Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:

Wonder Boy said:...

I find Hilary Clinton's timing for such a 180-degree shift to be just too coincidental.
A week ago, Lieberman was projected to win his re-election primary. Hilary still supported the war unwaveringly.
Now, 7 days later, Lieberman has been alienated by the Angry Left and is projected to lose. The message is clear: Democrats will bitterly oppose even their most favored, who dare to support the war. And what a surprise, Sen. Clinton suddenly abandons her principles and condemns the war.

It's way too coincidental to be anything else.


What your saying is just untrue Wonder Boy. I think it's fair to say that Hillary has been a vocal critic of our President's poor leadership concerning Iraq for quite some time now.



I can acknowledge that she's made some level of criticism of Bush's policies. But she has consistently distanced herself from the the anti-war/pacifist "bring the troops home now!"-branch of the Democrat party.
Until now.

Again, her sudden shift coincides with the Democrat backlash at Sen. Leiberman.
This is the guy who was the Democrat Vice Presidential candidate for the 2000 election !
And yet Democrats have eaten one of their own for Lieberman's daring to say that despite mistakes made, the Iraq mission needs to go on.
Sen. Clinton has seen her own candidacy poised to be similarly snuffed out, received the message, and made her opportunistic switch.

Quote:

M E M said:
Last month she joined 38 other Dems in a resolution that called for troops to start exiting Iraq this year, without setting a withdrawal deadline.



That was, again, within the window of Lieberman's very recent lynching by his own party.


Quote:

M E M said
Last November, Clinton voted for a Democratic amendment calling for a "phased redeployment" of U.S. troops from Iraq. What you depict as a 180 degree turn ignores her actual record.



As I recall, that bill didn't get passed, and was a humiliation for Democrats, making them appear as having a lack of resolve, wanting to cut and run (i.e., looking like pussies).

Hilary Clinton, while occasionally posturing, has distanced herself from Cindy Sheehan and others pushing for immediate withdrawal. Sen. Clinton has tried over the last 4 years to appear hawkish enough to not be dismissed as weak on defense.
Until now.

Quote:

M E M said
And lets not forget that there was somebody sitting across from Hillary that actually did a 180. When confronted with his constant Pollyana portayal of Iraq by Clinton, Rumsfeld lied.



That is, of course, your distorted spin of the truth.

Every indicator shows that the Al Qaida/insurrection movement is losing strength. While Rumsfeld was wrong in not initially deploying enough troops to occupy and stop the insurgency in its early stages in 2003-2004, for which I'd prefer him to be replaced, Rumsfeld is right, and has been right, in his "Pollyana" optimism regarding gradual containment of Al Qaida assisted insurgents in Iraq.

But in recent months, ethnic violence between Sunnis and Shias has been growing. These are not war casualties, these are ethnic violence. They are not aimed at U.S. or other Coalition soldiers. They are not aimed at the Iraqi government.

While this is a serious threat to Iraq's stability, it annoys me how Democrats ignore that progress has been made in Iraq (most dramatically, the killing of Al Qaida leader Zarqawi a few weeks ago, with a lot of seized intelligence that showed Al Qaida weakening significantly, something the liberal media chooses not to report).
But Democrats avoid acknowledging progress on this front, by emphasising the ethnic violence aspect of Iraq.

I'll say it again:

If during World War II this country were subject to the same liberal sympathy for the enemy that exists now, the same outright liberal disinformation, the same divisive partisan attacks on our leaders at every turn, the same calls to bring our troops home with every minor setback and bombing, then we would have lost World War II.