How anti-war is Hillary?

[cali]

Excellent post.

by kos
Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 08:08:56 AM PDT
Retired general endorses Clinton, says she doesn't oppose the Iraq war at all.

A retired U.S. Army general visiting to campaign for Hillary Clinton said yesterday she does not oppose the Iraq war -- and she said she's never heard Clinton oppose it, either <...>

Kennedy said, "I don't oppose the war. I think it's being very badly led by the civilian leadership." And, added, "I have not ever heard (Clinton) say, 'I oppose the war.' I've heard her say that we need to begin withdrawal under a plan led by the military and defense secretary. I've heard her say we need to create a regional stabilizing group by allies, by leaders in the world and by all of the states that are bordering Iraq. That is a very important idea and the point of that group is to create incentive and assurances that will keep the neighboring countries from becoming involved and entering Iraq. That's a much more sophisticated thing than saying, 'I oppose the war.'"
Huh? What the heck is she talking about? Is this some pathetic attempt to differentiate herself (and HIllary, by extension), from those dirty fucking hippies that just want to, er, end the war?

But if she wants to broadcast to all of New Hampshire that Hillary is not anti-war, then by all means, she should keep doing so.

More troubling than a confused retired general is this:

At a campaign stop here, Hillary Clinton sparred verbally for several minutes with a man who pressed her on her recent vote to call Iran's army a terrorist organization.
Randall Rolph, from nearby Nashua, asked why he should support Clinton's candidacy when she did not appear to have learned any lessons from having voted to authorize force in Iraq.

Clinton thanked him for the question and explained her Iran vote would lay the groundwork for using diplomacy and sanctions to pressure that government.

Clinton accused the man of being a plant who had been sent to ask the question, to which he took exception, saying the question was a result of his own research.

"I apologize," Clinton said, explaining that she had been asked the very same question in three other places.
She's being asked that question because many can't believe that Hillary is so damn stupid as to give George Bush a rationale for attacking Iran.

She really didn't learn her lesson the first time. Is she seriously claiming that this resolution was really needed to "lay the groundwork for using diplomacy and sanctions"? What, was Condi Rice (remember her?) hamstrung on her ability to conduct diplomacy without Congress giving her the thumbs up?

Does she think her audience is that stupid? Apparently so.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/8/15728/1624