The Hillary Doctrine by William M. Arkin / WaPo

[Demeter]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/

...And, yet, what Clinton has to say about the Iraq war, Iran, and terrorism -- surely the three most pressing questions for the next president -- is highly unsatisfying.

On Iraq, Clinton says that, within 60 days of taking office, she would direct her top national security advisers to draw up a plan for withdrawal. She talks about "ending the war in Iraq," "getting out of Iraq" and a plan to "bring our troops home."...But, for her, getting out doesn't really mean getting out.... Clinton hopes to "replenish American power by getting out of Iraq." But getting out in the limited way she outlines would yield very limited benefits.

On Iran, meanwhile, Clinton offers two unhelpful scenarios. "If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table," she writes. Alternatively, "f Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives."...In the first case, Clinton unnecessarily stops short of threatening Iran directly. In the second case, she is naïve to the extreme about the nature of the Tehran regime. Either way, this articulation of what to do about Iran doesn't befit a president's pen.

Finally, Clinton writes about waging an "unrelenting" war on terror. The U.S., she writes, needs to "understand not only methods but their motives: a rejection of modernity, women's rights, and democracy, as well as a dangerous nostalgia for a mythical past." This is a bland and politically neutral articulation of what jihadis really think: that the U.S. and the West -- and their agent Israel -- are at war with Islam, stealing its resources for their own benefit, forcing their culture on the Muslim world, eroding its religion, and propping up puppet governments.

While Clinton blames Bush freely, her essay proposes few fundamental changes in U.S. foreign policy. She offers a half solution on Iraq, nothing on Iran and more of the same on fighting terrorism. The same but without the Bushisms.

[MethuenProgressive]

1. She talks about "ending the war in Iraq," "getting out of Iraq" & "bring our troops home"

On Iraq, Clinton says that, within 60 days of taking office, she would direct her top national security advisers to draw up a plan for withdrawal. She talks about "ending the war in Iraq," "getting out of Iraq" and a plan to "bring our troops home." Clinton hopes to "replenish American power by getting out of Iraq."

But this guy spins away without conscience, twists her words, and interprets them to mean what he wants them to...
The anti-Clinton DUers will r&k this onto the Greatest page, without thinking...
:popcorn:

[ixion]

2. yeah, all of us who are not mindlessly following Clinton are just, er, mindless, I guess

:rofl:

Really, though, I've given it a great deal of thought, and have watched Clinton over the years. I have been unimpressed, hence I don't support her, and actually consider her to be the DLC-GOP lite candidate.

Thanks for accusing me of not thinking though. :hi:

[yurbud]

4. and when she was asked whether she would have them out by the end of her first term?

in Democratic debate?

How about her voting record?

How stupid do you think people are?

[papau]

3. Nonsense - Mr Arkin is not good with nuances is he - all is black or white to him - I agree

the Iran policy is standard US policy (and has been the same since Ike) as to willingness to use power - but the pre-bombing Iran ideas are different from Bush and the GOP candidates.

Removing combat troops is all Obama is promising (while Edwards moves remaining non-combat troops to Kuwait or Afghanistan).

However DK is talking a move totally out approach - perhaps that is who Mr. Arkin is supporting?