After Iraq Trip, Clinton Proposes War Limits
After Iraq Trip, Clinton Proposes War Limits
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday called President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq “a losing strategy” and proposed placing new limits on the White House’s conduct of the war.
Her comments came after a weekend trip to Iraq and amounted to her latest effort to bolster her credentials as a critic of the war at the outset of the 2008 presidential race.
Starting at 7 a.m. with back-to-back appearances on NBC and CBS, Senator Clinton devoted her day to a choreographed effort to press the Bush administration to change its Iraq policy and to outline a set of views that might bring her more in sync with Democratic primary voters.
Mrs. Clinton, who is expected to announce plans to run for president soon, sought to tap into the intense and bitter emotions that many Democrats feel about the war, as she promised to introduce legislation to cap the number of troops in Iraq and to place restraints on the administration’s policy.
“I’m really passionate about getting the administration’s attention because they hold most of the cards,” Mrs. Clinton said during an interview in her Senate office here. “And I don’t want to keep losing these young men and women.”
Her new political offensive on Iraq came one day after Senator Barack Obama of Illinois announced that he had formed an exploratory committee for a presidential bid and three days after another likely rival, former Senator John Edwards, took an indirect swipe at Mrs. Clinton and other members of Congress for not doing more to oppose the war in Iraq.
Hours after Mrs. Clinton’s announcement, Mr. Obama said that he, too, would support a cap on troop levels. Mrs. Clinton also took her own glancing shot back at Mr. Edwards, saying in the interview that it was important for political candidates in 2008 to avoid “finger-pointing, hot rhetoric” on Iraq.
Mrs. Clinton offered sharp criticism of the administration while also staking out two positions that might alienate antiwar Democrats: She said that she would oppose cutting off any funds for American troops and that she would not rush to set a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq.
“I’m not going to cut American troops’ funding right now — they’re in harm’s way,” Mrs. Clinton said, rejecting for the moment pressure from some antiwar Democrats who want Congress to use its power of the purse to end the war. “But what I do want to do is to send a message to the Iraqi government — the funding for their security forces and personal security is at risk — and to send a message to the White House that there are certain conditions that we expect them to meet, or they have to come for new authorization for troops to remain in Iraq.”
The senator described her philosophy about military power as one rooted in pragmatism. Regardless of the pressure from some liberals and antiwar Democrats, Mrs. Clinton said she was skeptical about embracing hard timetables and cutting off financing in Iraq, for instance, because they were not practically feasible.
“I am not for imposing a date — certain withdrawal date,” she said. “But don’t be mistaken, I am for ending this war as soon as possible.”
She announced that she would support the bipartisan resolution introduced Wednesday opposing Mr. Bush’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad. And, taking aim at uncooperative Iraqi leaders, she said her forthcoming legislation would cut off funds for their bodyguards and security services unless they did more to support American troops in Iraq.
She said the legislation would also propose capping the number of troops at the levels they were on Jan. 1 — roughly 130,000. After she announced that on the 7 a.m. broadcasts, Mr. Obama followed suit, saying at 4 p.m. that he would introduce a bill proposing a cap as well. Aides to a third likely Democratic contender, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, cried foul, saying that Mrs. Clinton’s plan to propose a cap seemed to copy a similar proposal by Mr. Dodd.
Mrs. Clinton said that candidates in the 2008 race should be thoughtful and responsible when talking about war, rather than trying to score easy political points with red-meat rhetoric.
“I am cursed with the responsibility gene.” she said. “I am. I admit to that. You’ve got to be very careful in how you proceed with any combat situation in which American lives are at stake.”
On Iraq, she has never repudiated her vote in 2002 authorizing military action. But last month she said that she “certainly wouldn’t have voted” to go to war if she had the same information in 2002 that she does now.
Clinton advisers are divided on whether that vote will loom over her presidential campaign, and on the extent to which her speech explaining her vote, delivered on the Senate floor on Oct. 10, 2002, will be used against her.
At different points in that speech, Mrs. Clinton made the cases both for and against the war resolution, saying it had “appeal to some” but was also “fraught with danger.” She also called for a diplomatic push at the United Nations, but also noted that the organization was “still growing and maturing” and sometimes lacked cohesion. She ultimately came down on the side of the resolution, but made clear that she expected Mr. Bush to use it as leverage at the United Nations to put pressure on Iraq.
In the interview on Wednesday, she said she wanted to work with the White House where she could. She said she had pressed the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, this week on her idea to appoint a presidential envoy to improve ties between the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Mrs. Clinton was sharply critical of Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, saying she believed he had given her “lip service” during a meeting on Saturday about his government’s commitment to cooperating with the American mission there.
“You don’t want to say there’s nobody within the Iraqi government who’s really committed to any nonsectarian future, but the weight of the evidence is that the people in charge are not committed that way,” she said. “At some point, how much are we willing to sacrifice if they’re not willing to compromise? I don’t think anybody wants to keep going down this path.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/world/middleeast/18clinton.html
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday called President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq “a losing strategy” and proposed placing new limits on the White House’s conduct of the war.
Her comments came after a weekend trip to Iraq and amounted to her latest effort to bolster her credentials as a critic of the war at the outset of the 2008 presidential race.
Starting at 7 a.m. with back-to-back appearances on NBC and CBS, Senator Clinton devoted her day to a choreographed effort to press the Bush administration to change its Iraq policy and to outline a set of views that might bring her more in sync with Democratic primary voters.
Mrs. Clinton, who is expected to announce plans to run for president soon, sought to tap into the intense and bitter emotions that many Democrats feel about the war, as she promised to introduce legislation to cap the number of troops in Iraq and to place restraints on the administration’s policy.
“I’m really passionate about getting the administration’s attention because they hold most of the cards,” Mrs. Clinton said during an interview in her Senate office here. “And I don’t want to keep losing these young men and women.”
Her new political offensive on Iraq came one day after Senator Barack Obama of Illinois announced that he had formed an exploratory committee for a presidential bid and three days after another likely rival, former Senator John Edwards, took an indirect swipe at Mrs. Clinton and other members of Congress for not doing more to oppose the war in Iraq.
Hours after Mrs. Clinton’s announcement, Mr. Obama said that he, too, would support a cap on troop levels. Mrs. Clinton also took her own glancing shot back at Mr. Edwards, saying in the interview that it was important for political candidates in 2008 to avoid “finger-pointing, hot rhetoric” on Iraq.
Mrs. Clinton offered sharp criticism of the administration while also staking out two positions that might alienate antiwar Democrats: She said that she would oppose cutting off any funds for American troops and that she would not rush to set a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq.
“I’m not going to cut American troops’ funding right now — they’re in harm’s way,” Mrs. Clinton said, rejecting for the moment pressure from some antiwar Democrats who want Congress to use its power of the purse to end the war. “But what I do want to do is to send a message to the Iraqi government — the funding for their security forces and personal security is at risk — and to send a message to the White House that there are certain conditions that we expect them to meet, or they have to come for new authorization for troops to remain in Iraq.”
The senator described her philosophy about military power as one rooted in pragmatism. Regardless of the pressure from some liberals and antiwar Democrats, Mrs. Clinton said she was skeptical about embracing hard timetables and cutting off financing in Iraq, for instance, because they were not practically feasible.
“I am not for imposing a date — certain withdrawal date,” she said. “But don’t be mistaken, I am for ending this war as soon as possible.”
She announced that she would support the bipartisan resolution introduced Wednesday opposing Mr. Bush’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad. And, taking aim at uncooperative Iraqi leaders, she said her forthcoming legislation would cut off funds for their bodyguards and security services unless they did more to support American troops in Iraq.
She said the legislation would also propose capping the number of troops at the levels they were on Jan. 1 — roughly 130,000. After she announced that on the 7 a.m. broadcasts, Mr. Obama followed suit, saying at 4 p.m. that he would introduce a bill proposing a cap as well. Aides to a third likely Democratic contender, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, cried foul, saying that Mrs. Clinton’s plan to propose a cap seemed to copy a similar proposal by Mr. Dodd.
Mrs. Clinton said that candidates in the 2008 race should be thoughtful and responsible when talking about war, rather than trying to score easy political points with red-meat rhetoric.
“I am cursed with the responsibility gene.” she said. “I am. I admit to that. You’ve got to be very careful in how you proceed with any combat situation in which American lives are at stake.”
On Iraq, she has never repudiated her vote in 2002 authorizing military action. But last month she said that she “certainly wouldn’t have voted” to go to war if she had the same information in 2002 that she does now.
Clinton advisers are divided on whether that vote will loom over her presidential campaign, and on the extent to which her speech explaining her vote, delivered on the Senate floor on Oct. 10, 2002, will be used against her.
At different points in that speech, Mrs. Clinton made the cases both for and against the war resolution, saying it had “appeal to some” but was also “fraught with danger.” She also called for a diplomatic push at the United Nations, but also noted that the organization was “still growing and maturing” and sometimes lacked cohesion. She ultimately came down on the side of the resolution, but made clear that she expected Mr. Bush to use it as leverage at the United Nations to put pressure on Iraq.
In the interview on Wednesday, she said she wanted to work with the White House where she could. She said she had pressed the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, this week on her idea to appoint a presidential envoy to improve ties between the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Mrs. Clinton was sharply critical of Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, saying she believed he had given her “lip service” during a meeting on Saturday about his government’s commitment to cooperating with the American mission there.
“You don’t want to say there’s nobody within the Iraqi government who’s really committed to any nonsectarian future, but the weight of the evidence is that the people in charge are not committed that way,” she said. “At some point, how much are we willing to sacrifice if they’re not willing to compromise? I don’t think anybody wants to keep going down this path.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/world/middleeast/18clinton.html
posted by presgore19 at 8:29 PM
<< Home