealed. The liberal elites may nominate this slick, ambitious, glamour boy for our Democratic nominee, but I don't think he can win in the general. The Republicans will eat him up, and now with this latest religious fanatic being another one Obama turns to for guidance, our chances are next to nil. The far left liberals continue to put forth Democratic nominees who can not win.
Have you all read the Obama IQ Quiz where it states while in the IL Senate, Obama almost came to blows with a colleague because Obama "accidentally" hit the wrong button and voted for budget cuts that eliminated a child welfare office in the colleague's district. He earned the reputation of "gutless" and "absent" a colleague stated, because he was always "gone" when time to make the tough votes. They did agree that he was intelligent and "ambitious" however.
HRC'08
Dear Mrs. Clinton,
Could you kindly explain how someone who is surrounded by people accepting financial gratification from foreign governments and corporations would be able to defend America's interests?
What if at 3am a Sheik is on the phone reminding you you owe him a favor?
Could you kindly lift any doubt we may have by revealing whom the donors to the Clinton Library and Foundation are, with amounts received? And to whom President Clinton and you generously gave 10 tax-deductible millions?
Regarding the solutions you have to America's major problems, could you let us know why you did not succeed implementing them during the 8-year William Clinton presidency or since you are a Senator. Examples: health care, war in Irak, NAFTA, end to the influence of lobbyists in DC, poverty...
Finally, could you let us know how you are going to restore US reputation abroad where, trust me, I travel a lot, the vast majority of Canadians, Asians and Europeans are split and pray Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain will win the election while - I apologise - they smile each time you involuntary misspeak?
Thank you.
More poor judgment from the Clinton campaign. Her continued attempts to discredit Sen. Obama's proposals as just rhetoric have never proved effective, yet she persists. Bringing up Iraq in any fashion simply boomerangs back to her authorization for war in the first place. The only thing we can truly "count on" from Senator Clinton is that she will weigh which adviser to listen to that day and parrot that narrative instead of thinking for herself and speaking in her own voice. Finding her voice in N.H. was nothing more than becoming misty-eyed from sleep deprivation, then it was back to parroting horrible lines like "change you could xerox." If a person of sixty years old does not trust her own ability to communicate authentically, then requesting the trust of her constituency becomes moot.
More poor judgment from the Clinton campaign. Her continued attempts to discredit Sen. Obama's proposals as just rhetoric have never proved effective, yet she persists. Bringing up Iraq in any fashion simply boomerangs back to her authorization for war in the first place. The only thing we can truly "count on" from Senator Clinton is that she will weigh which adviser to listen to that day and parrot that narrative instead of thinking for herself and speaking in her own voice. Finding her voice in N.H. was nothing more than becoming misty-eyed from sleep deprivation, then it was back to parroting horrible lines like "change you could xerox." If a person of sixty years old does not trust her own ability to communicate authentically, then requesting the trust of her constituency becomes moot.
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
Send your comments to masspolitics@globe.com
browse this blog
by categoryINside Boston.com