What are your thoughts on the Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act introduced by Clinton on the 16th?

Question

The Iraq Troop Protection & Reduction Act

The Iraq Troop Protection & Reduction Act of 2007 presents a comprehensive approach to Iraq that halts the President's escalation policy and provides an alternative strategy in Iraq with the goal of stabilizing the country so American troops can redeploy out of Iraq. Senator Clinton's legislation puts real pressure on the Iraqi government, requiring the Iraqis to make political progress or lose funding for their military and reconstruction, require the Bush Administration to begin a phased redeployment and convene an international conference within 90 days or a new Congressional authorization would be required to remain in Iraq. Finally, the legislation would prohibit the use of funds to send troops to Iraq unless they have the proper equipment and training.

If the President were to follow the provisions in this legislation then the United States should be able to complete a redeployment of troops out of Iraq by the end of his term.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/hillcast/?sc=1113
http://democracyrising.us/content/view/783/165/

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I'm looking for real commentary on the actual proposals, not just a yea or nay on Hillary Clinton herself. Thank you.

Answer 1

Actually, that doesn't sound too bad. Pretty much forcing the Iraqi government to control it's people if they want any of our support. Will something like this work? Who knows. I'm not a military strategist.

Before anyone questions her knowledge, she does have her husband, lest we forget. He has excellent knowledge on foreign policy, whether you like him or not, is irrelevant.

Answer 2

it relatively is a disingenuopus ploy. all of them understand Bush plans onn bringing the troops domicile earlier he's out of workplace to assist the Respublican candidate. The democrats are attempting to place a pin on it that they are the explanation the troops are domicile. it relatively is an empty political ploy disguised as "helping" the troops. She must be embarrassed approximately herself, yet quite is smarmily patting herself on the lower back. She and John Murtha are enjoying politics with infantrymen' lives.

Answer 3

Unless the dems have the guts to ACTUALLY cut funding, instead of wasting their time debating non-binding resolutions, it's just alot of hot air and wasted taxpayer money.

It doesn't matter what the text of the 'act' says, or how you spin it -- it's NON-BINDING so it means diddly-squat.

Oh, and don't let the rhetoric get you either, that "this is just the first step in a series". They won't ever vote on a bill that limited or cut funding for the war, on the floor of the house, where they are called to account.

They might try and sneak cuts in, on amendments of other bills, where they wouldn't have to be directly accountable, and that's even more despicable, IMO.


.

Answer 4

Stupid!
Go ahead tell the enemy what you're going to do and when.
Equipment, training,who's going to decide the military or a pack of liberal politicians?
We have the best trained,best equiped forces in the world,how are the libs going to improve on that?
Hillary will pull out,give Iraq to the Iranians and send our troops to Darfur,to fight that civil war.

Answer 5

and this is who you want as your next Commander and Chief ? I want a liberal Government protection act where we can remove Senators like Clinton after 90 days after a cut and run policy fails.

Answer 6

sounds like hilary is willing to put herself on track for a showdown in the supreme court over the power of the commander and chief which since the president has that power she would be humiliated for introducing that act when she loses

Answer 7

If Congress wasn't prepared to support this war in every possible circumstance, then they shouldn't have authorized it.

Armchair generals lost Vietnam too. I don't see how any strategy thought up by politicians can be successful if it involves giving us less resources to fight, not more.

Answer 8

Sounds like a "turn tail and run", which is what liberal democrats are good for....and that's about all they are good for...oh yes...and raising taxes for the "social"programs...you know...to give to people who are too damn lazy to work and take care of their own families...and the illegals who cross and immediately drop the anchor babies....

Answer 9

It's unconstitutional.

Answer 10

LOOPHOLE!! There is no mention of where the troops will redeploy.??Next door ??