Hillary Says No to Troop Surge in Iraq, Yes to Troop Surge in Afghanistan
Senator Hillary Clinton is on her way to Iraq and Afghanistan. Here's one story from the International Herald Tribune:
Here's more details from Glenn Thrush of Newsday:
Although many people perceive Hillary Clinton to be a liberal, most Democrats actually consider her politics over the last six years to be moderate and even sometimes moderate/conservative. Now political labels in 2008 are going to mean less than they have in the past simply because people are more concerned about leadership these days. But even Republican 2008 contenders are engaging the press more than Hillary. Senator Clinton's carefully timed statements with long bouts of silence on some issues are actually somewhat puzzling. Being a leader isn't simply about establishing foreign policy credentials and having long lunches with powerful people, it also means engaging and shaping the issues of the time.
But I welcome Senator Clinton's position on Afghanistan, the neglected war that should have been completed a long time ago. Perhaps when she gets back she'll discuss that some of the troop surge for Iraq depends on taking troops from Afghanistan which is really in no position to lose those troops.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is headed to Iraq this weekend with two other lawmakers as the rest of Congress engages in a fierce debate over President George W. Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional troops to salvage the U.S. effort there.
Clinton, Democrat of New York, who is considering running for president, is traveling with Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, a Democrat who had also considered the 2008 race but opted out, and Representative John McHugh, Republican of New York.
The three, who are all members of armed services committees, are to meet with top Iraqi officials and U.S. military commanders, and also travel to Afghanistan.
Here's more details from Glenn Thrush of Newsday:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is heading to Iraq and Afghanistan this weekend - and calling for a troop "surge" in Afghanistan even though she opposes a similar measure in Iraq.
Clinton's trip isn't surprising politically. As the top Democratic contender in 2008 who voted for the war - and hasn't recanted - Clinton needed to emphasize her foreign policy strengths: gravitas, affection for the troops and on-the-ground experience in a war zone.
On Wednesday, as President George W. Bush delivered his address on his plan for a 21,500-troop increases in Iraq, Clinton was about the only serious contender in either party to turn down an invitation to dissect the speech on TV.
Although many people perceive Hillary Clinton to be a liberal, most Democrats actually consider her politics over the last six years to be moderate and even sometimes moderate/conservative. Now political labels in 2008 are going to mean less than they have in the past simply because people are more concerned about leadership these days. But even Republican 2008 contenders are engaging the press more than Hillary. Senator Clinton's carefully timed statements with long bouts of silence on some issues are actually somewhat puzzling. Being a leader isn't simply about establishing foreign policy credentials and having long lunches with powerful people, it also means engaging and shaping the issues of the time.
But I welcome Senator Clinton's position on Afghanistan, the neglected war that should have been completed a long time ago. Perhaps when she gets back she'll discuss that some of the troop surge for Iraq depends on taking troops from Afghanistan which is really in no position to lose those troops.
Labels: 2008 presidential race, Afghanistan, Hillary Clinton, Iraq
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home