Hillary says the surge is working. And she wants to lead an anti-war party?

Question

Swallowing the Pentagon's "the surge is working" propaganda is no way to lead America's anti-war majority.

Answer 1

once again she is on both sides of the issue
i want to follow that into the next 4-8 years

Answer 2

And screaming that our soldiers are murders is a better way to lead?

Actually if you think about it she is being smart, if the surge is working then the argument can be made that once we have created enough of a bumper that the Iraqis can take over then the US forces can withdraw.

By screaming that we are losing she is going to push away the fence sitter vote.

Try to look at it with a logical mind not an emotional one.

Then again I never credit the anti-war crowd with the ability to use critical and logical thinking.

Answer 3

I think it is a misnomer to call the Democratic Party an anti-war party. As for Hillary, I imagine she feels comfortably ahead and is playing for the general election. If some other Dems were to begin closing in, I imagine she would change her tone somewhat. Anti-war and Pro-war are meaningless terms once you've been to war.

Answer 4

Anti war majority, thats a laugher, I think you remeber what the polls said in november 04, and when we invaded Iraq in 03. But hey you can't deny the facts, as much as I detest Hillary Clinton. Your right about her though, her opinion slides with the polls. What do you think about your own propoganda that spreads around daily?

Answer 5

like I have said here the answer is time and time again more troops there to control the situation, as dictated in the manuals used for a proper occupation of ANY country..

the formula followed since ww2 and up to the late 90's (even by Clinton in Kosovo) calls for a ration of 40 to 1 (civilians vs military personnel) in a country occupied, since the occupier has to become the cop, the firefighter, the public service, etc etc etc....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10161-2004May8?language=printer

even the Washington Post published that YEARS ago....!

the answer has ALWAYS been more troops, problem is we DON't have them anymore, not since the cuts (butchery) of the military in the 90's, when we lost HALF the forces we had to the "base closings" and the fictitious "surplus" and now we have jack crap...!

have a nice day!

Answer 6

My own assessment on the surge is blended. collectively as there is fulfillment in some aspects, different aspects there are no longer, even Petraeus' on record reflects that. One substantial question is why it took see you later to realize a surge become mandatory, and maximum severely, why become an sufficient style of troops weren't on the floor presently after the invasion? there are a number of severe-score militia officers and militia pundits who propose strongly that had we a much better stress on the beginning up of the invasion, lots of the insurgency could have been curbed. i do no longer think of that is a accident that removing Rumsfeld from the administration, finally brought about extra advantageous fulfillment on the floor. nevertheless, the democrats have been spineless on the Iraq warfare because of the fact it began. lots of them voted for it, then condemned it while Rumsfeld's approach backfired, then defended the MoveOn.Org attack advert on Petraeus, and now declare the surge is "working". nevertheless, the Republican management has lots to respond to for the mismanagement of our troops. We did no longer supply our women and adult males human beings the main appropriate numbers, deployment and equipment to do their job. purely now are we making amends, and die-annoying Republicans are patting themselves on the lower back for it. we gained't deliver our women and adult males human beings to warfare and not using a valid plan to win ever lower back, and the preliminary Iraqi invasion plan become poorly conceived. purely the bravery and artwork ethic of our troops gave us the time, and risk to ultimately comprehend a surge become mandatory. I applaud the troops, I condemn the preliminary plan of invasion. and that i quite condemn politicians who substitute their minds in this invasion with each and each passing season.

Answer 7

Take a good look at Hillary. White Water in their own state, Her Husband was a liar, and she still stayed with him, And she ran the presidents deal on every one of was going to have an insurance card that "NO ONE" could take away that she failed like an ATOMIC BOMB going off. She is out for HERSELF and NO,NO,NO, ETC. TO ANY ONE ELSE.
Do I need say more?
Bulldog

Answer 8

And she wants to be President??? She can't even hold a firm opinion for more tha 5 minutes; she's like a weather vane, turning to where the winds blow.

Even she realizes that the Surge IS working. But you, you rare too thick-headed to realize the plain truth...

WE ARE WINNING IN IRAQ.

Answer 9

Hillary is paid up, bought out, member of the flip-flop, zionist, brigade. I won't be voting for her and if she were nominated, I would honestly pray and wish that a Republican wins the White House.

This woman is a political Ho and she doesn't deserve the high office.

Answer 10

I TOLD EVERYONE SO!

Hillary will switch positions faster than a frog can snag a fly. She is as phony and poll driven as the universe is vast.