huff poster-

"Don't be distracted by Hillary's latest--the let's repeal the congressional authorization for the war that I voted for maneuver. That will never pass and she knows it. She's just hoping she can ride it through the primary and neutralize the why won't you apologize for your vote question. Pay attention to this instead: Say what you will about the neocons in general and Bill Kristol in particular--they are not stupid, and they have principles. In there think tanks and club houses, they are completely shut off from the reality of ordinary people's lives and they don't really care about them--that's essentially what separates them from progressives. But they believe stuff. They aren't political hacks. Thay aren't blindly attached to any regime or personality. They turned against Donald Rumsfeld when, from their point of view, he blew the war in Iraq and they will turn against Little George too when the time comes. In this debate with Robert Kuttner hosted by The American Prospect, Bill Kristol, gave us a preview of how neocon thinking is evolving now that the Bush boat is foundering. He was arguing that "responsible Democrats" are going to have to deal with the same world (Islamic terror, Iraq, etc.) that the Bush administration has been dealing with. His point was that, when that time comes, there won't be that much difference in content (as opposed to style) between a "responsible Democratic" administration and the Bush regime. Then, sort of being humorous, but not really--he was actually blushing-- he said something to the effect that he thinks that it might a good thing for this country if a responsible Democrat were to win the next election so that the nation as a whole will realize this truth. Then he mumbled something about how he's tempted to come out and support Hillary--but of course he wouldn't do that because that would only hurt her chances...
- dave 5-05-2007 4:50 am

Chris Bowers at MyDD finds this excerpt late in the Times piece

Talking to reporters after her floor speech in a mostly empty Senate chamber, Mrs. Clinton indicated that her view was that rescinding the original vote would mean that troops would be out as of October. "They have no authority to continue," she said. "That is the point."

Later, however, her aides said Mrs. Clinton was not seeking a total withdrawal of troops from Iraq, or a quick pullout that could put troops at risk. They said she had called for a phased pullout that would leave a reduced American force to pursue terrorist cells in Iraq, support the Kurds and conduct other missions -- a position she continued to support, her aides said.

Once again, we have Senator Clinton implying in a public speech that she would withdraw all troops, only to have aides, policy papers or more detailed interviews reveal otherwise after the fact. At best, this can latest episode can be read as seeking to revoke Bush's authority to end the war entirely, even if she believes her superior management skills would mean that remaining troops in Iraq would be successful if she was President. At worst, this is simply another case where a top-tier Democratic presidential candidate is misrepresenting his or her position on Iraq. Tell the base on the stump that you are going to pull out all troops, even if your policy clearly states that you will "leave a reduced American force to pursue terrorist cells in Iraq, support the Kurds and conduct other missions." That is not ending the war--that is just reducing it. And, as we have covered in the past, it is not just Clinton carrying on this charade.

This continuing dishonesty with the Democratic base on Iraq is disheartening behavior for our top tier candidates to engage in. It really makes me feel patronized, and as though they think we can played for uninformed rubes. They tell us they will end the war, and then lay out continuing missions for American troops in Iraq that will require tens of thousands of soldiers. We have 160,000 soldiers in Iraq now--how many will be required to "pursue terrorist cells in Iraq, support the Kurds and conduct other missions"? 10,000? 30,000? 75,000? I don't know, but I do know that the mission Clinton lays down for the reduced troop force she wants in Iraq sounds a lot like Bush's, only without the democracy part.

It really pisses me off that few members of the media more prominent than myself are calling out the leading Democratic candidates on this matter. To date, about the only commenter I have even seen mention it on television was actually Peter Bienart. There are those of you who might argue that I am somehow sowing Democratic disunity by consistently bringing this up, but a primary is when we should be debating internal differences like this. It matters a lot to me that some Democratic candidates, like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, want to keep, say, 30,000 troops in Iraq, whereas John Edwards and Chris Dodd might only want 10,000, and Bill Richardson wants none. Will Democrats keep the Iraq war going at a 20% clip? A 10% clip? A 0% clip? This is an extremely important issue, and those who wish to lead us need to be honest with us.