Retired general endorses Clinton, says she doesn't oppose the Iraq war as it's being run. Heh.

[bigtree]

linked from Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/8/15728/1624


Retired general backs Clinton on Iraq

By JOHN DISTASO
Senior Political Reporter
Saturday, Oct. 6, 2007

A retired U.S. Army general visiting the state 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.

Retired Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, the Army's first woman to reach the three-star rank, said she supports Clinton's promise to withdraw the majority of U.S. troops from Iraq if she is elected President. But Kennedy said she does not consider her position to be opposing the war as it is currently being conducted.

Asked if she opposes the war as it is currently being conducted, Kennedy said in a telephone interview: "As of the last couple of years, I do think that we should be on a different track. I wouldn't put it that way because, as retired military, it might come across as being -- you know what I mean -- I wouldn't say it in a completely stark way.

"I'm very proud of the army," Kennedy said. "I'm proud of the Army leadership. They've done the very best they can given the circumstances. They get a shifting sense of mission and it comes from their civilian leadership. They haven't gotten the support they needed."

Kennedy said she agreed with Clinton's position to withdraw, as Clinton has said, "the vast majority" of U.S. troops from Iraq while leaving behind a relatively small counter-terrorism force.

"Senator Clinton has it exactly right," said Kennedy. "If she is elected, her plan is to bring together the chairman of the joint chiefs, the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Council and get them to create a plan that will have the withdrawal begin within 60 days."

Kennedy said she does not consider such a position opposition to the war.


http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Retired+general+backs+Clinton+on+Iraq&articleId=496162bb-d0bb-4aeb-8796-5e034699c0c3

[aquart]

1. Hey, I'll go with non-opposition that REMOVES THE TROOPS.

I guess a lady general is someone who has learned to be really deft in her phrasing. Which is probably why she endorses another woman in the same position.

[bigtree]

3. here's one understanding about her plan to 'remove troops' from Iraq

An account of a campaign stop in Iowa by Nate Willems. He was a regional director for Howard Dean's Iowa campaign and is an attorney in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.


"There were a number of interesting points in Senator Clinton's remarks and answers to audience questions. First, on Iraq, Senator Clinton said we need to "bring our troops home..." she then paused while the crowd applauded, loudly. While the crowd was applauding, she finished her sentence, "...as quickly and responsibly as we can." It is safe to say not nearly as many people heard this part of the sentence as heard the "bring our troops home" part of the sentence.

Later, in asking a question, my Father noted that Senator Edwards criticized Clinton for not committing to bring all combat troops home from Iraq on Meet the Press this morning, and asked her to clarify her position. Senator Clinton responded that her plan is to bring the combat troops home and she didn't really understand the criticism because she has been consistent on that. She further elaborated that the military experts estimate that we can only withdraw one or two brigades from Iraq a month, and that a brigade has about 3500 men. So, I guess what the audience should conclude is that she is committed to withdrawing our troops as quickly as possible, but that she will defer to our military leaders who say that it will take two to four years (doing the math in my head) to accomplish this . . .

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/10/7/201857/412

[MethuenProgressive]

12. "bring our troops home as quickly and responsibly as we can."

Clinton said we need to "bring our troops home as quickly and responsibly as we can."
I can't see why some people (mostly Edwards/Obama supporters) call that wrong.

[bigtree]

14. I think it's code for remaining engaged and stretching a withdrawal out

I believe the entire rationale for our military presence has proven to be a false and duplicitous one. I think Clinton will be the type of leader who will be inclined to buy into military rationales which favor military intervention. Asserting that ANY combat role for our troops in Iraq is contemplated or an 'option' signals continued US militarism in that region. I strongly disagree with 'leaving that option open' as Sen. Clinton has repeatedly stated she would.

[MethuenProgressive]

2. OP subject line is (intentionally?) misleading

Kennedy said she agreed with Clinton's position to withdraw, as Clinton has said, "the vast majority" of U.S. troops from Iraq while leaving behind a relatively small counter-terrorism force.

"Senator Clinton has it exactly right," said Kennedy. "If she is elected, her plan is to bring together the chairman of the joint chiefs, the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Council and get them to create a plan that will have the withdrawal begin within 60 days."

But, I guess if your intent is mere flamebait, I can see why you'd frame your post the way you did...

[bigtree]

5. I'll change it to reflect the article.

Retired general endorses Clinton, says SHE doesn't oppose the Iraq war as it's being run.

Article is misleading on that point. Looks like that's the general's view so I'll leave it at that.

[MethuenProgressive]

10. OK, so now OP subject line is honestly intentionally misleading.

:eyes:

[bigtree]

11. right. good to go for GD

article's right there for anyone to see and judge.

Interesting how it rings true, though . . .

[Rhythm and Blue]

4. "Kennedy said she agreed with Clinton's position to withdraw."

Here we have a general who agrees with Clinton's non-opposition to the war (for strategic, not moral reasons), and her demand for an end to major combat and nation-building operations.

Clinton has shown an attractive ability to be all things to all people. Her capacity for broad support should not be underestimated.

[bigtree]

6. To me she's prevaricating on ending the occupation.

To the general, her position makes sense.

[MethuenProgressive]

8. "create a plan that will have the withdrawal begin within 60 days."

How is that "prevaricating"?

[bigtree]

13. It's her insistence that there will still be a combat role for our forces there.

. . . and her refusal to rule out a US military presence in Iraq by the end of her first term.

She's still angling to 'fix' something in Iraq behind our troops. We'll all be holding our breath to see if she will pull them all out before she finds some other ('counter-terrorism') mission for them.

[Rhythm and Blue]

15. "A small counter-terrorism force"

is not 160,000 soldiers on patrol, locking down cities. That would be a few thousand soldiers, only venturing outside for targeted missions against terrorists, similar to our presence in Afghanistan. I don't really have a problem with that.

[bigtree]

16. I think closer to 100,000 will be needed for such a mission

. . . mission creep

What happens if Iran is declared a threat to our forces in Iraq by Bush -- what if he declares them un-managable by diplomacy?

I worry about what effect her stances will have on Bush's present military operations.

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. That's sickening. I am so sick of these warmongers who see nothing wrong with LYING about why we

ILLEGALLY INVADED Iraq. WE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE THERE! THE MINUTE WE FOUND OUT ABOUT ALL THE DAMN LIES, WE SHOULD HAVE REMOVED THE TROOPS IMMEDIATELY!! WTF is wrong with these people?

[MethuenProgressive]

9. "Kennedy said she agreed with Clinton's position to withdraw, " is "sickening"?