Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Queen of the Waffle House? Or nuanced?
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, March 15, 2007

Speaking today:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.
Feb 17th:
"Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war," the New York senator said in a video on her campaign Web site, repeating a point included in a bill she introduced on Friday.
At this rate she's going to make Kerry look consistent.

In reality, and all jabs aside, Clinton's point today is actually somewhat reasonable. It points to either a dawning reality of the importance of supporting Iraq, or a decision to quit playing politics with the question, at least for the day. But it is also completely unlike the arbitrary 90 pull-out requirement she was calling for less than a month ago.

If there's a quagmire to be found in Iraq, I'd guess it has mostly to do with the many positions of Hillary Clinton on the question. Sticky stuff.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

mmmmmmm waffle house. scattered and chunked, but never smothered.
Written By: kyleN
Clinton’s point today is actually somewhat reasonable.
Just wait till Stoller finds out.
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
It is? We’re going to leave 75,000 THOUSAND troops in Iraq, but if there’s ethnic cleansing we’re gonna let it happen?

I’m not being snarky or trying to start a fight McQ. I’m just saying her position is REASONABLE? At best it splits the difference, 75,000 is LESS than 150-180,000, but it’s more than 0. And they’ll be there but if the Shi’i turn on the Sunni we’re doing nothing? Why would we be there, then?

It’s a NON-SENSICAL position...and it’s like splitting the difference on Abortion. Generally speaking one is fer it or a’gin it, with very little wiggle room, and to split the difference tends to be silly, What you’re for it for 3 days a week and every other Sunday and the "waffle" tends to anger partisans on both sides. So too here. We either need a large presence in Iraq actively fighting or we need a small to ZERO presence...and fudging makes Netroots and Joe angry...

I get the 75,000 from an earlier story on her position, BTW, and the same source allowed that HRC had said we would NOT get involved in any internal fighting...

But to reiterate....Waffles uuuuuu’uuuum I agree no onions.
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
The only sane way to implement it would be to have the bulk of the troops in Kurdistan with training teams elsewhere.

And the idea that you could go after AQ elements while staying out of sectarian issues is a farce. So that will simply be dropped.
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
At this rate she’s going to make Kerry look consistent.
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
There’s nothing inconsistent about it. I don’t like it much, but it’s consistent. Not everyone pushing for redeployment has been suggesting 100% evac. More of them have been suggesting a draw-down from the beginning. Even the total withdrawal people have been making exceptions for Al-Quieda hunting in Iraq. That’s an unavoidable neccesity, and it’s markedly different from what we’re currently doing.

75,000 troops is way more than neccesary for that mission, though, way too many to achieve the fundamental goal of ending the provocation of continuing violence.

And the idea that you could go after AQ elements while staying out of sectarian issues is a farce. So that will simply be dropped.

A farce, huh? Care to back that up with... anything? "Going after AQ elements" involves watching for people planning international terrorist attacks and killing them. "Getting involved in sectarian issues" means enforcing obediance on the entire population and subduing every independent armed group in the country. They’re completely different missions, and nothing about the first one requires the second one.
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
"Queeen of the Waffle House?"
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
Smart political move on her part. If she wants to be "Commander and Chief". She best well start to behave like one.
Written By: coater
URL: http://
Heh ... yeah, ’nost. Not even Crooks and Lairs is buying what you’re selling. They claim she’s spouting every one of the "White House talking points" for Iraq. And that’s quite a difference from the "get out in 90 days" rhetoric of a few weeks ago.
Written By: McQ
Ah, the unintended consequences of starting the campaign way too soon; too many opportunities for opening your mouth and inserting your foot. Your statement that, “At this rate she’s going to make Kerry look consistent” was great and could apply to other candidates in the near future.
Written By: AMR
URL: http://
I dislike Hillary as much as anybody, but technically, there’s no contradiction. The redeployment could start in 90 days, but not finish for years, and thus there would be a "remaining military as well as political mission."
Written By: Paul Eastlund
URL: http://
I’m just saying her position is REASONABLE? At best it splits the difference, 75,000 is LESS than 150-180,000, but it’s more than 0.
Just enough to get massacred.
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks