|
During her speech at last June’s Take Back America Conference,
CODEPINK members held up signs saying,
“Lead us out of Iraq,” Hillary’s response
was, “That’s exactly what I’m trying to do, ladies.”
In September 2007, Hillary Clinton announced via her campaign
web site that the number one reason to support her for President
was “To
end the war in Iraq.”
But what exactly does this mean? From our careful reading
of Hillary’s statements, her voting record, and media reports,
we have come to the conclusion that while Hillary says she wants
to end the “war” in Iraq she
fully intends, if elected President, to continue the U.S. occupation
of that country into her projected second term.
What’s the difference between “war” and “occupation”?
Hillary would “end” the war by drawing down the number
of combat troops in Iraq, but would continue the U.S. occupation
with a limited number of troops, ideally around 50,000, on “enduring”
(but not “permanent”) bases to train Iraqi troops, to
provide support to the Kurds, and to protect American interests,
including the all-important oil fields.
As we have seen from her
recent vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran , Hillary
plans to have a muscular foreign policy. Bombing Iran is on the
table, the continued occupation of Iraq is in the game plan,
and corporate interests trump international law.
|
 |
1. In defending her 2002 war
authorization vote, Hillary says that given the information she
had at the time it was the right way to vote. How well
informed was Hillary? It has been reported that Hillary did not
even read the 90-page, classified National Intelligence Estimate
on Iraq.
2. At the time of the war authorization
vote in 2002, Senator Levin proposed an amendment that would have
required a U.N. Security Council Resolution for any use of force
against Iraq and would have required the President to come back
to Congress for approval. If, as Hillary stated, she never intended
the war authorization vote as a go ahead for attack—but rather as
a leverage point for the president in getting weapons inspectors
into Iraq, why did she vote no on the amendment that would
have guaranteed U.N. authorization and Congressional approval?
3. Hillary has said that the
Iraqi government must meet certain “benchmarks” or risk losing funding
for its security forces and reconstruction. Conditions
include: the Government of Iraq assumes greater responsibility for
security; and an equitable distribution of the oil revenues of Iraq.
Isn’t this a classic case of blaming the victims? The U.S. armed
forces, arguably the best-trained and equipped military in the world,
have barely managed to secure a third of Baghdad’s neighborhoods.
How much better can the U.S.-installed Iraqi government do? The
current Iraqi hydrocarbons legislation is more about distributing
Iraqi oil equitably among multi-national corporations than among
the Iraqi people.
4. In a recent Democratic debate
Hillary said that she believes that the United States is safer now
than it was before the 9/11/01 attacks. Given the fact
that terrorist attacks worldwide have increased 26% since the start
of 2006, how can Hillary justify this claim? According to a CBS
News poll taken a little less than a year ago, 84 percent of Americans
say they feel less safe or only as safe as they did before 9/11.
5. In a March 2007 interview
with reporters from the New York Times, Hillary predicted a “remaining
military as well as political mission” in Iraq; she stated
that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force
there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds
and support the Iraqi military. Doesn't this imply that there will
be permanent bases and American boots on the ground in Iraq far
beyond the 2008 elections if Hillary becomes president?
|
