Hillary has decided to be more "nuanced" when it comes to what she would do with Iraq as President. While her party is attempting to pass legislation to micro-manage the war, Hillary would instead rely on the advice of the military commanders. Huh? And it gets better. The urban war is a "loser." However, she would obviously have plenty of troops in Iraq to protect our “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq”.
Okay, so we would what? Guard oil wells and chase al Qaeda while all of Iraq burned down around us? And isn't the urban warfare she describes as a "loser" the very thing which would come to define Iraq as the failed state she claims we can't have? What a freaking moron this woman is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/washington/14cnd-clinton.html?_r=3&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
2007-03-15 06:13:34 · 2 answers · asked by Mail J 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It is practically impossible to get a straight answer out of Hillary. Every time she opens her mouth I get more confused about her positions. She cannot figure out what she would do in Iraq. She cannot say she would pull out completely because she would not. She cannot say she just wants to leave things as they are because the liberals would be very angry with her.
2007-03-15 06:34:54 · answer #1 · answered by gerafalop 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're absolutely right; why should we rely on the advice of those who are actually at the front? Nah, we should have GWB stay on as military advisor to the next President.
2007-03-15 13:18:12 · answer #2 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋