Hillary’s Two Faces Of The Surge

There are things about all of the 2008 presidential candidates that I don’t agree with or just flat irritate me. But, Hilary Clinton takes the prize. At forums, debates and whatever microphone opportunity she can get, Hillary is very good about tell all the other candidates how to say things. I guess she’s exempt from her own teachings.

In yet another move to pander to an audience, Clinton in her speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention told them the “surge was working.” Excuse me but is this the same Hillary Clinton that has been beating Bush over the head about and the surge, at all the debates? I guess when her other seven buddies aren’t around nobody will notice what stories she’s telling. Not so some of the boys jumped right on her.

Maybe she just got confused and meant to tell them the “urge” was working; the urge to pander to the veterans. The urge to tell whatever audience I’m standing in front of what they want to hear. We hear you loud and clear Hillary. Your message is that you are no different from the rest of the crooks and liars in Washington.

  • WASHINGTON (CNN)—White House hopeful Hillary Clinton is taking heat Tuesday from some of her Democratic rivals over recent comments suggesting the president’s surge policy in Iraq is “working.”
  • The remarks came during an address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention Monday, in which the New York Democrat said the president’s Iraq policy was leading to success in “some areas.”
  • “We’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it’s working,” she said. “We’re just years too late in changing our tactics.”
  • “We can’t ever let that happen again,” Clinton added. “We can’t be fighting the last war. We have to keep preparing to fight the new war.”

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson quickly jumped at the chance to highlight Clinton’s seeming praise of the president.

  • “The fact is the surge is not working,” he said in a statement. “I do not give President Bush the same credit on Iraq that Hillary does.”

Meanwhile, David Bonior, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards’ campaign manager, called Clinton’s comments “another instance of a Washington politician trying to have it both ways.”

  • Though Bonior did agree with Clinton that there was “progress” in Al Anbar, he said “by cherry-picking one instance to validate a failed Bush strategy, it risks undermining the effort in the Congress to end this war.”

Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s communication’s director, charged that Bonior was distorting Clinton’s position.

  • “Senator Edwards was right on Sunday when he said that all the Democrats would end the war and that the differences between them were small,” he said. “He is wrong today to distort Senator Clinton’s opposition to the surge in a sad attempt to raise his flagging poll numbers.”
  • “The fact is that while Democrats, including Senator Edwards and Senator Obama, acknowledge progress in Al Anbar, Senator Clinton opposed the surge from the start and believes there is no military solution to the war in Iraq,” Wolfson added.

17 comments to Hillary’s Two Faces Of The Surge

  • ButtonG:
    You are so right. The republicans want her to get the nomination because they know they can beat her. They will play on her divisive personality.

  • Believe me, I’m looking up towards the sky looking for a primary reprieve. I don’t want to see Hillary become our nominee. She would provide no coat tails in states like mine where Democrats trying to get elected and re-elected would have to run as far away from her as possible. And considering her abominable negative ratings, I think having her as our nominee for POTUS would simply hand the Republicans another 4 to 8 years in the White House.

  • ButtonG:
    The primaries is where we have to kick her off her pedestal so she doesn’t get the nomination.

    Many strange things have happened in the past 6+ years, pigs may fly before this is over.

  • You’re so right, NYTexan! I’m surprised the VFW folks didn’t send her ample rump skidding across the parking lot. Or maybe she, all of the sudden, praised Bush’s surge in order to keep them from doing just that.

    She’s not getting my vote either. The only way I would even consider it would be if Georgia was closely contested between she and the Republican nominee. But since pigs will fly before that happens, I’m safe in saying that I’ll never vote for Hillary Clinton.

  • She’s not getting my vote.

  • I will never vote for Hillary.
    Damn the consequences.

  • NyTexan,

    Hillary’s Harpies are loyal. They’re also some of the most un-American posters I’ve encountered — every bit as horrible as the Bushites.

    Like I said to Mirth, I just don’t get it.

  • Christopher:
    As long as the surge goes on and BUsh continues the war Hillary will get richer.

    Here’s another contradiction of her ethics, Wal-Mart. She states that their practices are bad on many levels yet she has lots of Wal-Mart stock in her blind trust.

  • ProudP:

    Edwars seem to be the only one who is not in corporate pockets. He has been in the past but he is moving himself away by returning their money and removing them from his personal financial portfolio.

    Edwards has pointed out on many occasions that voting for Hillary is voting for corporations.

    I have not come to any final decisions about Obama but I do find him a bit cagey.

  • That may be true Proud but, Barack Obama isn’t a wholly-owned subsidiary of the military, industrial complex, as is Hillary Clinton.


    Sen. Hillary Clinton’s beneficiaries include some of the largest military defense companies in the world. They include giant Northrop Grumman, which secured $6 million for the AN/SPQ-9B radar; New York-based Telephonics, which won $5 million for a standardized aircraft wireless intercom system for the National Guard Black Hawk helicopter fleet; Plug Power Inc., another New York state company, which got $3 million for fuel cell power technology; and Alliant Tech Systems (ATK), which won $3.5 million for the X-51 B robust scramjet research.

    The Senate considers earmarks distinct from the equipment and projects that appear on the military services’ so-called unfunded requirements list, so such funding is not disclosed as an earmark. A good example is the additional $4.1 billion for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle approved by the committee. The committee also included $575 million in the earmark requests for MRAPs for the Army, Air Force and Special Operations Command as part of the Iraq supplemental funding for 2008.

    All earmarks approved in the defense appropriations bills are assured funding.

    So it should come as no surprise to antiwar Democrats frustrated by Sen. Hillary Clinton’s refusal to issue an apology for her 2002 vote authorizing President Bush to go to war with Iraq. An apology from Hillary isn’t an admission of error in judgment but a repudiation of the very people who have helped her become the Democratic presidential front runner. Clinton’s not about to bite the hand that feeds her.

    No wonder she says Bush’s surge is working swimmingly.

  • Mirth pointed out too, and rightfully so that Obama is not without his corporate backers – to see more, My post is now updated with full Harpers Archives on Obama. h/t to LM. It seems our choice is which of the corporate backers are less ditestable. Its an electoral system set up. It does make one want to walk away BUT…as Bosskity said , i believe it was her – Ignoring it will not make it go away. And fact is Kucinich and Gravel even with a grass roots out pouring of epic proportions..given the system is so rigged simply are not going to get a chance to lead this country. I still want Kucinich there , till the end because his message is the best one – and the one that threatens the power elite the most.

    The American dream ain’t what it used to be and it never was.

  • Hillary is America’s Margaret Thatcher.

    She can’t wait to ride a tank into downtown Tehran, waving an American flag and wearing a military flight jacket. She has much more testostrone than Jane Harmon or Ann Coulter and she’s far more dangerous because her world view is informed by special interests and not reason.

  • Christopher:
    I will not vote for her. I can’t even image 4 years of her in the White House. She panders to the right wing. Obama is so right when he called her “Bush and Cheney lite”

    The MSM needs to stop giving her all of their attention.

  • ProudP:
    I am with you in your outrage. Hillary has no intention of changing the extended powers that Bush has put in place. Everyone has seem to forgotten how chummy she has been with Newt G.

    Hillary is a power hungry money machine that will say whatever it takes to get into the White House. I am not interested in the continuation of the Bush/Clinton dynasty.

    The MSM has put her out there as the front runner since December 2006. SO is this going to be another rigged election or primary?

    Your description of Howard Wolfson sounds as if you just described Hillary.

  • You are so very correct about Hillary Clinton.

    She’s so full of shit, such a triangulator, and so overrated. I’ve had cable MSM on since I got home today and AIPAC’s queen can be proud that all the conservative talkingheads are busily quoting her remarks about the surge. She’s the new Democratic darling of the neocon rightwing.

    I detest her and I hope she gets a rash from those rayon-blend pants suits she wears so high that they show her cameltoe.

  • Oh that Howard Wolfson, the Clinton Communications director , just one quick word about him. After the Afl-Cio debates, he and Obama’s and Edward’s guy ? were there for the “after Party” Wolfson’s body language alone was very telling for me. He appeared assured, entitled and smug. He stood like a cement rock in a dark suit that emminated to me at least – the distain for the competition and his seeming knowledge that no matter what they said about their candidates – his “the Shillery” had it in the bag. Nothing would make me more joyful for the country than to see them both humbled.

  • She takes the prize alright ! And with the stakes this high, the pandering PANDERING shamelessly and arrogantly to the worst attitudes of the voters, This should earn her the booby prize which she so sorely deserves. Right down to her answers at the LGBT forums to her major arrogance in almost every area of public policy. The Afl-Cio forums. She is the one busines party candidate and will say anything to anybody to get in power. Has she said even ONE word about the Excutive Over Reach ? And as pointed out on Liberally Mirth today – The Clintons were doing Extroidinary CIA Renditions.

    People really need to wake up to the fact, that she is a flaming Neo Liberal who is part of a dynasty as Christopher so aptly points out. She is the worst possible choice as a candidate imo. And the longer i listen to her. The more i want to see her realize that we see right through her ! Shillery you are soo NOT my girl !

Leave a Reply