This is funny -we say give 'em democracy over there, and them we say, well … so and so is not doing what we want, so we must undermine them.

Who do we think we are?

What is the "Malkik government?" In order to have a government you must govern. Why are our troops in the street dying while the parliment takes a vacation, without passing any meaningful legislation? Why does Maliki support the shiite militias, who actively seek to kill American troops? Why did Maliki visit Iran, when he can't even bring himself to Visit Fallujah.

I'm sorry if people feel that we shouldn't meddle in the Iraqi "government", but we need to if we ever want a stable Iraq. The man is anti-sunni, and pro-militia. His military officials are corrupt, and stuck in their ways, and I have yet to speak to an Iraqi citizen of any sect who thinks he is doing a good job.

Mary, Beaver, PA

There are millions of people around the Globe who believe the world is going to – in a Handbasket.
And no matter who the audience is the majority all give credit to the Republican party.

David, those are not my opinions that you are pointing out and supposedly correcting, but your candidates ACTUAL WORDS and THOUGHTS.

What is this, Rosie and Lizzy all over again?

Hillary says one thing 4 years ago to seem tough and because of the political climate at the time, and others 4 years later are spinning her words like she said something else.

Since I am part of the right wing conpiracy, I will remind all of you nostalgic Clintonistas that every word and DEED she has uttered and done will be used in ads against her.

Looking forward to it.

To David, Salinas, CA

I have read most of your blogs and tend to agree with most.

Regarding your latest, I disagree with #3.

To stay in Iraq "as long as needed" seems open-ended and infinite. Unforunately we don't have an infinite # of troops. How will we (America) recognize the end game and know when the "war" is over?

There are 1,000 opinions regarding Iraq, and Clinton has all of them (depending upon who the audience is).

HRC being subtle. She just said a leader of a democratic country should be overthrown. Malki responded by saying he doesn't need the us he has other friends (ie Iran). She called Obama naive for his remarks on Pakistan. By her standards she is also engaging in further destablization of Iraqi. My problem with HRC is her excuse for authorizing Bush to go to war. She didn't know he was planning on going to war. How stupid does she think Americans are? And how stupid was she to think that Bush wasn't planning an invasion. This woman is twisted.

Reply Tom Dedham Mass.

You commented:

"Since you say "proof" of her lying, manipulating and pandering is never shown, read below from a speech in December of 2003:"

I appreciate your time in posting Senator Clinton's Speech. I hadn't heard it and didn't have the opportunity to read it previously.

I do see this issue through another window however. And that is, I believe every politician and every citizen would have a very different view of any situation over the course of a four year period. And given the issue at hand is a Very Complex and Controversial War, situational changes take place at a very fast and steady pace. And assessments of the situation change accordingly.

Therefore I really don't believe it is fair to expect that an experienced politician would hold the same view on an issue four years later. In fact, if they did wouldn't we be criticizing that politician's credibility and leadership? And wouldn't we be suggesting that they should be re-evaluating the situation on a day to day basis or at least on a more current level?

David, my opinion is critical of her words, but the words themselves are owned by her.

You are not justifying or contradicting those words as being my thoughts, as they were wholly hers.

Correction David, I am critical of her on this, but the distiction is that they are not my words, but hers.

[...] Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, released a statement calling for the ouster of the prime minister, saying, "The Maliki government is nonfunctional and cannot produce a political settlement, [...]

So now Hillary is advocating overthrowing another Iraqi government? A democratically elected government this time??

The conflict here isn’t between left and right, or between honesty and hypocrisy. It’s between simple and complex, or even worse between pre-digested sound bites and nuanced solutions. There are adherents of both on either side of the aisle.

President Bush has a nice simple message: Stay the course. Three words. Easy to remember. All the Republican candidates seem to agree with this position.

There’s a simple version from the anti-war crowd, too: Bring the troops home. Four words. Simple. Several of the more left-leaning Democrats are sticking to this sound bite.

The problem with the first course is that it isn’t working, and the problem with the second is that it won’t work. Honest members of both parties have positions of far more subtlety. Sound bites don’t solve problems, statesmanship does. I will defend Senator Clinton on the charge that her position has been inconsistent. It hasn’t. It’s just too complicated to stuff into a slogan.

Tom of Dedham, Mass (a worthy adversary) criticizes Senator Clinton on four points, and since I agree with her on all of them, I’ll defend them one by one:

1) “She doesn't regret voting to authorize the president to go to war”
Right. She didn’t encourage Bush to go to war. In fact she said it was a bad idea. (Read the speech). She voted to give the President a tool to use against an enemy. That Bush completely misused that tool is not her fault. Bush bungled the war, not Clinton.

2) “she's "delighted" that Saddam Hussein was captured”
As am I. As are all freedom-loving people. But that doesn’t mean it was worth thousands of lives, trillions of dollars and the turmoil in Iraq right now. There were better ways of dealing with Saddam than this madness.

3) “American troops should stay in Iraq for as long as they're needed”
Right. We shouldn’t have gone to war, but we did. It’s (partially) our mess and we need to help clean it up. They’re our troops and we need to support them.

4) “and the postwar fight to secure Iraq is crucial.”
See #3. We shouldn’t be an occupying force, but we can’t just pretend we didn’t invade. If we let Iraq disintegrate into total civil war the world will blame us forever. We need to get out, but we need to take responsibility for our own actions.

It’s easy to shout simple slogans. It’s harder to offer real world solutions. I think Senator Clinton is trying to do the latter. I think Senator Obama is, too. Frankly, at this point I think Senator Biden has the best plan in his concept of soft-partitions in a federated Iraq and I encourage you all to look at his ideas, but you can see how far his subtle complexity has taken him in fund-raising and the polls.
Senator Clinton has enough political skills to know she’d be better off just trashing the Bush administration and calling for total withdrawal. That she hasn’t done so isn’t hypocrisy, it is political courage. She hasn’t flipped positions. She’s refused to reduce a complex issue to a simple sound bite, and sadly she’s paying a price for doing so. Senator Clinton is being subtle for the good of the nation. I hope it doesn’t cost her the Presidency.

Jonathan, Pittsburgh, PA : August 23, 2007 8:04 am

Since you say "proof" of her lying, manipulating and pandering is never shown, read below from a speech in December of 2003:

After the capture of Saddam Hussein, the senator from New York laid out her own views on Iraq, in speeches and in interviews. She articulated sharp criticisms of the Bush administration while staking out an unapologetically hawkish position on Iraq.

"I was thrilled that Saddam Hussein had finally been captured," she said in a Monday speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "Like many of you, I was glued to the television and the radio as I went about my daily business. We owe a great debt of gratitude to our troops, to the president, to our intelligence services, to all who had a hand in apprehending Saddam. Now he will be brought to justice, and we hope that the prospects for peace and stability in Iraq will improve." Clinton made four key points: She doesn't regret voting to authorize the president to go to war; she's "delighted" that Saddam Hussein was captured; American troops should stay in Iraq for as long as they're needed, and at higher levels than present, if necessary; and the postwar fight to secure Iraq is crucial.

I am not American. I cannot vote. I know Islam more than very well.
–Posted By pl, at the UN, for a while.

Why is CNN posting political stmts from non-American Muslim Preachers supporting Hillary from the UN while not posting historical facts about her so called "experience" sent in from American voters?

Who needs more proof of CNN’s bias reporting techniques..??

I like Hillary. Come on, she is 10 times more educated then BUSH and America put him in office twice. I have read some of the comments and I had a good laugh. Yes CNN is pushing their candidate all right and with stating that I wonder who is the CEO of that company. Bush just tried to convince a group of veterans that America left Vietnam too early, that we should have stayed longer. So picture this. The Iraq war should have never happen. You can not bring peace to a region that has never know peace since day one. No where in recorded history is that the many tribes in the middle east were able to coexist. It's is never going happen. If anything the war has created a bigger mess and empowered a greater demon. Whether we stay or leave, America has an unstoppable target on it's back. Bush an out of control cowboy with out a brain has ruin America, what an embarrassment.

Hey Hillary,
just so you'd know.. Iraq is a democracy now. And they don't want any more tyrants like you telling them what to do.

The major thing that makes the people of the middle east mad at they US is they think we interfere too much in their lives. What would HRC consider removing the Prime Minister as? This will just light a new fire under the feet of all the insurgents.

My solution for Iraq quagmire is to involve Iran in the Political process. This has to be done in multiple stages:
Bring UN to bear heavily down on Iran using sanctions to constrict flow of money to their Army Republican Guards (which they are doing now anyway) and also to clamp down on Uranium enrichment. This will send a clear message to Iran that US will is still strong in the region despite failures in Iraq. US has to make them “feel” that if required they will hang around for decades until a Democracy is established. At the same time the very strong sanctions over a long period of time (at least 1-2 years) should eventually erode the Iran public opinion about their President’s Iraq policies of terror and also get them thinking what is really important to them as a country. Only a country that is economically extra secure thinks of terrorizing other nations.
US will have to heavily invest time, money and people like media experts and PR experts to make Iraqis think favorably about US stay in Iraq and also turn Iran’s public opinion around about US (from hostile to neutral at the least). US had the muscle power to crush Sadam’s army in a lightning strike of Shock and Awe but did not have a moment’s planning for what to do to win the people of Iraq’s confidence right from Day 1. A classic example is US troops raising US flag atop a fallen Sadam Statue instead of an Iraqi flag!!! Very bad idea when you are invading another country, be to liberate the people or for Oil!! This was a free media promotion for Al Quida’s recruitment campaign. Like any American, Iraqis are also a very Proud people. That is the biggest difference between wars fought in battle fields and Urban warfare!
Now is the right time to learn and make concessions to US’s adamant belief that “I am the liberator and hence I own you/your oil” attitude. No neighbor of Iraq would want another US annex in the region, especially the Arab/Islamic nations. Making them part of the Political process in Iraq will give them the confidence that US will not make Iraq a thorn in their flesh. This strategy is surely opposite to what the US intelligence community and citizens think. But face the facts – what will you do if a Middle Eastern culture takes control of Mexico or Canada? I am guessing you will keep pounding them until you have run out of money and people!! To get approvals for involving the Iraqi neighbors make use of media and PR heavily. By then, the Iran reeling from sanctions, will take any offer on the table like getting involved constructively in Iraq, in order to lift some of the sanctions. Then enter into a very constructive bilateral talk with Iran and try to turn the people’s opinion around about US. Stop being a bully at least in the Media. Talk constructive and positive about Iraqis and their culture. Show respect to their culture. Stop making conflicting hostile public statements like the ones made by Obama and Tom Tancredo. No culture in the history of nations has remained a super power for long by being arrogant in attitude like the US Government now is.
If you do all of the above successfully then it is time to remove the Army Hat and put on the Friendship hat. Six or more years or war will take as many or more years of healing and constructive actions to create a good image of US in the eyes of the world. That is the real America. The most benevolent, magnanimous and advanced culture!
I am not an American, Arab or Muslim. I am a citizen of this world!!

Wow. So Hillary is a flip-flopper? Doesn't believe in the troops? She's divisive? She doesn't understand anything? She's predictable? She's inconsistent? Sounds like some are saying what they always say about Hillary – none of which is based in fact. The way the right-wing talking heads take her words out of context and describe her as all these things – is what has made her so "divisive". They fear her and others with intelligent, progressive views. Democrats will have to pull out all the stops to get her elected, I'm afraid. But, I firmly believe she has what it takes to be a very strong leader. This country needs a strong leader now more than ever.

I remember someone a few years ago saying we needed regime change in Iraq, wonder who that was?

C'mon Senator, a candidate for the president of the United States shouldn't always say what they're thinking,(to coin a phrase), isn't that right?

A non-functional government that cannot produce a political settlement, is Senator Clinton commenting on foreign or domestic policy?

Isn't she echoing Carl Levin? A day late and a dollar short again!

She says "Progress will only come from political reconciliation and compromise from the Iraqis themselves," she said in the statement. "Given that reality, the President’s escalation strategy is not succeeding."

I agree with the first part of that statement, you can't force change where the other party is definitely not willing.
But, perhaps the "escalation strategy" is a prerequisite to setting the environment to accomplish the first part. She said it was working, but now it isn't?

Have a good day, vote your conscience,

Chip

So Hillary stands up in front of the VFW and talks like a neo-con. Does this woman have no standards?

As a Democrat, I have NO idea where she stands on the war, and no other voter does either. Is she for or against the surge? I think if Democrats really want to end the war, I'm not sure if she's the one to do it.

It's time for Clinton to go.

Hillary said – "The Iraqi government’s failures have reinforced the widely held view that the Maliki government is nonfunctional and cannot produce a political settlement, because it is too beholden to religious and sectarian leaders."

Is she saying that the Maliki government can not maintain the same objectivity/lack of bias that she maintains despite all her campaign contributions from lobbyists?

I do not think it's Hillary's decision for Maliki to go or not. It's the Iraqis's decision.

A more unifying figure? Look at the candidates we are having? Are there any candidates that we consider a unifying figure? I personally like to see Obama as president, but then for other people, he is not qualified to be President.

There will be conflict no matter what. A unifying figure – dream on. Even Jesus Christ has a difficult time unifying people.

If each of us shows some restraint in doing and saying mean things to other people, then maybe it will become a better world – but it requires work from each of us. No one leader is going to solve the problem for us. However, they can inspire us – and that's what I see in Obama.

Hillary once again shows that she will say anything to get the nomination. Another contradiction and flip flop from Hillary.

I just saw the CNN reporter on Anderson Cooper's show talking about Hillary's speech at the VFW summit and he referred to Obama and Edwards as "her challengers". Doesn't a challenger go against a winner/champion?
…CNN has already declared Hillary the winner.

[...] back on topic of the issues. Of course, this is in response about Hillary Clinton's recent remarks. "The issue of Iraq is one of the most important issues facing the country and the Clinton [...]

Who cares?!? Cheap comments from a cheap campaign. Hillary always flows with the tide and this is yet another one of her pitiful cheap comments designed to collect a few more weak votes. Will it ever end?

Um, didn't she say yesterday that the surge is working? Today she wants change. Different day, different audience, different opinion. I hate to say it, but I would re-elect Bush before I would vote for Hillary. She actually scares me.

Why does Senator Clinton call Senator Obama naive for commenting on Pakistan and its leader in a way she says may destablize their government, but Senator Clinton can call for the removal of Iraq's leader and not be subject to the same criticism? Is it possible her criticism was not principled but rather opportunistic?

One day your for the surge the next day your against it. Good God Hill make up your mind. One thing you can say about Obama he is consistant.

With the backing of Heidi Fleiss, Hillary should be a shoo in.

Wow, it never fails, just another opportunity to trash Hillary!

Why don't you all read what Sen. Carl Levin had to say after returning from Iraq:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee is calling for a new government in Iraq, saying his trip there last week convinced him that Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki is too sectarian and cannot create a stable Iraq.

…..Levin visited Iraq with the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia. The two men issued a more nuanced joint statement together, saying that current Iraqi leaders may be facing their “last chance” and that if they fail the government and people need to judge “what actions should be taken…to form a true unity government.”

Remember that Hillary is also in the Armed Services Committee and Sens. Levin and Warner probably briefed her on their findings.

She has a point, one which parallels Vietnam more than the lib's are willing to admit.

This is to dampen reaction to her "surge is working" comment. She needed to come back with an anti-Bush statement.

this is really a hoot! They say Bush has hurt our image in the world. But it is OK for Hillary and the Dems to start deciding who should rule in Iraq. Well, come to think of it, that is the Dems view of democracy. Shameful.

Like it or not, Mrs. Clinton, Makiki's an elected official. What would you have said if your husband was told by a foreign nation to hit the road when he tore the nation apart with his unseemly behavior in the White House? He committed purjury, which certainly undermines his stature as a leader with integrity, not to mention the complete lack of judgement. You of all people have a lack of standing to ask for an elected official of another country to step down for not being an effective leader.

So Hillary thinks that it is up to the United States to choose another leader for Iraq? Let's take a vote of the Iraqis and see who they would like to lead the US.

Hillary says that there is a "certain responsiblity in how you relate issues related to terrorism." Is it responsible for her to be calling for the ouster of Iraq's elected (more-or-less) leader at a time like this?

The situation in Iraq is probably beyond our control at this point anyway, so for Hillary to pretend that we just need to put another leader in place to solve all the problems is just as delusional as Bush and McCain — who she is sounding more and more like every day.

I like Sen. Clinton, but it is amazing how she and the rest of our "so-called" leaders seem to come around to thinking like the American people. We told them, along with the majority of the world, not to go in there. The Iraqis never asked us to rescue them in the first place. Irregardless of what occurs going forward Iraq will be left a mess for a long time coming. Just "SMH"!

WELL, I SEE THE REPUBLICANS ARE ON HERE POSTING OVER TIME BUT THE FACTS ARE, MALIKI IS NOT THE MAN TO RUN IRAQ. HE HAS NOT DONE ONE THING TO TRY AND UNITE THE COUNTRY. THEN THE WHOLE BUNCH TAKES OFF ON VACATION. THEY HAVE NOT DONE ONE THING ABOUT THE OIL DEAL BUSH IS TRYING TO PUSH THROUGH.HE TAKES ORDERS FROM BUSHCO.HE ALSO WENT TO IRAN AND BUDDIED UP TO THEM.HILLARY HAS IT RIGHT. [.....]

Every day the same group of people come on to attack Hillary. You people are full of FEAR and I love it.

GO HILLARY!!!

"Wow. Is it me or are there two or three guys that spend their day monitoring these articles so that they can post bad things about Mrs. Clinton"

Shawn from Atlanta, at the time of my posting this there were 28 responses here and 20 of them were against Hillary.

Sorry, it's not just 2 or 3 "guys" or only Republicans, it's "guys" and "girls" from both parties.

I know, it's part of the right-wing conspiracy.

And for the record David, Salinas, Ca, Hillary is wrong here big time, let them sort it out, we need them to make their own government legit or all of this will be for nothing.

Not a lot difference between the productivity of the Iraqi parliament and the legislative branch of the US government. Perhaps a few more earmarks from one group.

Evidently most of the commentators are not smart enough actually follow the issues.
You can assert that there is no military solution to establish Peace in Iraq and also assert that some battles have been won. Recognizing that some progress has been made in some areas is True; and, recognizing that there will be no final military victor is also True. One can also recognize that peace in Iraq will require an effective political solution. Peacekeeping troops are a sign that there is a lack of peace. Peace comes after War not part of War. To make peace you have to stop War.

Religious and sectarian violence has always been a problem in this area. First she voted to destablize the region DRAMATICALLY and then complains when a weak government can't get the job done. I don't buy it.

Since when is Hillary Clinton "White House frontrunner"?

"WASHINGTON (CNN) — White House frontrunner Hillary Clinton"
shouldn't it be more like democratic party frontrunner, or more appropriately, democrat party hopeful, not "white house frontrunner"?

Hilary Clinton is trying to make herself look and sound "presidential," while hoping to continually cast her rival Obama as "inexperienced." But how does being the spouse of a former president and subsequently moving to New York in order to get elected using the Clinton name as a U.S. senator for a few years make you so qualified to be president, while Obama who served as a very successful Illinois state senator for a decade before coming to Washington and serving a few years less in the same U.S. Senate as Hiliary Clinton is deemed "inexperienced."

It's time for HILLARY to go.

Hillary's demand to overthrow the regime of Iraq should come as no surprise. But fear not. That's her position today. Tomorrow, after reading the latest polls, she may change her mind. Or maybe not. Then wait until Friday's polls, she may change her mind again. Or maybe not. Well, she could. But maybe she won't.
Good grief, is there ANYTHING this woman believe is true for more than a day? Who's running this confused campaign?

If ever an issue exposed the lack of understanding and the depth of ignorance of the partisans on both sides of the aisle, this is it.

Listen if you people like Obama, Edwards, Mccain, the dog next door! fine, but to begin labeling Sen. Clinton for speaking her mind is absurd. for the past 2 years Al-Maliki has run the government (the way a parliment works remember) he has the power to convene all factions of the government and to unite them for the betterment of IRAQ. Understanding that he would have challenges (he should not have taken the job if he was not up to it) and under him we have seen a big part of the parliment not only divided, but not even talking or showing up for work. so to be frustrated with this guy is not at all un-justified especially when we have our brave men and women dying to bring peace to this country. Let's have a real Dialogue and let's not be afraid to speak out. Pres. Bush is not my favorite person but I respect him and by the way I'm a Dem. I do not agree with him, with the poorly executed war and his cowboy attitude, I don't believe he has the best intentions at heart for the American public and I for one would like to see him out of office.

But I will not call him an Idiot, I will not call any of the other candidates as such from either party. I however want change, I want forward thinking, I want to know that the person in the presidents office is giving his/her best for the American people and that they are intellectually curious about ALL aspecs of governments affairs. So support your candidate for their Ideals not for their sloggans and let's have real debate not just finger-pointing. Let's be more intelligent than that.

How can Bush say its not up to the politicians in Washington to say whether Maliki should remain in power. We need to do everything possible to bring our troops home. We are still there only because of the lousy Iraqi government's failure to control the situation in their country. A change in leadership there is more than due so we can bring our young men and women home. It is more than up to our politicians…its their DUTY to get involved. It just goes to show how clueless our president is.

Why are we concern about each Hillary's statement. Don't we have other candidates on both sides? What does she know about Iraq? What kind of experience does she have to be an expert on political situation for country at war. Looks like CNN is trying to push their candidate.

She is becoming irrelevant as a result of her continuing shifts in position depending on which way the political winds are blowing.

The last couple of days have been very un-Clinton-esque in that she has repeatedly contradicted herself and provided tons of ammunition to her rivals on both the Democratic and Republican sides of the ticket.

If she has many more incidents like this, Obama and Edwards will be the ones fighting it out for the Democratic nomination.

Bill can't be proud.

The clinton campaign bashes Obama for making comments that might destablize our supposed ally in Pakistan and then she blatantly calls for the removal of the current Iraqi Prime Minister. I thought politicians running for president should be careful just saying what they think, especially in regards to volatile international issues.

Clinton and her campaign are so rediculous, If she gets nominated on the democratic ticket, this country is doomed, no matter who wins the general election.

What we should do is send over some Republicans so they can show everyone how great they are at running things. Look at the last 2 terms. WOW Sucks doesn't it.

<<>>

God forbid a Democrat let the truth slip. How DARE she!

Senator Hillary Clinton is no more concerned about the Iraq government leaders, the people of Iraq, than GWB is concerned about our troops over seas and the people of the USA!

I am not American. I cannot vote. I know Islam more than very well.

Shawn, I will go further than your stance of giving "this lady a break". And, yes, the attacks on her are way too obviously "beholden" to party politics. They are posted too fast not to be obvious.

What Ms Rodham-Clinton said today is just the tip of what is yet to come from her on the subject. As an interim and cautious way to a final clear policy what she said is perfectly in tune with local interests. It is just a baby-step designed purposedly for those Americans who refer to 'mayors' (muftis) and 'governors' in Islam.

Look, go to the closest Public Library and widen your knowledge of Islam–just a little–, then you might garner a glimpse of how enormously acute she is.

Shut up
thats all I have to say
No one really has a solution and in the process poor innocent iraqi’s and U.S. troops are suffering. Today I read that article about the 5 year old Iraqi boy who was burned with gasoline in front of his own home for no apparent reason. I just want all these politicans to stop giving us the run around, this isnt just about winning elections, its about the human element, its about the poor 5 year old boy who has a burned face and doesn’t go outside to play anymore.

Can someone please tell me how HRC can possibly be the front runner in all the polls when at least 90% of the comments about her on ALL the blogs are negative and supportive of Obama? It just does not make any sense to me.
How about an online poll and get the opinions of voters who do not still use rotery phones.
I can not believe that her numbers are as high as always stated. How does one find out the real truth?

If the other guy said this first, the fawning and praise would be everywhere:

Lance would write an essay extolling his vision.

LynMD would first praise him, then slam her for not being HIM.

and assorted others would, "hosanna"

Van

This war has been a farse from the beginning, to us it's politics, to them it's religion.

Hillary is an idiot.

Ok, even though al-Maliki isn't exactly the second coming of Abraham Lincoln, it would be a mistake to depose of him (unless it was the decision of the Iraqi Parliament or something). It would make the Iraqi government look like a puppet and undermine its citizens confidence as well as the confidence of the security forces.

Obama has courage, integrity and a point of view. Hillary is going to say whatever needs to be said to play to all the people all the time. Honestly I dont think she really believes we should be out of Iraq. She's just afraid to say it, so she soft peddles and says, "we should get out iraq, unless Al Queda is still there." as she said in the ACL debate.

Obama can actually turn the country from the path of destruction we're on.

Clinton can't. It's that simple.

Anybody but Obama or possibly Edwards is going to keep us hurling at the wall.

In my opinion it does not matter who the PM of Iraq is now or in the future, as the Iraqi people obviously do not want (nor could they handle) a democracy and I do not feel that a democracy should be pushed on them. I believe it is long past time that we brought our soldiers home and admitted that this illegal war was a mistake from the beginning (understatement!). I don't even want to hear the the old arguement that there will be a bloodbath if we bring our soliders home…what do you think is taking place in Iraq now? Hopefully americans will take note and continue to keep church and state separate in this country.

Please finish Presidents Bush's quote. Your only reporting a portion of his statement. I wonder why?

Are You People STUPID!!

don't u see whats happening before the report of Bush's surge is to come out in September they wanna blame an Iraqi official as to why the surge wasn't working. Watch mark my words, there excuse will be the Government officials in Iraq weren't doing there job and we were.

Its not the Prime Minister's job to get Iraqi people to come together its the President of Iraq's job to do that

What does she mean by Al maliki should go at this time? Does she think that the problem in Iraq can be solved by anybody with the presencs of the American troops in Iraq? I think she needs to take a break and think twice before she make any comment on the problems in Iraq. This does not show any experience as she claims to have.

My message to Clinton is that she has no knowledge about what it is like to be a soldier. Remarks that her and her party make, shows their complete lack of caring for our brave soldiers who are giving their lives to help the people of Iraq to be free. She lacks knowledge and intelligence about things like how life works in other countries. Those who make such poor comments are also giving the terrorists Exactly what they want = helping Al Qaeda to tear down the fragile government that Iraq has. She needs to read United States history books to learn that the US was not created overnight! I pity Clinton for her ill-chosen remarks. Her husband made tons of mistakes and she has the audacity to put down Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki?

Wow! Can anyone see how inconsistent this woman is. She makes a blanket statements, but has no plan. The same approach she took when she voted YES to the Iraq war. Hillary Clinton is not ready to lead this country. She's a FLIP FLOPPER and is a member of the FLAVOR OF THE MONTH CLUB.

Wow. Is it me or are there two or three guys that spend their day monitoring these articles so that they can post bad things about Mrs. Clinton. Is she really that bad or is mainstream America just afraid that if she wins the Presidency of the United States, that her victory opens up the door of opportunity for other groups and ethnicities in America. Give the lady a break. Before George W. Bush was elected, he probably did not even know where Iraq was on a map.Yet he was elected to two presidential terms.

Politicians!

Democrat strategists deduce Rove is trying to get Hillary to be the nominee by calling her fatally flawed.

WHAT do you think the Iraqi people will do when they hear the US Politicians criticizing Maliki?

I'll give you a hint… starts with an "R" and ends with "ally"

I have to agree with Senator Clinton on this one. When Maliki lost the Sunni factions , any hope for his coalition disappeared. It also accentuates the problem of waiting around for the Petraeus report or arguing about whether the surge is working: the problem in Iraq isn’t military any more, it’s political. Until a viable Iraqi governmental structure emerges, the insurgency will continue, and American ground forces will keep dying trying to keep the peace. This isn’t counter-terrorism, it’s an occupation during a civil war, and that just doesn’t make sense militarily or politically.

I think we need to look more carefully at Senator Biden’s soft-partition plan. I didn’t like it at first, but nobody else has suggested anything better, and we don’t have the troops, the finances or the resolve to keep this up indefinitely.

I hope we can discuss this with respect. I enjoy partisan politics, but this isn’t the time or place for them.

Maliki rode out the Hussein years in Iran, he was elected with critical support from Sadr, his government has spent nothing on Sunni areas of the country. As long as he leads, the Sunni tribe has no reason to stop fighting and Sadr has every incentive to push his agenda. We are already undermining Maliki by arming Sunni militias in AnBar province. We are babysitting a civil war that we don't understand and can't control. Where's Bin Laden…..that I understand.

TALK ABOUT THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK.

So in front of the VFW the surge was working in some areas, so that it would seem to the VFW that she sort of agrees with the more conservative view that the surge is working. But today she said it is saying that it isn't working in some other areas, so it isn't working, thus appealing to the more liberal view.

I guess this again shows her political skills and savvy. This is a perfect example of why Obama is naive and inexperienced, because he would say what he really meant and people would really know exactly where he stands.

Where am I wrong in this analysis?

Obama takes anti-war stance to war veterans
KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) – Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday told U.S. military veterans who largely back the war in Iraq that he is committed to pulling the troops out — something his Democratic presidential rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, played down when she spoke to the group earlier.

She didn't have the courage to say that in front of the VFW. She is just a "PANDER BEAR"

Politics – Politics – Politics

While I could never pretend that the Bush administration has been perfect in any way, this statement from a person running for the office of President of the United States only shows the difference between her idea of foreign relations and that of our current administration.

I fear for the day if someone like this takes office.

Wow this lady is so predictatble.

Bush said, "Prime Minister Maliki's a good guy, good man with a difficult job …"

Perhaps so, but it is an error to think that being a "good" person and a COMPETENT person are the same; they are not. Maliki may be a good, brave, hard-working man, but he's not competent.

Bush also said. “… it's not up to the politicians in Washington, D.C., to say whether he will remain in his position.” True. But it is up to Americans to decide to put their faith in Maliki or not. And it is the right of Americans to say "either he goes or we go." He's their PM, not ours. We gave him is chance, he's blown it.

I'm sad to see that Hillary flip-flopped on her honest view of the Iraq War to appease the powerful far-left Democrats and just so she didn't appear to be agreeing with Bush on anything. Freakin' politics

Under the best of conditions, the affected parts of the US have taken long to recover from Katrina. Following Hillary's logic on Maliki, does this mean that the respective mayors and governors in those areas should go as well? Maliki may not be the best, but under the current conditions in Iraq, he may indeed be the best for the job. He has done one thing consistently right since he gained power – stay alive. Hillary should try living her life as a moving target, and simultaneously try to appease more than two political parties. She is not ready to lead this nation until she can relate to the constraints other world leaders are subject to.

she "hope[s] that the Iraqi parliament will replace Prime Minister Maliki with a less divisive and more unifying figure when it returns in a few weeks."

Empty rhetoric.
Sounds very strange Hillary preaching unity. Do you have Malikis' replacement in mind or a plan. you missed the point again Hill. The problem is far much bigger than Maliki and any repalcement without tackling the core problem is a cropper.

Looks like the Democratic "front-runner" would get along great with Mitt Romney with their great tendency to FLIP FLOP based on what they think people want to hear.

Heh, funny how Hill would lilke to see the Iraqi PM replaced by "a less divisive and more unifying figure." Irony at it's finest.