Clinton comments over the years on Iraq - incl end the war plan below - what are other candidates

[papau]

History of their comments on the war?

* February 17, 2007

Clinton Plan to End War: Reject the President's Escalation; Protect U.S. Troops in Iraq; Begin Redeploying Our Troops; Enables President to End War Before Leaving Office

February 17, 2007

Clinton Plan to End War: Reject the President's Escalation; Protect U.S. Troops in Iraq; Begin Redeploying Our Troops; Enables President to End War Before Leaving Office

Introduces the Iraq Troop Reduction & Protection Act of 2007

WASHINGTON, DC - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton renewed her call on President Bush to reverse course and endorse the plan she outlined several weeks ago that would cap the level of U.S. troops in Iraq at the number prior to his escalation plan, and begin the long overdue phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq beginning in 90 days. Senator Clinton outlined her plan when she returned last month from her third trip to Iraq and is formally introduced the legislation yesterday.

"I came back from Iraq more determined then ever to stop the President's escalation of troops into Iraq, and to start the long overdue redeployment of troops out of Iraq," Senator Clinton said. "The Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act that I proposed last month and introduced this week caps the number of troops in Iraq at the level before the President's escalation. It would be against the law to send more. The legislation also protects our troops who are performing so heroically, by making sure they aren't sent to Iraq without the body armor and training they need - empty promises from the President just aren't enough anymore. And it calls for the phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. I've been pushing for this for almost two years. Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in ninety days or we will revoke authorization for this war. This plan is a roadmap out of Iraq. I hope the President takes this road. If he does, he should be able to end the war before he leaves office."

The Iraq Troop Protection & Reduction Act of 2007 presents a comprehensive approach to Iraq that halts the President's escalation policy and provides an alternative strategy in Iraq with the goal of stabilizing the country so American troops can redeploy out of Iraq. Senator Clinton's legislation puts real pressure on the Iraqi government, requiring the Iraqis to make political progress or lose funding for their military and reconstruction, require the Bush Administration to begin a phased redeployment and convene an international conference within 90 days or a new Congressional authorization would be required to remain in Iraq. Finally, the legislation would prohibit the use of funds to send troops to Iraq unless they have the proper equipment and training. If the President were to follow the provisions in this legislation then the United States should be able to complete a redeployment of troops out of Iraq by the end of his term.

A Summary of the legislation:

STOPPING THE PRESIDENT'S ESCALATION OF THE WAR: This legislation would cap U.S. troop numbers in Iraq at the January 1, 2007 level - prior to the announcement of the troop escalation by President Bush. It would require Congressional authorization to exceed the cap.

ENDING THE BLANK CHECK FOR THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT: Recent press reports have indicated that U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces may be infiltrated by Iraqi militias and thus U.S. funds may have been used to train the very people that our men and women in uniform are fighting. In order to exert leverage on the Iraqi government, the legislation would cut off funds for Iraqi security forces, including private contractors as well as reconstruction funds within 90 days unless the President certifies that the Iraqi government has met certain conditions. The legislation would require that the Iraqi government meet a number of conditions, including:

• The security forces of the Government of Iraq are free of sectarian and militia influences;

• The security forces of the Government of Iraq are assuming greater responsibility for security in Iraq;

• The government of Iraq provides for an equitable distribution of the oil revenues of Iraq;

• There has been significant progress made in political accommodation among the ethnic and sectarian groups in Iraq.

If Congress disagrees with the President's certification, Congress would have 60 days to "disapprove" of the Presidential certification resulting in a cutoff of funds for the Iraqi government.

STARTING PHASED REDEPLOYMENT AND INVOLVING COUNTRIES IN THE REGION IN THE FUTURE OF IRAQ: The legislation requires the U.S. begin a phased redeployment of U.S. troops in 90 days or the authority of the use of force would cease. Specifically it requires that a phased redeployment of United States military forces from Iraq has begun including the transition of United States forces in Iraq to the limited presence and mission of:

• Training Iraqi security forces;

• Providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces;

• Protecting United States personnel and infrastructure; and

• Participating in targeted counter-terrorism activities.

The legislation also requires that the United States has convened or is convening an international conference so as to:

• More actively involve the international community and Iraq's neighbors;

• Promote a durable political settlement among Iraqis;

• Reduce regional interference in the internal affairs of Iraq;

• Encourage more countries to contribute to the extensive needs in Iraq; and

• Ensure that funds pledged for Iraq are forthcoming.

PROTECTING OUR TROOPS SENT INTO IRAQ: The legislation would prohibit funds from being spent to send troops to Iraq unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the troops being deployed are adequately equipped and trained for their mission in Iraq.

Statements and Remarks by Senator Clinton Concerning the War in Iraq: http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity

* February 14, 2007

Clinton: No Military Action on Iran Without Congressional Authority

* February 13, 2007

Senator Clinton Calls on General Schoomaker to Provide Truthful Assessment of Conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan

* February 8, 2007

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Vote on Confirmation of General George W. Casey to be Army Chief of Staff

* February 7, 2007

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Speaks on Iraq on the Senate Floor

* February 6, 2007

Senator Clinton Raises Iraq and Darfur with Defense Secretary Gates and General Pace, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on the Administration's FY 08 Department of Defense Budget Request

* February 1, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions General George Casey Jr. on His Nomination to be United States Army Chief of Staff

* January 30, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions Admiral William J. Fallon, Nominee for Commander, United States Central Command

* January 25, 2007

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Regarding the Pentagon Decision to Extend the Combat Tour of Soldiers from 10th Mountain Division Brigade in Afghanistan

* January 25, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions Defense Secretary William Perry, Ambassador Dennis Ross, and General Jack Keane on Iraq Strategy


HIGHLIGHTS

* Senator Clinton's Trip to Iraq and Afghanistan

* Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the President's Speech on Iraq

* Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Iraq Study Group Report

* Statement of Senator Clinton on the Resignation of Secretary Rumsfeld

* Senator Clinton's Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations

* Senator Clinton Reiterates Call for Rumsfeld's Resignation

* Senator Clinton's June 2006 Speech on the Senate Floor

* Senator Clinton's November 2005 Letter to Constituents on Iraq Policy

* Senator Clinton's Thanksgiving 2003 Visit to Iraq

* January 23, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions General David Petraeus at Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing

* January 18, 2007

Senator Clinton Discusses Iraq on PBS's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

* January 18, 2007

Senator Clinton Discusses Iraq on Fox News

* January 17, 2007

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Resolution on Iraq Introduced by Senators Biden, Hagel, Levin and Snowe

* January 17, 2007

Bayh, Clinton Call for More Troops in Afghanistan

* January 17, 2007

Senators Bayh and Clinton, Congressman McHugh Discuss Their Visit with US Troops in Iraq & Afghanistan

* January 13, 2007

Senators Bayh and Clinton, Congressman McHugh Complete Iraq Visit, Leave for Afghanistan

* January 12, 2007

Senators Bayh and Clinton, Congressman McHugh Visit US Troops in Iraq & Afghanistan

* January 10, 2007

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the President’s Speech on Iraq

* December 7, 2006

Senator Clinton Questions the Co-Chairs of the Iraq Study Group, James Baker and Lee Hamilton, at a Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing

* December 6, 2006

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Iraq Study Group Report

* December 5, 2006

Senator Clinton Questions Defense Secretary Nominee Robert Gates at the Senate Armed Services Committee Confirmation Hearing

* November 15, 2006

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Questions General John Abizaid, Commander, U.S. Central Command, and Ambassador David Satterfield, the State Department’s Coordinator for Iraq, at a Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on the Current Situation and U.S. Military Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan

* November 8, 2006

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Resignation of Secretary Rumsfeld

* October 31, 2006

Senator Clinton Calls for New American Consensus to Meet Foreign Policy Challenges

* October 31, 2006

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations

* September 29, 2006

Senator Clinton Announces Congress Set to Approve Initiative to Help Service Members Returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and their Families

* September 26, 2006

Clinton Again Calls for Change of Course in Iraq

* September 25, 2006

Senator Clinton, Former Top Military Leaders Highlight Need for Change of Course in Iraq at DPC Oversight Hearing

* September 25, 2006

Senator Clinton on Press Reports surrounding the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) Report on Global Trends of Terrorism and Iraq



Senator Clinton, Former Top Military Leaders Highlight Need for Change of Course in Iraq at DPC Oversight Hearing

Clinton Calls for Declassification of National Intelligence Estimate

Washington, DC – Today at a Democratic Policy Council (DPC) oversight hearing on the war in Iraq, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton discussed with three former top military officers who served in Iraq the need for a change of course and the Bush Administration’s failed handling of the war. Senator Clinton and her Democratic colleagues emphasized that the Republican leadership has failed to fulfill their responsibility to conduct oversight of the war in Iraq. Underscoring the need for the American people and members of Congress to have real answers, Senator Clinton called for the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq to be declassified, echoing comments she made earlier in the day in Binghamton, New York. Read more.

Senator Clinton in April wrote to Senator John Warner, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, urging him to hold hearings with retired generals who were directly involved in the planning and conduct of military operations in Iraq and who had raised questions about the management of our operations in Iraq. Read more.

“It is frustrating, to say the least, that I serve on the Armed Services Committee and we have not had any hearings on this. We hear from the Administration witnesses time and time again, and, as you know very well, it is hard to get behind the testimony and the evidence,” Senator Clinton said in her opening statement. “I hope that your very strong endorsement of bipartisan hearings that bring in people who have been on the front lines and can begin to unravel this terrible dilemma we find ourselves in and all of the reasons for it, will be taken to heart.”

* September 21, 2006

Senators Call for GAO Investigation into Charges Administration Used Unqualified Political Cronies to Staff Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq

* September 4, 2006

Statement of Senator Clinton in Support of the Letter to President Bush on Iraq by Democratic Senate and House Leaders

* August 3, 2006

Senator Clinton Highlights Secretary Rumsfeld’s Pattern of Painting Rosy Picture of Iraq



Senator Clinton Highlights Secretary Rumsfeld’s Pattern of Painting Rosy Picture of Iraq

Washington, DC – In an exchange during today’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asserted he has “never painted a rosy picture” of the war on Iraq. In response, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton submitted the following statement for the record showing a pattern of comments by Secretary Rumsfeld, both in appearances before Congress and in news media and other forums. The following is the text of Senator Clinton’s statement for the record to the Senate Armed Services Committee:

* August 3, 2006

Senator Clinton Presses Secretary Rumsfeld on Bush Administration Policy on Iraq

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today pressed Secretary Rumsfeld on the Bush Administration’s handling of the war in Iraq. Emphasizing that the collective common sense overwhelmingly does not either understand or approve of the way Secretary Rumsfeld and the Administration are handling Iraq, Senator Clinton underscored the Administration’s numerous errors in judgment, strategic blunders and record of incompetence that have led to the current situation in Iraq. Senator Clinton also indicated that she will submit additional questions for Secretary Rumsfeld to answer on Iraq.

* August 2, 2006

Senator Clinton Calls on Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to Appear Before the Senate Armed Services Committee

* August 2, 2006

Senator Clinton Presses Deputy Defense Secretary on Rumsfeld Forgoing Public Appearance Before the Senate Armed Services Committee

* August 2, 2006

Statement of Senator Clinton on Secretary Rumsfeld’s Decision to Reverse Course and Appear at Tomorrow’s Open Armed Services Committee Hearing

* July 31, 2006

Statement of Senator Clinton on the Letter to President Bush on Iraq by Democratic Senate and House Leaders



Statement of Senator Clinton on the Letter to President Bush on Iraq by Democratic Senate and House Leaders

"Today’s letter to President Bush on Iraq by Democratic leaders on committees with oversight of military, intelligence and international affairs clearly lays out the failures in the Bush Administration’s policy towards Iraq. As the letter states, and as I endorsed in the Levin-Reed amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Bill, I support a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq that should begin before the end of 2006; and U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces, and force protection of U.S. personnel. I strongly encourage President Bush to change course in Iraq and take into account the recommendations from these Democratic leaders."

* July 25, 2006

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Iraqi Prime Minister’s Comments on Hezbollah

* June 21, 2006

Remarks of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Senate Floor on Iraq

I rise today in support of the Levin Amendment of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor.

At a moment when 130,000 soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen -- active duty, Guard and Reserve -- are serving bravely in Iraq and when the debate in Congress over this nation’s Iraq policy has grown particularly divisive and heated, I believe it is time for the members of this body to put politics aside and choose between success and the status quo.

By playing politics and blindly following the president, too many are deaf to the hue and cry about the failures of this administration in the execution of its policies. And too often our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in both chambers are asking politically motivated questions, not engaging in the kind of fruitful discussion that asks the tough national security questions we need to address and answer.

I think it is time to choose whether or not we believe we have the right road map for success in Iraq. While our troops are serving bravely and with our national security in the balance, it is time to choose what is more important, a strategy to win in Iraq or a strategy for Republicans to win elections here at home.

There are no easy answers as to how we solve the problems created by this administration. There are no easy answers as to how we work to enable the Iraqis to hold their country together and to keep it from becoming a terrorist refuge and launching pad. I simply do not believe it is a strategy or a solution for the president to continue declaring an open-ended and unconditional commitment, nor do I believe it is a solution or a strategy to set a date certain for withdrawal without regard to the consequences.

Instead, I support this responsible way forward, a road map for success that will more quickly and effectively take advantage of Iraqi oil revenues, build up Iraqi's infrastructure, foster Iraqi civil society, challenge Iraq's neighbors to do more to ensure stability in Iraq and allow our troops to begin coming home.

We all know that our troops are in harm's way right now in a volatile region of the world for which America has significant interests at stake. We are at a profound turning point for our nation. We are entrusted by our constituents, both those who serve and those who do not, to do what we think is right for them, for our states, and our country.

Let's be clear about what this debate is about. My friends on the other side of the aisle believe that the status quo is working in Iraq. They do not believe we need a fundamental change in policy. They choose to continue blindly following the president. We Democrats disagree. We believe we need a new direction in Iraq that will increase the chances for success on the ground.

Now, I may disagree with those who call for a date certain for a withdrawal, but I do not doubt their patriotism. I may disagree with those who believe in an unconditional commitment without end, but I do not doubt that patriotism either.

Sadly, however, there are those who do doubt the patriotism of many who raise serious questions about this war. They choose to tar all who disagree with an open-ended, unconditional commitment as unpatriotic, as waving the white flag of surrender.

They may not have a war strategy, but they do have an election strategy. This is the road they took America down in 2002. It was a dead end for our country then, and it's a dead end now.

The politically motivated resolutions put forth by leading Republicans to gain tactical partisan advantage are a disgrace. In so doing, they have broken faith with those who serve and those of us who support our troops and who work for the success of this mission. It is wrong, plain and simple, to turn this serious debate about our policies and national security into a partisan squabble designed to mislead voters. This is politics at its worst, played over war. And that is no way to honor the service and sacrifices of our troops and their families or to find a better way forward in Iraq.

Like many in this chamber, I have traveled to Iraq and to Afghanistan. I have met there and here with tough, smart, patriotic men and women who fill me with tremendous pride. They have been performing magnificently under difficult conditions, and they have paid a heavy price since the war began in 2003. Last week we had a moment of silence to mark the day that the number of American service members killed in Iraq reached 2,500. And more than 18,000 others have been wounded. As of June 17, New York has lost 116 soldiers. The combined number of New York soldiers killed and wounded is 1,038.

I have spent time with wounded soldiers and marines. I have sat with grieving families mourning lost loved ones. I have tried to answer the questions that they ask. I have shared the grief that they feel. And those who have not lost a loved one or seen him or her return injured still are anxious every day while a parent or a child or a spouse serves far from home.

Not a day goes by that I do not pray for the safe return of every man and woman now stationed in dangerous places around the world. Not a single day.

This is not a time for partisanship. It is past time for this administration to level with the American people, for this Congress to find its voice and fulfill its constitutional duties to check and balance the Executive Branch, and for the Iraqis to chart a clear and responsible path to stability and peace. I call on our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to fairly and honestly consider the Levin Amendment as an alternative to the status quo, when we know the status quo has not, is not, and will not create the conditions needed for the Iraqis to achieve the stability and security they seek and for us to bring home our troops.

The conflict in Iraq has now gone on longer than U.S. fighting in the Korean War before the armistice. We ought not to attack one another for asking the tough questions and presenting alternatives about how to achieve success, limit the loss and sacrifice of our young men and women.

As we debate our next steps in Iraq, it is critical that we recognize and fix as best we can the mistakes that have already been made and not repeat them. The Bush Administration misused the authority granted to it, choosing to act without allowing the inspectors to finish the job in order to rush to war, without a plan for securing the country, without an understanding of the insurgency or the true human, financial and strategic costs of this war, all the while viewing the dangerous and unstable conditions in Iraq through rose-colored glasses and the prism of electoral politics here at home.

It is time to put policy ahead of politics and success ahead of the status quo. It is time for a new strategy to produce what we need: a stable Iraq government that takes over for its own people so our troops can finish their job.

That's what the Levin Amendment does. It calls for a comprehensive road map to achieve peace and stability. And it also sets into motion the steps that should be taken for Iraq to move itself forward and become more capable of defending its territory, ending the sectarian violence and purging the insurgency.

The Levin Amendment does put us on a responsible path by calling for stronger, nonmilitary action such as a conference of neighboring nations, greater rebuilding efforts and better internal political reconciliation, by requiring the Iraqis to disarm rogue militias and take over more of their own security.

The only way the new Iraqi government can gain credibility is by proving they can handle an increasing share of the security of the country with fewer, not more, U.S. troops. And it is clear in the Levin Amendment that we recognize the president's role at Commander in Chief. It is the president who will make these decisions. What the amendment attempts to do is to provide a different road map, to set some conditions, in contrast to the unconditional open-ended commitment that we have had for the last three years and three months.

In yesterday's Washington Post, one expert laid out such a road map which described the importance of reducing our military presence in Iraq so as to enhance the legitimacy of the Iraqi government in the eyes of both Iraqis and Iraqis' neighbors. That expert was Iraq's own national security advisor. And I commend the entire article to be read, because as the national security advisor sets forth a road map for the way out of Iraq. He makes very clear that the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of its people. That is not an American. That is not a Democrat. That is an Iraqi in this new government who recognizes what some apparently in this chamber refuse to do, which is, yes, we need conditions. The current policy has no conditions. It is unconditional. The Levin Amendment sets forth conditions, sets forth the kind of steps and bench marks that we as Americans in positions of responsibility have every right to expect, that the Iraqis will step up and meet. And clearly that is also the position of the new Iraqi government. In fact, I think one can read this statement and find much in the Levin Amendment that supports the position put forth by the Iraqi national security advisor.

Mr. President, no war since Vietnam has stirred the emotion to the extent of our people as this one. I hear it all the time as I travel from one end of New York to the other. People stop and ask if there will be an end to the loss of American lives. They wonder what the goal is, how do we define success? The rhetoric on the other side is all about symbols and slogans, but how do we define success?

They believe that we in Congress should not be wasting this country's time with partisan political slogans while we have troops in the field. They grieve over the mistakes that have been committed by an administration that failed at every turn to see the difficulties ahead of it or the benefits of using all the nonmilitary means available to it.

Now, of course, there are always unexpected events in war that can change the best plan or put some detours into the road map, and the Levin Amendment takes that into account. But I believe we must end the current open-ended, unconditional policy to focus on clear goals on all fronts and to make that absolutely clear to the Iraqi government. If we do that, we can begin to bring our troops home this year. That is why I fervently believe members of both parties should support this resolution.


* June 15, 2006

Statement of Senator Clinton on the 2006 Emergency Supplemental for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Hurricane Relief

* June 15, 2006

Senator Clinton Introduces Legislation to Help Service Members Returning From Iraq and Afghanistan and their Families

* November 29, 2005

Letter to Constituents on Iraq Policy

* November 15, 2005

Statement of Senator Clinton on the Iraq Amendments

For three years now, I have, along with my Democratic colleagues, questioned the Administration about their specific plans in Iraq. Time after time, we have been given rhetoric when simply asking for the facts. Congress and the public deserve the facts from this Administration about progress in Iraq and what the future holds for both the American and Iraqi people.

I joined my colleagues today in supporting the amendments on the Iraq war calling upon the President and his Administration to provide answers and a plan on the war. In September of 2004 I said to Secretary Rumsfeld at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, “When you look at the statements that have been made in the past by you and others in the Administration, it is very difficult to track the predictions and the expectations that were presented to this Committee, to others in Congress, and certainly to the American people, with where we are today.”

This past September I confronted Secretary Rumsfeld again at an Armed Services Committee hearing, “You know, one of the challenges for those of us sitting on this side of the table is that the strategy which you have described…has neither benchmarks nor results that we can see which lead us to believe that it's a strategy that's working.

We in Congress have repeatedly asked for answers and have repeatedly been obstructed by the Administration.

Last month, many of us sent a letter to President Bush specifically asking him, “How many Iraqi forces must be capable of operating without U.S. assistance or with minimal U.S. support before we can begin reducing our military presence and when will that number be reached?” We have yet to receive a response.

I have just returned from Israel and Jordan where I saw first-hand the true devastation that terrorism can inflict on a nation. We must continue to be strong in our fight against terrorists, but we need an Administration that levels with the American people on true goals and objectives.

President Bush noted on Friday that it is legitimate to criticize his conduct of this war. What we need now is for the President to listen to this criticism and provide answers.

As I have said in the past, I disagree with the way the President has used the authority granted to him and the way he has prosecuted this war. I am glad that the Senate today acted in a bipartisan manner to demand answers from the President. The time is long overdue for the Administration to give us the facts about their current and future plans for the war in Iraq. Our brave men and women who serve valiantly each and every day deserve nothing less.

* October 5, 2005

Senators Reid, Clinton & Others Press President Bush On Iraq Policy

Our troops are engaged in a struggle in Iraq that could shape the future not only of that nation but the entire region. Despite the fact that our troops have performed heroically for more than 2 ½ years, the situation there remains extremely violent and volatile. There are disturbing reports of increasing sectarian strife, which could lead to a full blown civil war. We are increasingly concerned that Iraq could become what it was not before the war: a haven for radical fundamentalist terrorists determined to attack America and American interests. It is clear our window of opportunity is closing and you need to immediately provide a strategy for success in order to prevent this outcome.

These troubling conditions – and the disconnect between how our Administration describes the situation on the ground in Iraq and what Americans see every day on their televisions – have eroded the American public’s support for the war. In addition, these conditions and contradictions have fueled concerns about whether your Administration has a strategy for success that will preserve our fundamental national security interests and permit us to bring our troops home.

Last week your Administration was afforded several important opportunities to set forth your plan and lay these concerns to rest. The Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander of the Central Command, and the Commander of U.S. and Coalition Forces in Iraq all appeared before the Congress to report on the Administration’s progress in Iraq. Prior to their appearances in the House and Senate, in a statement from the White House Rose Garden, you specifically encouraged members of Congress to hear what these officials had to say in order to “get the latest information about our strategy” and “the progress in increasing the size and capability of the Iraqi security forces.”

Unfortunately these officials provided neither the Administration’s strategy for success, nor a record of progress in training and equipping Iraqi forces to take over their own defense. To the contrary, we learned that the Administration has actually lost ground on this score. In June, you said there were “160,000 Iraqi security forces trained and equipped for a variety of missions.” And during your Rose Garden statement last week you stated “100 Iraqi battalions are operating throughout Iraq.” However, last week the Congress and the American people learned that only one Iraqi Army battalion – less than 1,000 soldiers – is sufficiently trained and equipped to fight without U.S. assistance. Additionally, General Casey, testified that the message that our military presence in Iraq is not unlimited has not been communicated forcefully enough to the Iraqis.

Other comments by General Casey last week also suggest that your Administration lacks a political strategy to end the insurgency that matches the heroic efforts of our military on the ground. General Case stated: “Now, this constitution has come out, and it didn’t come out as a national compact that we thought it was going to be.” Indeed, he suggests that he is no longer as optimistic as he once was about the prospect for significant reductions in American troops in 2006 because of unsatisfactory political progress.

We are equally dismayed that your Administration has failed to produce broad international participation, both in the months leading up to the war and the years since the conflict started. There appears to be no strategy to involve regional countries as there was in the Balkans in the 1990s and in Afghanistan in late 2001 and 2002. There has been little effort to obtain the contribution of military forces from Muslim nations to dispel the perception of a Western occupation of a Muslim nation. In addition, offers to train Iraqi security forces from countries such as Egypt and France have apparently gone unanswered.

The only thing as disturbing as the obvious lack of progress is the Administration’s continuing failure to level with the American people about the current situation in Iraq. This failure only serves to erode the public’s confidence about your Administration’s plan for Iraq. Therefore, Mr. President, in the interest of providing accountability to our troops and taxpayers, we ask again for you to provide direct answers to four critical questions about your Administration’s Iraq policy. Specifically:

• How many Iraqi forces must be capable of operating without U.S. assistance or with minimal U.S. support before we can begin reducing our military presence and when will that number be reached?

• What specific measures does the Administration plan to take before and after the October 15th constitutional referendum to forge the necessary political consensus and reconcile the growing sectarian and religious differences? If such consensus is not reached, what policy changes would be required?

• What efforts have you made or will you make to attain broader international support, including engaging Iraq’s neighbors and other nations particularly Muslim nations, in the effort to stabilize Iraq?

• How should the American people assess the progress in reconstructing Iraq, what are the tangible results of the billions of dollars Americans have provided for Iraq’s reconstruction, does the Administration have a plan to ensure that those who have misused taxpayer funds will be held accountable, how much more will U.S. taxpayers be asked to contribute to Iraq’s reconstruction, and what steps is your Administration taking to ensure that their future investment will not be misused?

In times past, when asked to explain your Iraq policy to our troops and the American people, you have chosen to reply that we need to, “stay the course.” But simply staying the current course is not a strategy for success. We are convinced now more than ever that we need to change the course and the fist step is for your Administration to immediately provide answers to these important questions. Simply saying that these answers are “unknowable” or “condition based” is no longer satisfactory. Our troops, their families, and the American people deserve better.


* August 3, 2005

Senator Clinton Joins Other Women Senators in Urging President to Continue to Express US Support for Iraqi Women’s Rights

Just last January, we saw Iraqi women who refused to be turned away from polling stations despite enormous risk and sometimes even flying bullets. It would be a travesty if Iraqi women were in any way marginalized under their new government,” said Senator Clinton. “The new Iraqi constitution should make it clear that their government will be a government of, by and for Iraqis, including Iraqi women.”

This letter was sent in response to reports that the draft Iraqi constitution, which is scheduled to be approved by the Iraqi parliament on August 15, contains provisions that would specifically target women’s rights and weaken many of the provisions contained under the draft law. In the letter, the Senators stated, “To dilute or delete any language that establishes the principle of equality before the law, regardless of gender, would greatly hurt the women in Iraq, especially those who are helping to rebuild this country in the post-Saddam era. These women should not be denied their rightful place in society by those who do not believe women’s rights are human rights.”

* January 28, 2005

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Iraqi Elections

* August 30, 2004

Senator Clinton and Colleagues Call Upon Secretary of Defense to Investigate Iraq Security Contract

* May 3, 2004

Statement of Senators Charles E. Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Escape of Thomas Hamill From Captivity in Iraq

* February 13, 2004

Senator Clinton Calls on President Bush to Address the Deteriorating Condition of Iraq’s Women

* January 9, 2004

Senators Clinton and Reed Ask President Bush for Details on US Plan for Iraqi Hajj

* January 9, 2004

Senators Clinton and Reed Ask President Bush for Details on US Plan for Iraqi Hajj

* November 27, 2003

Senators Reed and Clinton Celebrate Thanksgiving With US Troops Stationed at Two Bases Inside Afghanistan; Headed to Iraq

Before her meeting with President Karzai, Senator Clinton met with a small group of Afghan women as part of her continued efforts to stress the need to include women in the nation-building process. "Afghanistan won't be the country the people deserve without women playing a strong role," said Clinton, adding that the new constitution should "embody in a document the hopes and aspirations of the Afghan people, all of them, men and women," and establish institutions "to guarantee a better future for the children of Afghanistan. How that is done is up to the people of Afghanistan but many of us are hopeful that women's rights and roles will be appropriately recognized because without women playing their part in supporting every institution, from the family to the government, Afghanistan cannot have the future that the people deserve."

[niceypoo]

1. Clinton times were good times for america

If she gets the nomination she gets my vote...PERIOD!

[shoopnyc]

2. The End of the Era of the Single Issue Voter...

It seems to me that America is at a crossroads with regards to what was known as the "Single Issue Voter". For the 2008 Election, I foresee a much more sophisticated electorate, due to the fact that all candidates, on both sides, do not not fulfill 100% of their respective bases wishes, (which, I believe, to a certain extent, is healthy).

Most recently, this has been most effectively been applied through the abuse of the "wedge issue". This construct became the norm during the rise of the 24/7 news cycle, somewhat holding them together. But the internet has diffused a lot of this, and people have a greater capacity now to look at all sides of any candidate on any side.

My fear is that people that do not follow politics closely will throw their hands up with a "they're all bad" collapse. But I think the situation in Iraq will encourage, shall we say, a more "nuanced" , and complete media coverage of all campaigns. I hope.

[Alamom]

3. Excellent post. Thank you. n/t

[Tellurian]

4. Reposting an e-mail just received from Sen Clinton re: IR Troop Protection and Reduction Act

....an abbreviated version from papua's above post

Dear xxxxx,

Right now, there isn't one of us who isn't thinking about Iraq. That's why I went there recently: to meet with the commanders on the ground, to talk with Iraqi leaders, and to speak to the men and women who are fighting this war so heroically.

I came back even more determined to stop the president's escalation of troops into Iraq and to start the redeployment of troops out of Iraq. So I outlined a plan, and on Friday, I introduced it to Congress as the Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act.

My plan accomplishes a number of goals. It stops the president's escalation. It protects our troops by making sure they aren't sent to Iraq without all of the equipment and training they need. It puts an end to the blank check for the Iraqi government. It calls for an international conference to bring other countries together to help forge a stable future for Iraq. Finally, my plan would begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. I've been pushing for this for almost two years.

For more details about my plan, please watch Friday's HillCast, the first of what I hope will be a regular series of web broadcasts:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/hillcast

The Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act is a roadmap out of Iraq. I hope the president takes this road. If he does, he should be able to end the war before he leaves office. But let's not kid ourselves. From everything we've seen, this president is going down a very different path. He's fighting to escalate the war, not to end it.

I know we're at the start of a presidential campaign, but I think all Democrats should be focused on working together to push the president to change course. We have to end this war in a smart way, not a Republican or a Democratic way, but a way that makes us safer and gets our troops home as soon as possible. That's what I'll be fighting for.

But let me be clear, if George Bush doesn't end this war before he leaves office, when I'm president, I will.

Please watch the HillCast for more details of my plan:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/hillcast

Sincerely,
Hillary

...very nice video encapsulation of her latest efforts to put an END to the War.