CNN

To: Tom Dunn
Now I see where you are coming from
and I respect that. But you see it's this way with me – I am an artist and a poet very much attracted to leadership with vision and positive energy and I see Barak Obama as one of those rare gifts that come around rarely – a leader with a heart for the people.
I admit that I am an idealist and proud of that, it's just that I have never been so excited by the courage
of such a man as this authentic, intelligent Barak Obama. And I do hope
this country is ready for a leader with such creativity. The world would respect an Obama win. I guess we will know after a few primaries come in. Good luck to us both.

Posted By a soldier whose been there Texas: "...This forum makes me sick to my stomach and something that is rare so this is the last entry from me..."

Basically what you have just become is the little kid in the story you posted who closed the blinds. You don't like what you're reading so you throw up your hands and leave, in a very real sense closing your blinds to other points of view. This country is full of individuals each with their own voice.

The "mess" in Somalia was a civil war not unlike what we are seeing today in Iraq. U.S. troops were sent to Somalia as part of a U.N. effort to stabilize a transitional government. Both the Somali factions involved in the conflict laid claim to the leadership of the county, a U.N. backed government and a group lead by Mohamed Farah Aideed, whom many believe won the national election but was denied his rightful office.

To blame the recent feudal outbreaks in Somalia on the fact U.N. troops were taken out during the Clinton Administration is short sighted. It could be argued just as easily that had U.N. peace keeping forces stayed in Somalia we would be as deeply intrenched in their civil war as we are in Iraq.

Taking sides in another country's civil war is a mistake taught by history. The French learned this lesson during the American Civil War. The United States should have learned this lesson from Vietnam.

More to the point, however, based on your views it would seem that you side in part with Ms. Clinton. She advocates a slow pull out of Iraq. She is not afraid to acknowledge gains made in Iraq, even though it flies in the face of all the democratic doomsayers. She did not say we should carry out a long protracted war in Iraq, as some posting here imply.

Even though I don't like Hillary's personality she shows maturity in her ability to step out of the democratic box and see things as they are. That is a trait our current leader does not have, nor do many of the candidates who are running for office.

If I hear one more naive fool on this board try to justify war as being a humanitarian measure to "save" this or that poor, beleaguered people-I will puke. War is NEVER used as a noble, humanitarian means of rescuing people. If it were, the world would be at constant war-we would be in Darfur right now.
Anyone else who thinks otherwise is a moron with no knowledge of history.
The United States did not enter World War II to save the poor Jews. Roosevelt turned away BOATLOADS of Jews trying to enter the US and the British Monarchy had Nazi Sympathizers at the highest levels of royalty.
WAR IS BUSINESS-get this straight.
War is about consolidating resources, the spreading of hegemony, and allying with those who protect your interests.
This is not hard to understand.
The so-called "ideals" (i.e.,the spreading of democracy, the "liberation" of people from oppression) mean absolutely NOTHING to those who make war. They are a means to an end.
Didn't Joseph Goebbels teach us anything?
We will not be leaving Iraq until the infrastructure is in place to effectively control the oil resources there. That includes having a stable government that will work with Western oil companies and keep Islamic fundamentalism in check.
Do you think it is a coincidence that Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan was an ex oil company executive?
The oil reserves in the Middle East are among the last viable ones remaining in the world.
Democrats know this as well as Republicans. There will be no change in war strategy as long as this is true-no matter who is president.
Hillary Clinton is the next president if the United States. We no longer have elections in this country. It is already over. This elaborate three year presidential campaign is a ridiculous and distracting dog and pony show for your amusement. 20 straight years of either a Clinton or a Bush as president. Our electoral process has been hijacked and the game is rigged. Democan or Republicrat, makes no difference. Our leaders are chosen for us-not the other way around.

So let me get this straight John from Swanson Chicago.

You think we should pull our troops out of one civil war that we removed a dictator and put them into a civil war that is still controlled by a dictator.

Why? How long will you give Darfur before advocating running out on them too?? This is nothin but typical mindless dem anti-Iraq freedom rhetoric, I’m surprised CNN didn’t post it the first time either..

I find it interesting to observe both sides of the fence during this period of conflict in the Middle East.

Those people who keep claiming that the Iraq war is unique and a critical fight for the sanctity of the West should probably go back and do some research about Iraq's past.

I agree that the surge is working, but only in the sense that it is keeping civilians secure for the time being. However, unless the Iraqi government can pull it together and get strong enough to enforce the security of it's own country, no amount of American presence in Iraq will ever change anything. I'm bracing myself for the moaning in February when the attacks pick back up and the casualties return to an all-time high in Iraq, despite the increased number of US troops over there.

There is no military victory in Iraq – it has to be a social and political one, jointly created by all occupants equally represented in the government. Which is not happening, and most likely will never happen. No matter how much we try to make it happen. Part of the problem with people who say that it's imperative that we stay there to fight the "terrorists" or the "insurgents" don't realize that the very people the US fights to save are the ones that turn around the next day and fight the US. They don't want peace – peace means stability, stability means cooperation, cooperation means equality. And none of the powers in Iraq want equality.

They want to fight the other until they are either dead, or their opponents are. Iran is just the arms dealer making money of the conflict.

"During my last visit to Iraq in January, I expressed my reservations about the ability of the Iraqi government, led by Prime Minister Maliki, to make the tough political decisions necessary for Iraq to resolve its sectarian divisions. Since my visit, Iraqi leaders have not met their own political benchmarks to share power, modify the de-Ba'athification laws, pass an oil law, schedule provincial elections, and amend their constitution. During his trip to Iraq last week, Senator Carl Levin, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee on which I serve, confirmed that 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. I share Senator Levin’s hope that the Iraqi parliament will replace Prime Minister Maliki with a less divisive and more unifying figure when it returns in a few weeks.

As I have said many times before, there is not a military solution in Iraq but progress will only come from political reconciliation and compromise from the Iraqis themselves. Given that reality, the President’s escalation strategy is not succeeding.

Our military has performed magnificently in Iraq but ultimately the future of Iraq will be decided by the Iraqis themselves. Rather than continue an escalation policy that is not fostering political progress in Iraq, we need to send a message to Iraq's leaders that the lack of political progress is unacceptable. Our best hope of fostering political progress in Iraq is to begin the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops." - Hillary Clinton, 8/22/2007

Anyone who disagrees with that statement - including our President - truly does not understand the nature of this conflict.

The story posted earlier "blinds" was emailed to me from a friend. I thought it would make people see more then what this government and media want you to see. Having been in service You never get the real picture from either. I have been to africa. Your great Clinton president pulled us out after a few causalties and now Somilia is a mess again because we weren't allowed to finish the job. Were you there? did you see the dead on the streets!!! And the men and women that are supposely not fit to have kids in this story are the ones giving you the safety to have your little talks so stand in line buddy!!This forum makes me sick to my stomach and something that is rare so this is the last entry from me. God help us all if everyone starts thinking the way some of you all think.

TO CMSGT

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ABSOLUTE BS REMARK!!

I can't believe the high hopes that the Democrats have for Iraq to fail as a free country. I feel sorry for our service men and women over there knowing that they have a political party praying for failure. It's true that a good day for a soldier is a bad day for a Democrat. A bad day for a soldier is a good day for a Democrat. They should be ashamed of themselves.

@ CNN ADMIN

Why was my first post removed in response to the long-winded post by the armed forces personele? My comparison was clean, and did not contain any vulgarities. The truth hurts doesnt it? Yes, we helped put hussein in office. no the iraquis didnt want to be saved. yes they are complacent in their plight. and no there is no way to justify our presense there. and no, there is no excuse as to why we have remained innactive towards the genocide in Darfur. we rush to save the jews in world war two, yet we leave the black africans in sudan to die. thanks for making the rest of america look like racist hippocrites. CNN IS THE WORST AT CENSORSHIP. YOU REMOVE POSTS THAT CONFINE TO THE REGULATIONS BUT DISSAGREE WITH CNN GOVERNMENT AFFILIATIONS> WHAT A SHAM.

GOD HELP US IF SHE IS VOTED INTO THE WHITE HOUSE
Are you people crazy, Look what the Clinton's did to the White House the first time. Nothing but scandals, deceptions, lies, and cheating. I cannot fathom Americans putting them back in charge.

Ms. Clinton has become a fully-vested member of the Washington Establishment. As a full member, she says and does things that are intended to pander to the audience of the day. To think she is either capable or interested in telling the truth (in any absolute terms) is foolish. No truth will ever come from her lips except by accident. If Democrats consider her the best possible candidate for 2008, we will get precisely what we deserve (spoken by a committed Democrat).

Another example of a Washington politician trying to have it both ways? John Edwards is a former Senator who worked in...WASHINGTON! He a POLITICIAN and lives in one America and want us all to believe he understands the other America! Smells hypocritical to me and I am not a Hillary fan! Somebody needs a mirror and not just to check out the haircut!

To: Robert M. Reidy

Apparently we have a difference of opinion on Hillary Clinton. I see her as a smart and pragmatic politician who has an excellent chance of winning the presidency. You see her as a conniving low-life who plots and schemes to inflict her same-old views on America. You want change. I want to win. I've noticed that bloggers everywhere who support Obama spend much of their comment attacking the front runner HRC, and less explaining why BHO will win and implement the changes you hope for. Message is great, winning is better. Ask John Kerry and all the rest of us who still walk around shaking our heads at Bush's 2004 victory. The trick to getting a Dem elected is to bring along some of the other side in a few key states, not to constantly preach to the Democratic choir. HRC is a fighter who can actually win. Obama can't win in a general election, however much pure progressives want it to be so. I am personally about as liberal as anyone I know and wanted Dean to be nominated in 2004, but I also see a danger in this country which goes beyond primary politics, so I support the candidate who has the best chance of surviving the GOP attack machine. I guess it really comes down to trust. I think HRC is one of the good guys. So is Obama, but Clinton can actually make some of her programs happen by winning. I don't have anything against Obama and don't write insulting blog comments about him. Dems get too caught up in primary politics when they spend 90% of their time attacking other Dems. Give it a rest.

Posted By Simi, Valley, California: "Thank you for your service. No thank you for brainwashing a child. Nice parenting skills there."

That father/son story you read is an old chain letter that has been circulating the internet for quite a while. Because the individual who made the post decided to post a propaganda chain letter I can't help but wonder if person truly is a member of the armed forces. If he is then I thank him for his service. I would advise him, however, to avoid posting known propaganda because it discredits his own views.

Just my $.02

Steven R Chandler, CMSgt
332 ELRS/Vehicle Management
Flight Balad Air Base , Iraq

Thanks for your service. However you acted so much like Bush and Cheney. He hid the truth, doctored intelligence and made them look real. Obviously, it wasnt real but your son was angry at a perceived enemy. Like your son we got mad and went for the wrong person. What happens when your son goes out to fight, opens his eyes and finds out that the person out there didnt do what you said. Should he keep bashing him? Being a child he'll lose your trust and ask why questions. Unfortunately in the millitary orders are obeyed without questions.

Aww, what happened to my reply? I spent 20 minutes writing an alternate end to the story that was both accurate but respectful, and CNN deletes it?

First off, I think that the story Steven tells is a good one, and for what it's worth it was a good allegory for why we went to war in the first place.

HOWEVER...

Therefore, I think it is in our own best intrest if we slowly give more power to the Iraqi government and equally as slowly pull out.

Mr. Steven Chandler, carry on my friend, carry on.

From one vet to another (and not someone from California who says they would have served if called, and thinks Bill Clinton was heroic for being a draft dodger), THANK YOU for your service to the country and the very truthful portrayal of how it really IS.

To Cable King,

Seeing as how your probabably ignorant of the Air Force military structure let me give you a quick lesson. CMSgt aka Chief Master Sargeant is the top of the food chain on the enlisted side of the house. You don't make Chief by licking someones shoes and doing what your told. You make Chief by being the best of the best and leading the way in bringing change and improvement in your field.

Then again most of the ignorant people who post here are also unaware of the fact that military members tend to have higher education levels then the general populace. Of course that study must be biased because the military are mindless zombies and you all said so right?

I find it somewhat sickening to know there are so many ignorant fools in this world who don't get the fact that evil in the world doesn't go away just because you ignore it or boycott it. The Iraqi people tried to rise up once without success and we stood idley by while Saddam Hussein slaughtered his own countrymen. But I guess that is pretty easy to forget when you can actually believe that people were much happier in Iraq when they had no say in the future course of their own country. Things are a mess now but at least the people of Iraq have a say in the course that their country takes no matter what that may be.

Hopefully the posts accusing Senator Clinton of being a liberal socialist and those accusing her of being a fascist neo-con will balance each other out and allow the American public to she her for what she is: a pragmatic moderate.

Triangulation works.

To the person who posted the story about their son and the neighbor(Saddam). . . .although I wasn't happy to hear your son was crying. . . .RIGHT ON! People do forget that Iraq was a terrible place. No one including the UN was willing to do anything about it, AFTER 16, I REPEAT 16 UN resolutions. All the while, we were concerned about Saddam having Nuclear weapons, and when we wanted proof that he didn't have them, he wouldn't let us see. Generally when someone won't let you see the proof, there is no proof. Now, I am sure someone will say, "why aren't we in the Sudan?" "They are slaughtering people too." You are right we should be there, but we can't because we are in Iraq. The better question is, "why isn't the rest of the world in the Sudan?" And to the woman who claimed that there was no sectarian divide before we arrived (Carrol Ann Newport Maine). . . are you kidding????? Did you ever hear abot the slaughter of Kurds in the North or the Shiite mass graves. Saddam just quietly killed the Kurds and Shiites. I agree it is a mess, but hypothetically, if we csn save 300,000 Iraqis with the loss of 4000 troops, maybe there is a reason to stay. If 300,000 is not the right number then, how about 500,000 or 1 million. When does it become the right thing to do? And if you say never, then you are one who believes in isolationism. . . not such a bad thing either, but, most don't agree. Just my thoughts!!!!

Mr. Anonymous,

If it wasn't for "60's mentality rhetoric" we'd still be in Vietnam. Thank the heavens for the draftees who brought a balance to military service. Bring Back the Draft!

A U.S. Army Veteran
Military Intelligence

TO: Tom Dunn

Yea, Tom I get it – Hillary is a full fledged side stepping politician and chances are we will never know where she really stands on anything. It's the same old stuff this country has been run into the ground on and you are not only lapping it up – you want more of it. You must be kidding me... ? The Clintons are master programmers and I would suggest that if you have loved the same old for the last twenty years
keep electing those same old dynasties.
OLD,OLD,OLD the same old swan song, I hope!
I am interested in the creativity and energy and courage of the Obamas.

Try something new for a change, Tom
you will be happier and invigorated!
Go with the most intelligent guy in the room as they say! Let the Clintons have
power over someone else – Live a little.

To A Soldier Who's Been There,

You're apparently effective at following orders. Probably best to let more qualified folks make decisions.

This is in response to:
Steven R Chandler, CMSgt
332 ELRS/Vehicle Management
Flight Balad Air Base , Iraq

Thank you for your service. Freedom isn't free and you are a hero for volunteering to protect all of us.

Wow, your little fiction story (I can only pray it was fiction) is about the most reprehensible piece of tripe I've ever seen on these boards. You ought to have your children taken away from you for your twisted little game of psychological indoctrination perpetrated against a child. Did you study a lot of Mao Tse Tung? He would have loved your methods.
And so this sad ex-nation births another ideological psychopath.

In response to Van:

I actually agree with you that it appears that Hillary will get the nomination. I don't think I'm clairvoyant enough, though, to predict who will get the support of the 'failed' candidates! It could be anyone of the others. My point was that the 'high-road' stance by the Clintons will most likely change when the 'other' starts catching up. Perhaps you are correct that Hillary's numbers will remain high (or higher). But as they say "one never knows, do one"!

For those who bristle at the negativity on the ticker, I say that "candidate bashing" is as American as apple-pie and has been the norm for over 200 years so don't expect it to stop now! One poignant observation is that many do it simply because they CAN without ramification. Truly, it's one of the most visible expressions of the freedoms guaranteed to all of us!

One final thought on Steven R Chandler's story of his "son's" response of closing the blinds to the evil in the 'neighborhood'. Very thought-provoking. However, many Americans are wondering why the "blinds" have been shut to other peoples in the world, namely those in Dafur and other African countries whose citizens have endured genocide and evil for years – SOMEBODY's been closing the blinds to their suffering and we wonder why. If the committment to fight evil is the sole reason for war, then the committment to send troops should be uniform! Not practical since we can't stretch our Armed Forces anymore than they already can. We just would like the 'bull' "reasons" to stop! Could it be that America doesn't feel there's any real "interest" in helping them due no (or little) oil is there? I'm proud of your service and would support you no matter what. It is not the brave soldiers who make the policy. ANYONE who denigrates you is not deserving of living withing these borders.

Raymond

Hillary is right!

To: a soldier whose been there,

You'll find no support or change any minds here in this media. Your service and story confuses most here, its seen as "propaganda". But thankfully, the silent majority will stand with you and not run so easily.

"Thank you for your service. No thank you for brainwashing a child. Nice parenting skills there."

Hmm last time I checked people were free to raise their children as they chose. Calling it brainwashing because they are trying to instill their values in him? Yeah, youre really fit to comment on that.

And as for brainwashing, what hes telling his child is no worse than the brainwashing that is going on in America's colleges these days. For the record im not repeating talking points on that one, Im currently a Senior, and Ive experienced four years of a liberal arts school, and trust me, professors love nothing more than spouting their 60's mentality rhetoric.

If you were so gung-ho about protecting human rights and your neighbors safety, then why go after Iraq? Why not go out and stop the GENOCIDE IN DARFUR? That seems a little more dire. Iraq is just convienent and it's too bad our government has even brainwashed the poor people that belive they are fighting for something. DARFUR is a much more significant tragedy, not to mention I think Sudan also possesses Uranium. Let weigh the options. People genuinely suffering and unable to free themselves from oppressive control and extermination, or Sadam doing a little cleansing in a region of people causeing trouble, in a part of the world where the afterlife is more cherished than actual life. You cannot help people that do not seek help, but ignoring people looking for help, like your story described, and completely ignoring them is cowardice defined. CHeck yourself, the story you wrote although heartwarming and totally genuine and not sounding generic at all, is actually a perfect description of the Darfur Region of Sudan, not Iraq. Again, please, do not vote in the next election, as it is obvious you are not fit to express any opinions. Your military service, although appreciated, does not qualify you to analyze international terror. Take a seat.

Maybe all the excess media attention, in trying to steer our election, will backfire if she keeps talking. I haven't met a Clinton supporter yet, and I work with at least 40 people who are pulling for Obama.

Also, regarding Sgt. Chandler's story, simply repeating illogical lines of thought does not make something true, and I am saddened that the propganda apparatus in the military is apparently even more pervasive than the US media.

Steven: Well said, well put.

When I say this, I am not slamming you or our men at arms. Far from it. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the men and women in our armed forces. However, while that may have been our original purpose for coming in, I think that the story needs a bit of an addition.

"The children crying in the street were releived when the brave neighbors finally came to their aid. They were finally safe from their violent father.

However, the eldest son and favorite child of the father soon turned on his siblings. He wanted the whole estate and didn't think he should have to share with his siblings. Even though the neighbors said they should all share, the eldest would never concede to it. Even though all of the children had an equal claim to the house, the eldest wanted it all to himself. They tried to make all of the siblings live under the same house, but the eldest would frequently play nasty tricks on his siblings while they tried to set the affairs of the household. He had some of his hooligan friends come and try to scare his siblings. He would even play nasty tricks on the neighbors who had took away his father. However, the younger siblings had the majority and tried to fight their older brother for control. Thus the torn family continued to fight, dragging the neighborhood into their squabble.

Some of the neighbors got hurt. While they were watching the drama unfolding at the neighbors, they forgot about their own kids. Their kids stopped going to school and were getting sick. Their houses were starting to need repairs. They needed to do all of this, but couldn't because they were still trying to help the squabbling siblings."

I think our hearts were in the right place at the begining of the war, but now we've come to a point where something needs to change on their end before anything can be done. Also, due to the massive budget the war requres we have neglected our national problems such as a lack-luster school system and a need for a revamped healthcare system. I'm not against the war, but it sure has become a thorn in our sides. We should really be concentrating on our own country's problams and trying to fix them rather than worrying about our neighbors at this point.

Thank you for your service. No thank you for brainwashing a child. Nice parenting skills there.

The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at war...My husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I were in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and defend our Country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good explanation. My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in our front living room window.

He said "Son, stand there and tell me what you see?"

"I see trees and cars and our neighbor's houses." he replied.

"OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the United States of America and you are President Bush."

Our son giggled and said "OK."

"Now son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every house and yard on this block is a different country" my husband said.

"OK Dad, I'm pretending."

"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and pretend you see Saddam come out of his house with his wife, he has her by the hair and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death. Their children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are screaming and crying, they are watching this but do nothing because they are kids and they are afraid of their father. You see all of this, son....what do you do?"

"Dad?"
"What do you do son?"
"I'd call the police, Dad."

"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations. They take your call. They listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you do then son?"

"Dad.......... but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.

"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband says.

"But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.

"I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children."
"Daddy...he kills them?"
"Yes son, he does. What do you do?"
"Well, if the police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next door neighbor to help me stop him." our son says.

"Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him," my husband says.

"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"

"WHAT DO YOU DO SON?" Our son starts to cry.

"OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask for help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller and puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?"

"What Daddy?"

"He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down her door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in the window and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?"

"Daddy..."

"WHAT DO YOU DO?" Our son is crying and he looks down and he whispers,
"I'd close the blinds, Daddy."
My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks him. "Why?"
"Because Daddy .... the police are supposed to help people who needs them ... and they won't help .... You always say that neighbors are supposed to HELP neighbors, but they won't help either...they won't help me stop him...I'm afraid....I can't do it by myself Daddy ..... I can't look out my window and just watch him do all these terrible things and...and.....do nothing ... so .... I'm just going to close the blinds .... so I can't see what he's doing ........ and I'm going to pretend that it is not happening."
I start to cry. My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the window, looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husband's questions and he says...

"Son"

"Yes, Daddy."

"Open the blinds because that man.... he's at your front door... "WHAT DO YOU DO?"
My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up his tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, without hesitation he says: "I DEFEND MY FAMILY DAD!! I'M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!!! I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM!!!!!"
I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek and he grabs our son to his chest and hugs him tight, and says... "It's too late to fight him, he's too strong and he's already at YOUR front door son.....you should have stopped him BEFORE he killed his wife, and his children and the old lady across the way.
You have to do what's right, even if you have to do it alone, before its too late." my husband whispers. THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we are at war with Iraq . When good men stand by and let evil happen son, THAT is the greatest atrocities in the world won't affect him. "YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT! EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALONE!" BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!! SUPPORT THEM!!! SUPPORT AMERICA SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS..."

Steven R Chandler, CMSgt
332 ELRS/Vehicle Management
Flight Balad Air Base , Iraq

When General Patraeus delivers – via the White House – his report on the success of the surge in Iraq, and it predictably indicates some level of success, Democrats who have denied the possibility of any military improvement will be forced to argue against it and make themselves look like defeatists-by-design. Hillary Clinton's remarks to the VFW acknowledging some military progress without supporting the entire strategy will pre-empt criticism from the GOP that she is simply a defeatist Democrat who wants America to lose. This is the difference between practical politics and constantly appeasing the liberal base with every word. Get it?

I truely believe now that if Hillary is president she will be like the or at least closely like the female version of George W. Bush. And CNN has to be stupid to think they can shelter Clinton and attack Obama. If Obama said the same. CNN would be attacking him.

Since when does an improvement in one district, measuring one thing only (but not others)add up to a successful Surge policy?

Get a grip, Bush supporters. Celebrate this tiny positive, but try not to lose sight of the fact that you and your Boy-King are still 99% wrong.

And try to keep that in mind, Hillary.

Talking out of both sides of her mouth again! Get all the votes you can no matter what you have to say. Make sure you play up to both sides.

Same ole politics different face and gender.

WE NEED CHANGE!

H. Clinton should not need a communications director to exert damage control, she should mean what she says and say what she means. Pity that she's the only woman running for the U.S. Presidency. As an event that will affect all Latin America and the Middle East, I would rather strongly prefer Elizabeth Edwards, who does not fear speaking clearly her mind, and failing that, then his husband. True, nobody's noticing that Clinton states that the U.S. is changing tactics, but clarifies: "We're just YEARS too late in changing [them]." In fact she's disqualifying Bush's sly and hypocrite new effort. The "new war" the U.S. should led should be waged instead against the U.S. neocon/corporate evil ways that are damaging the U.S. people themselves and peoples the world over.
As one of the Latin Americans who will be affected by your next presidency, I don't see the U.S. is prepared either for a Woman president or a Black president. Either way I consider Sen. Clinton a person that will endure anything -such as her husband's shameful acts and the ensuing negative publicity- in her quest for ultimate power. If she's really trying to have it both ways, then she's shedding her "It takes a Village", humane veneer to reveal herself as a pitiless politician who will do anything for power. I don't think any U.S. president can be more dangerous to you than George W. Bush, but, is she really good for the interest of the USAmerican people?

If by alluding to the real war, Hillary Clinton means the war in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and Al Qaeda and bin Laden are, then I am all for it. That is where we should be, fighting the real enemies in their hiding places and in their base of power.

This mess in Iraq was created and engineered by the Bush administration and nothing anyone can say will ever change that. Perhaps Hillary was trying to pander to the VFW. It's what a lot of politicians seem to do all too often these days. Whether or not the surge works is irrelevant, because we cannot win this war. We have already strengthened Al Qaeda and Iran with our folly in Iraq. We need to find a way to get out of this mess without creating any more havoc. The current Iraqi government is not strong enough to survive. We can try to prop it up all we want, but there is no way it can possibly deal with the chaos and the sectarian violence.

Democrats don't have to be afraid of anything working in Iraq, because nothing is working right now. If we could just get ourselves out of there, maybe the Iraqis could deal with this themselves. We invaded a sovereign nation that presented no national security threat to us and did not participate in any way in the attack on 9/11. They will despise us as long as we are there and with good reason.

Hillary Clinton likes to walk a fine line at times and play the consummate politician. Bill was much better at it. It doesn't matter what she says, the simple truth is that we have to get out of Iraq, period. I don't think the other Democratic candidates need to jump all over her and make a mountain out of a molehill. It was one sentence, it's over. Now let's move on to the real issues at hand.

I must say that Hillary's need to find the middle ground and appeal to the most constituents is one of her least attractive attributes. But it's not anything new, it's who she is. We still have to decide if she is the best candidate that the Democratic party can put forth to win back the White House in 2008.

Why is it that everyone forgets that North Vietnam won in the end because of continued support from China and other countries? The didn't win purely because of their ideals being preferred or because the North Vietnamese military was superior. If the North Korean support had been cut off just like South Vietnamese support was cut off you would have had the exact same situation that exists in Korea today with a stalemate between the two.

Hopefully the Iraqi people will put enough pressure on the government so that they stop acting like a bunch of thugs and criminals and start working for the Iraqi people. Unfortunately they have our government as a model so corruption is guaranteed to exist in some form.

Agree 100% with Ethan, Brooklyn, NY and Mary, Holland, MI – those that don't like Hillary really don't know why. They take her words out of context constantly. I thought I liked this form of communication "the ticker" but, I'm finding so much disinformation and just plain stupidity being spewed here that I'm done after only 2 days of reading the comments. Have fun with your immature, ridiculous theories on these candidates – some of you speak as if you know these people personally – get a life. Go Hillary, Biden & Barrack. You all deserve better than this – keep up the good work.

Posted By Jonathan, Pittsburgh, PA : August 22, 2007 12:09 pm

Hear, Hear!!!! I agree with you, it's not about having a conversation on the issues but rather as a forum to bash whichever candidate people don't like for whatever reasons.

What's wrong with what she said if it happens to be the truth? How is that seen as pandering? So, a senator who has sat for several years in the Armed Services Committee should cover up or distort information so as to not upset her "base"???

I am a moderate Democrat and OEF VET. I got to say after reading some of these comments… I seem to get frustrated. I agree the war may have run its course. I was one of few after returning from my deployment overseas that didn’t support the run up to the war in Iraq. I hate the fact that most republicans supported this war with their asses parked in their recliners at FORT Living room, but I am also disappointed in a lot of the LEFTY LEFTY points of view. I agree with the fact that the commencement of the war was immoral, and a support and continuation of this war unpunished will only encourage future morons like Giuliani or Thompson or even McCain to carry out future excursions in this manner, but…..you guys have to find a little more common ground. Simply pulling out. I mean really guys… I agree but in Phased approach… and only when we can arm the opposing element and accept the major bloodshed that will follow. I am willing to accept that, as long as I know that the opposing side ( the Sunni ) will win. I have stated before that I believe that this Al Qaeda using Iraq for future attacks is total BS… They are only taking advantage of the Vacuum in Iraq temporarily. They will be hung beaten and tortured by our Iraqi counterparts once their domestic issues are resolved. If we are there to arm the Sunni’s … admit that our form of Democracy brought to the Iraqi’s was Niece and that we should accept what is inevitable dig in for the always unexpected and unpredictable mess that our decisions will temporarily bring for a decade or two, then we all need to stop projecting simple view points. Most of you could even volunteer and try putting a uniform on to support what is best for your country and their cause or just stay educated about the issues and their ramifications. It isn’t enough to say we shouldn’t have gone in to Iraq… That is something we already know. Hoorah to our troops always wish them the best…. But they have been let down by GWB and the crew that followed him. Let’s just be responsible and resolute this time. TAKE RESPONSABILITY

OH NOES!!!! HILL'S UNDER ATTAK! RALLY TO HER DEFENCE CNN!!!!

Jesus, this is getting awful. The title shows that you are clearly defending her even if she seems in the wrong. Her sudden flip-flop isn't the news, it's the fact that others are attacking her for it.

Hillary is a big girl CNN, she shouldn't have to need your help.

"You know, I wonder what the smug Clinton campaign folks are going to say once the other candidates start dropping out of the race, and the poll results start to narrow as a result?"

Raymond,

Good point, except, who do you think will be getting the support of the drop -outs?

Biden and Dodd's supporters will go to Clinton. Richardson, who has a good shot at the #2 position on the ticket, will swing his supporters over to the Front-runner. The only place Senator Obama could hope to pick up support is from Edwards, and if Clinton is over 50% in the polls (and she will be) and Senator Obama is below 25% (and he will be) Senator Clinton will most likely receive his endorsement, and most of his supporters. I would venture to say that those Senator Clinton supporters will be even more, "smug", when she takes the nomination on the first ballot, and she will.

Van

RE: Tony, Mount Vernon, NY,

Let's remember the TET Offensive people. Militarily it was a success, but the enemy just retrenched and kept up the fight because the communist support in Vietnam was still high."

Tony, the Tet offensive was not an American operation. The enemy didn't 'retrench', they actually conducted the Tet Offensive.

The Tet offensive was a military failure, but was a turning point in the war because our media began reporting negatively afterward, which caused great political unrest here at home.

Have a good day,

Chip

Agree 100% with Ethan, Brooklyn, NY and Mary, Holland, MI – those that don't like Hillary really don't know why. They take her words out of context constantly. I thought I liked this form of communication "the ticker" but, I'm finding so much disinformation and just plain stupidity being spewed here that I'm done after only 2 days of reading the comments. Have fun with your immature, ridiculous theories on these candidates – some of you speak as if you know these people personally – get a life. Go Hillary, Biden & Barrack. You all deserve better than this – keep up the good work.

Let's keep it simple, the surge was put in place to secure Baghdad and help the political progress. The progress in Anbar was happening well before the surge, this to me means the surge is not working

elect hillary and get the same old same old for another 4 years, not to mention the fact that only 2 families will have run this country into the ground for the past 19 years.

Why do some people have trouble reading whole statements by candidates before they pop off? Hillary said the surge tactic was years too late, not that it was going to effect the outcome now.

I don't take what any of the Hillary bashers say to heart on this one at all. It doesn't matter what she says...people will find fault with her. There isn't any intellectual dialogue here at all–just candidate bashing. I'm tired of it already.

You know, I wonder what the smug Clinton campaign folks are going to say once the other candidates start dropping out of the race, and the poll results start to narrow as a result? The election is over a year away and just because Hillary is leading in Sept. 07 doesn't mean she will be in Nov. 08! The pundits are acting as if everyone else should pack their bags already!! There is a long road to travel in this race, and the primaries haven't even taken place yet. I've watched Howard Wolfson who certainly seems to be a bit arrogant so early on. It's only natural that support from one failed candidate will go to another. The arrogance needs to stop now 'cause while the Clinton campaign is trying to give the appearance of 'taking the high road' on most issues, I wonder if they'll feel the same come Nov. 08 when one of the other candidates will most likely be withing striking distance or beyond?

Raymond
Chester, PA

Raymond

Here we see Hillary again, spluttering out anything to get her elected. Anyone who thinks anything will change if she is elected is naieve. Oh, and I noticed that Obama was the only candidate who didn't start slinging mud over another one of Hillary's flip-flops.

God forbid we should speak the truth. The fact is that militarily the surge is working, but there are two problems:

1.) It will take a surge of five to 10 more years to "win" and we don't have the troops or the will to sustain that.
2.) Without a strong, unified government a military solution won't work.

Let's remember the TET Offensive people. Militarily it was a success, but the enemy just retrenched and kept up the fight because the communist support in Vietnam was still high.

Democrats feel that they need to paint this war as a total loss in order to win in 2008, but that's not the case. I salute Sen. Clinton for being honest, but I guess honesty doesn't count much in the eyes of many Obama-maniacs on this blog. They'd rather hear about hope while their candid resorts to personal attacks, talks of another pre-emptive war and further undermines our reputation abroad with his comments on Cuba and Pakistan.

We need an honest leader who will speak the truth and unite us, not someone who talks hope out one side of his mouth and spews politics as usual out of the other side.

Hey guys..I see no harm in Hillary giving credit where credit is due. I am a Veteran Of OEF Afghanistan, Never been to Iraq, but feel the pain of my brothers and want them home sooner than most. I am an avid critic of the Bush Foreign Policy Plan. With this stated our soldiers are holding steady with this flawed mission they have been handed. Gains may be being made, however, we must realize what Hillary already knows. That the force size in Iraq cannot quell the entire country side and heal the divisions. Iraq is a gamble militarily and politically. I think we needed to have the surge run its course. Hillary does see that it is a bit to little a long time too late. A clear hold and build strategy is only possible if the American People are ready for a Draft. I am ready for it... if it comes to that are you ??? Hillary is probably not the hawk you may think... She doesn't see a draft as the answer. That’s right .... we need numbers in that country to clear hold and build, but even then it is a gamble. At the moment we are fueling the ethnic divides with weaponry. The Sunni Arabs see this as a chance to arm themselves for the fight that is still to come with the Shia for a take back of their former status of being in control of the Govt. It isn't the first time you’ve heard the line that the enemy of my enemy is my friend ???? Bottom line is that we are still considered occupiers by our current friends until their
Needs are fulfilled. I mean it doesn’t take a genius to see that they are defiant in participating in any way shape or form with the Maliki govt. We installed a democracy where majority rules. When this happened we opened the door for the Shia Arabs, and their Iranian Shia Persian influences. When the shia outnumber the Sunni’s which were in power under their dictator, how could you expect anything other than retaliation for the brutal oppression of their way of life for so long. One can say ok… the Sunnis deserve it, but in our interest… they are the ones with the will… the financial networks … and not to mention the most educated class of Arabs in that country. They are the majority of the country’s doctors… lawyers… police chiefs… intelligence service operatives.. and generals. Anyway with all of this stated, Hillary see’s the larger picture of placing her odds on the fact that the clear hold and secure has morphed into a situation where we are appeasing the opposition for a short time. I have always thought we should have worked to undermine the current Iraqi government we helped establish. find this agreement with the Sunni’s and help give them back control… The face of Al Queada in Iraq is only resonating among the vacuum of power. Once a Sunni or shia govt is in place, or lets say after nature takes its course, will Al Qaeda in Iraq be run out with its tail between its legs. This terrorist haven theory for Al Qaeda in Iraq is a crock…. The only concern we should have is with continuing an occupation that takes away the control of the Sunni’s . This has already and will continue to fuel the desire for Sunni Arabs to form or join an Al Qaeda like militia. Bottom line… Hillary’s comments are calculated to fit its audience… for the time I support her…, but if her hawkish stance progresses or morphs then I will reconsider.

Based on what I've read here; If I had to give a dollar to everyone who read the speech, and not the one paragraph here, before they commented, I'd never have opened my wallet

Van

"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."

Most people, including a lot of military people, recognize that there is no viable military solution in Iraq. Therefore, although some tactics are better than others, it’s the overall strategy that has been and continues to be the problem.

We should certainly use the tactics most likely to work for as long as we are engaged in fighting, but the primary purpose of the surge was to provide enough security to allow political reconciliation to occur amongst the various Iraqi factions (or, at least, progress towards reconciliation.) While post-surge security is improved compared to pre-surge security in areas using the extra troops, this was not the strategic objective in and of itself.

Thus, while the surge may be “working” in terms of security in specific locales, it is unlikely to significantly alter the political landscape within Iraq. Unless we are willing to put a huge number of troops in Iraq and keep them there for 5 or 10 more years, the militias can just wait us out because the troops we’re using for the surge are there due to using existing troops more than we originally planned by extending deployments, reducing time in between deployments, etc. This simply cannot be sustained.

The idea that the strategy was okay and that the only thing wrong has been our tactics tells us quite a bit about Senator Clinton. If a person had picked a fight using karate instead of aikido, sure, one may have better results than the other, but the real answer is that the fight should not have been picked to begin with.

That is why the prescience Barack Obama demonstrated on the Iraq vote is highly preferable to looking at it in hindsight and saying "if I knew then what I know now..." as Clinton and others have said. Barack had the foresight to know that it was going to be a bad move. That kind of judgment and foresight is what I want in my President and is strong evidence of his ability to sift through the complexities a president faces and make the right decision. We don’t know all of the tough decisions the next president will face, but we do know that Barack has what it takes to make such decisions.

Iraqi freedom is bad for the Democratic party.

ok Hillary, I see the puppets pulling your Neo-Con strings.

I SUPPORT THE WAR AND THE GEORGE W BUSH ACTION FIGURE. WHEN YOU PULL HIS RIP CORD HE'LL SAY THINGS SUCH AS STAY THE COURSE, SMOKE UM OUT OF THEIR HOLES, YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR WITH THE TERRORISTS, AND SUPPORTING THE US MEANS SUPPORTING ISRAEL! PLEASE PURCHASE THIS WONDERFUL ACTION FIGURE THAT DEMONSTRATES SUPPORT FOR THIS ILLUSTRIOUS ADMINISTRATION, AND ALSO THE BODY BAG INDUSTRY!

1988: Vote for Bush
1992: Vote for Clinton
1996: Vote for Clinton
2000: "Vote" for Bush
2004: "Vote" for Bush
2008: "Vote" for Clinton
2016: "Vote" for Jeb Bush

And the idiotic American public still thinks we live in a democracy.

Louis XIV, XV, XII, etc. etc. etc.

I am a Dem. and if Hillary Clinton gets the nod over Obama from the Dems, I will be taking a look at Ron Paul. It's simply about common sense to me and not necessarily Dem. vs. Rep. Let's wake up folks! Iraq didn't cause 9/11/01, now I hear rumblings about a draft??? Lord help us all!

To Peggy McCann Greenssboro(sic) North Carolina:

There is not one candidate running for president who does not desire the power of the presidency. Hillary is no scarier than the rest. Give me a break, do you think all of the rest of them are running solely because they are altruistic and want to help humanity? They all are ego-driven with a lust for power and prestige. The constant hammering away at Hillary for being ambitious and desirous of power is simply sexist, irrespective of the fact that you are a woman. The men all want the same thing but you never hear these criticisms of them.

Senator Clinton is one ambitious woman. Obsessed with relentless pursuit of power. Being President of the USA is a personal goal for her. She has been preparing her whole life for this. So she will do anything (ANYTHING) and say anything to get there.

She din't vote for Iraq war thinking what is best for the country. She thought how that vote will play out in her future pursuit of power. She stayed with a disfunctional marriage after being cheated so many times because she needs her last name "clinton" in her pursuit of power. She compromised her self respect, dignity and honor as long as it helps to become more powerful. She became a senator from NY only because she needs that title on her resume to make her case. She was wife of an elected governor or an elected president although she claim those years as her "qualification and experience". She needed to be in public office for herself. Hillary claim she knows how to beat Republican. Well, every single elected Senator who is in the race beat an Republican in their own election.

On the other hand Obama is a selfless man. He never tried to convert his fancy degrees into big fat pay check but dedicated his early career in improving other people's lives. He has witnessed the pain and suffering of people 1st hand by being there in person, knocking the doors, walking on street. Making an impact on people's lives has been improtant for him. He did not do those as a "roadmap" to become a president or create his resume. People all across the country asked him to run for president.

So it's important for Hillary to become the next US president but it's important for the PEOPLE to see Obama being the next president. That's the main difference between the two. One for herself only, other for all of us. You choose what you want.

I am not American. I cannot vote. But I am very glad to see a globalistic view developing in some of your candidates.

That's right. America is a global power with global influences in many areas. Ms Rodham-Clinton is the first off the gate to recognize that global reach, which imposes upon your nation the duty to choose a President with a global outlook.

This is indeed encouraging to us non-Americans.

What Clinton, the article and the posts neglect to say is that the successes in Al Anbar is in a large part from arming Sunni militias who earlier were fighting and killing American forces. This is a move which is not supported by the Iraqi Gov't and may in fact prove once again that those who are armed now may in fact be those who turn against as in the end.

This war has only losers and those are the average, decent Iraqi people. What a sad state this war has become and now is being used for policical expediency.

It is demeaning to our brave soilders to say the surge is a complete failure if it is indeed working in one province. Since the surge is working in one province, then the comments by Edwards and Richards are demeaning to the soilders and they should quit the race now. Clinton should be praised for her comment – shows courage and character to give credit where credit is due, even if it goes to someone like Bush.

Command Sergeant Major Hillary Rodham declares: "We're just years too late in changing our tactics." Indeed, the United States military should be taking instructions on warfare from some military hating dimwit like Rodham, who knows nothing about warfare.

I agree with Chuckles007, Sacramento, Ca. and Posted By Danny G. Boca Raton, FL

It is very interesting that she voted for the war and now says that was a mistake and voted against the surge and now says that it is a good thing so apparently she thinks she was wrong and should have voted for it.

Yes it is good for people to admit their mistakes as Clinton has done. Although I wouldn't call it savvy, just being honest (I don't think being honest should be so unusual as to be called being savvy!).

Have you all noticed that when Clinton's lead is shrinking, the polls are never published highly. Angus Reid puts up its poll numbers every monday (On behalf of Rassmussen). This time it did not come up if you search "Barack Obama" on google. Before this would also pull up poll numbers showing him way behind. This time, they did not and unless you go to the site direct, you will not find it. Take a look folks. Obama is behind by 14 points as opposed to 20 points last week. Hmmmmm. Clinton machine must be really strong to influence all this.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/16902

CNN has a little boy on its cover who was set on fire by terrorists. Why are Democrats attacking those that want to fight against monsters that do this? Is the presidency worth that much to you??

Somehow I don't think this boy feels the same way. But oh well, who cares about Iraqi's freedom.., right?

I see no harm in Hillary giving credit where credit is due. I am a Veteran Of OEF Afghanistan, Never been to Iraq, but feel the pain of my brothers and want them home sooner than most. I am an avid critic of the Bush Foreign Policy Plan. With this stated our soldiers are holding steady with this flawed mission they have been handed. Gains may be being made, however, we must realize what Hillary already knows. That the force size in Iraq cannot quell the entire country side and heal the divisions. Iraq is a gamble militarily and politically. I think we needed to have the surge run its course. Hillary does see that it is a bit to little a long time too late. A clear hold and build strategy is only possible if the American People are ready for a Draft. I am ready for it... if it comes to that are you ??? Hillary is probably not the hawk you may think... She doesn't see a draft as the answer. That’s right .... we need numbers in that country to clear hold and build, but even then it is a gamble. At the moment we are fueling the ethnic divides with weaponry. The Sunni Arabs see this as a chance to arm themselves for the fight that is still to come with the Shia for a take back of their former status of being in control of the Govt. It isn't the first time you’ve heard the line that the enemy of my enemy is my friend ???? Bottom line is that we are still considered occupiers by our current friends until their
Needs are fulfilled. I mean it doesn’t take a genius to see that they are defiant in participating in any way shape or form with the Maliki govt. We installed a democracy where majority rules. When this happened we opened the door for the Shia Arabs, and their Iranian Shia Persian influences. When the shia outnumber the Sunni’s which were in power under their dictator, how could you expect anything other than retaliation for the brutal oppression of their way of life for so long. One can say ok… the Sunnis deserve it, but in our interest… they are the ones with the will… the financial networks … and not to mention the most educated class of Arabs in that country. They are the majority of the country’s doctors… lawyers… police chiefs… intelligence service operatives.. and generals. Anyway with all of this stated, Hillary see’s the larger picture of placing her odds on the fact that the clear hold and secure has morphed into a situation where we are appeasing the opposition for a short time. I have always thought we should have worked to undermine the current Iraqi government we helped establish. find this agreement with the Sunni’s and help give them back control… The face of Al Queada in Iraq is only resonating among the vacuum of power. Once a Sunni or shia govt is in place, or lets say after nature takes its course, will Al Qaeda in Iraq be run out with its tail between its legs. This terrorist haven theory for Al Qaeda in Iraq is a crock…. The only concern we should have is with continuing an occupation that takes away the control of the Sunni’s . This has already and will continue to fuel the desire for Sunni Arabs to form or join an Al Qaeda like militia. Bottom line… Hillary’s comments are calculated to fit its audience… for the time I support her…, but if her hawkish stance progresses or morphs then I will reconsider.

I am not for clinton at this time I am for edwards but when co-democrats did not listen or twist what she said as I read it in your article, yes some of the surge has worked but TOO LATE, WE'RE JUST YEARS TOO LATE IN CHANGING OUR TACTICS. What gives, I expect this from republicans but not democrats. Do not twist words so that in the end it is a truth but help us with the things that are so important to us Americans. Iraq, Health, Jobs (out sourcing) etc.

The Democrat party has absolutely no interest in the USA succeeding in Iraq and they will silence any of their members who suggest that any strategy there is working. This is the most pathetic, treasonous action – how can they call themselves Americans when they put their political party ambitions ahead of the good of the country?

i'm tried of her pandering. I would respect Hillary more if she didn't do this stand by your cheating man to ride his coatails, touting his legacy as her experience into a Senate senate and the White house. I would respect her more as a woman if she did it on her own and stop trying to copy Margret Thatcher to become more of a hawk than Bush.

Hillary is merely using one of John Kerry's favorite tactics: when speaking to a pro-war crowd, be for the war; when speaking to an anti-war crowd, be against the war.

Ms. Hodham – Clinton, and the rest of the Democratic field, are absolutely unfit to be commander-in-chief. The entire field needs failure in the War on Terror (especially its current front: Iraq), or they will gain no credibility.

Clinton, Obama, Richardson, Edwards, and the rest need to leave politics to the grown-ups.

In a far less than perfect world Hillary continues to prove that she is the superior politician. Get used to it – she will be the next President!

Hillary, Lieberman, McCain and others make these comments about "progress" from the surge by pointing to Al Anbar but nobody mentions the details of this supposed – and short term at a monimum – "progress." First, Al Anbar is predominately Sunni Muslim, a minority in Irag – which Saddam and his Baath party were. Second, the U.S. has been supplying the Sunnis with U.S. arms so it can fight who Bush identifies as Al Queda, but who really are, to the Sunnis, foreign Salafi fighters of the kind the Sunnis have warred against for centuries. Third, the Sunni block withdrew from the Maliki government – which the U.S. supposedly supports. So, when the Sunnis are finished in Al Anbar they may very well use the cache of U.S. arms and overthrow Maliki. That's "progress?"

Solution: Vote Barack Obama

The irresponsible thing about her statement is not the fact that she made it. Everyone has heard reports about there being progress in al Anbar. The irresponsible thing is that this simple (and yes, factual) statement will distort the views of many Americans so that they will start to believe that there actually is progress in Iraq. There have already been posts on here proving that, and I can assure you there will be MANY more. But people quickly forget that Iraq's political situation is worsening, and that is really the problem.

If we learned anything from the Bush Administration, it is that Americans are mostly ignorant and fickle and can be convinced of anything. Whether she meant it that way or not (and I don't think she did), Clinton should have known that "news" media would twist her statment to mean that she thinks there is real progress in Iraq.

She really should have taken her own advice on this one as a presidential candidate and not said what she really thinks.

Reading some of the comments here, it looks as if some are auditioning for Howard Wolfson's job.

Sen. Clinton has made an observation. According to the article, that observation parallels that of Senators Edwards and Obama.

QUOTE:"The fact is that while Democrats, including Senator Edwards and Senator Obama, acknowledge progress in Al Anbar,...

Where some may have hope for his job is the rest of Mr. Wolfson's quote: "Senator Clinton opposed the surge from the start and believes there is no military solution to the war in Iraq,"

So, which is it? She voted for authorizing the president to go to war, now says that was a mistake. Was against the 'surge' but now says it's working.

I don't think that Senator Edwards is opposing Senator Clinton's stance in "a sad attempt to raise his flagging poll numbers" as Wolfson states. From where I sit he (along with Senator Obama) have been fairly consistent since day one.

The fact that all three make the same observation is a non-issue, to try and spin it and then add the information that your candidate was against it from the beginning is just poor management on Mr' Wolfson's part.

Have a great day,

Chip

Hillary is just being a realist.

Obviously having 160,000 american troops on the ground in Iraq, we will begin to have some progresses on the ground.

I was a Hillary Clinton fan for a very long time. But it was really her judgement on the war that lost me.

I'm voting for Senator Barack Obama because he appears to be the only one with the ability to defeat someone of her stature.

Hillary is the leading democratic candidate and it has been said that she has to make a big goof for her to slip.... Gents & ladies; this is not it!.

How quickly they all jump in on each other for personal gain and how ready they are to distort each others' words. It's kind of appalling.

Hillary told the truth; she didn't say she supports the war. After huge sacrifices on our part and stretching our military to the breaking point, there ARE less violent episodes in Anbar province. As soon as we drwan down numbers the violence will return. Just because we are able to temporarily decrease violence with this "surge" doesn't mean it was the right thing to do, or that it should be continued. Quit trying to twist around words.

It's a sad day in the United States when a military success in Iraq is considered a threat to the Democratic Party nominees. As a Democrat myself, I feel it is time we all in this party re-evaluate our beliefs and positions. The fact that many Democrats are rooting against the United States in a vital military conflict is chilling and scary. A secure and stable Iraq is the best interest of our national security.

Many of you enlightened Clinton lovers always ask "why so negative about her, based on what"?

Above she is hoping to gain points with the uninformed who hear this speech and may gather that "she was for the surge that is working, but Bush still sucks".

She appears hawkish and tough, gets to bash Bush and only here is it said that she actually opposed the surge.

It is also based on her flip-flops (I hate the phrase as well, but when in Rome) and her quest to have it both ways politically, but contrary to you Clintonistas that feel you are the only ones that know how to use the "internets" I give you the following from a speech December 2003:

"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."

Hillary seems to change her tone and judgement to her perception of what the audience wants to hear. Perhaps she is more interested in being elected than providing a new leadership for America.

Mr.Bush was stunned, found out he had two wifes, Laura and Hillary Bush. Hillary will say and do anything to get elected". The Lies flow from her mouth like Honey". The people of this Nation have a lot to be dissatisfied with. First and foremost our politicians.

To add one thing to my previous comment about experience. The number of years of public service:
Edwards – 6
Hillary – 7 and a half
Obama – 11

So this is what Clinton's experience really means...that the surge is working, it's just too little to late. (I guess she didn't know that today's headline would be dominated by the deaths of 14 American soldiers.) Let's hope Democrats wake up to what Clinton's experience really means, more of the same.

I really do not care anymore whatever Hillary says. Her strategy has been a strategy of ambiguity: trying to have it both ways, which sometimes appears to be flip-flopping. People should start to ask a hard question about Hillary, "What experience does she have and what judgment has she shown?" I am always amazed by her claim that she has 35 years of experience. Let's define experience. What is relevent is only her 7 and a half years' experience of being in the U.S. Senate? What has she accomplished in these years? In terms of public service, she is the second least experienced in terms of length among the democratic candidates (Edwards has 6 years, the least experienced). Being the wife of a public official is in no stretchable imagination a public service.

Hilary is right. The troops are doing their best in the midst of this civil war which is also beset by insurgents. They have created very small pockets of security, which unfortunately results in the insurgents moving elsewhere to bomb and kill. As she states, it is far too little too late. And as she states, we need to learn why it is too little too late.

I am one voter who can think for herself, and see through the politics, lies and tacticts used by others for their own advantage. That doesn't work for me!

I have posted a blog to Hilary's site stating that this type of Democratic infighting does not serve the party, and certainly does not impress or move independent thinkers such as myself.

One of Hilary's strengths is to withstand and rise above assault. Remember, she's had plenty of practice over the many years she has lived and worked in the public eye.

I lose respect fast for anyone, democrat or republican who twists the truth and hopes I don't notice.

Hilary is right, despite the great job our troops have done and are doing, it is not enough. It is impossible to have a military solution in Iraq, if we are to try to fight this multi-faceted war by ourselves. With an inefective Iraq government, it would appear there is no political solution either.

One way to bring peace to Iraq would be to declare it an international police state and have the largest international force in place to gain stability. Then perhaps the nation could then create itself. It would appear that our actions have created such divide in Iraq between the different groups that it will take centuries to reconcile. Before our invasion there was not sectarian divide! The US cannot solve this mess on its own.

I have no problem with what Hilary stated. I do have a problem with other democrats acting like republicans and savaging her for their own advantage.

I am not entirely powerless. I do have a vote, for what that is worth these days. I intend to use it.

Politicians disgust me. Clinton makes a seemingly honest appraisal of the effects of an opponent's policy, and her competitors jump on her for not blindly condemning said policy. We will not move forward as a country until politicians acknowledge the strengths of opposing policies and the weaknesses of their own-and strive to work together, compromise when possible, and build a coalition, not a competition. But then again, democracy is not well suited for this kind of work. As Churchhill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government known to man.....except for all the others."

Hillary again panders to the crowd, taking the popular stance of the audience. Where have we seen this before? Oh yeah, its every time she opens her mouth!

Huh?

So you're saying the surge is making progress, but you opposed its implementation. So youre taking credit for something you opposed? Might want to go back and rewrite the article CNN, you just made your girl look like a hypocrite.

Another instance of Hillary playing it both ways, this time trying to please the vets and anti-war people at the same time.

I just do not understand. Does it not make sense that when you increase the amount of soldiers, there will be some success. Why is Hillary castigated for pointing out that there has been a modicum of success. She is still not behind the plan, and we all know that Bush is going to only talk about the success. She is just pointing that out prior.

I think this story is proof enough that Ms Hillary will say only what her audience wants to hear. She's been in countless debates with Senator Obama trying to prove why the Iraq War is not working and how it has been mis-managed. Now, with a vetran-audience, she says that the war in Iraq is working, and that we should focus on fighting the "new war"! What is this "new war"? It's time that this old generation of US bureaucrats stepped down, the Country has had enough!

The govt of America and the citizens know very well what happened in vietnam,so noting should be compared with it.The People of United states are innocent i totally agree and they are paying for the war thats going on in Iraq ,but at the same time the Govt is not innocent.Bush Administartion very well knew what will happen if they invade iraq hence we are seeing today death and distruction which was not there earlier.Neither Iraq had to do anything with Al qaeda and we all know the truth of weaponds of mass destruction how many such weapons were recovered from iraq, so an invasion just to topple Saddam, which has been smoothly done leaving the country in mess .Now the admnistration will give facts about killings and sectarian violence but its irony that no one has the guts to see in their own shoulder what wrong things they carried what actions they did and what consequence this whole situation is going.We need a better understanding for each other ,compassion and love for each other...I feel when an american is killed so do i feel pain with any other people whoever it is...when can we relieve humans from pain and agony what can be the solution .DOnt we have enough brains and logic to comprehend these factors or our needs and political agenda is more important than all these.Of course the killers of human society should be traced and brought to justice of course we need to wipe out terrorism from this globe but let us do without bringing more tears to innocent lives and people.I pray To God so that we can have better understanding and new thought lines for a civilsed cooperative One NATION that is we...I want a society where i can proudly tell to my angels see we are living in harmony in this planet can u show any other such planet?

Pandering at it's absolute most transparent.

Hillary Clinton is married to a draft dodger, opposed a troop surge, supported a spending bill which reduced our men and women in uniform to political bargaining chips so while giving a speech at a VFW convention she praises a strategy that she opposed in the senate.

How stupid does she think we all are?

I think this is the first time that Mrs. Clinton actually said someting with some truth in it. Congrads

Ladies and Gentleman...

This is the REAL Hillary Clinton...the Mitt Romney of the Democrats, wheel and deal, and say anything to buy a vote.

It is true her statements completely undermind Congress efforts to bring an end to the war and an insult to voters that have demanded closure to this endless war.

I am baffled how Democrats have her in such a commanding lead in the polls over the other candidates.

Talk about ironic; watch the back pedaling as these candidates realize we can't just cut and run from our responsibilities in Iraq. If Iran spreads its vile over Iraq as it has in Lebanon, domestic terrorism will become the norm. We are there and the situation sucks, but the alternative is worse than us leaving.

I suggest we all get a backbone, collectively acknowledge that terrorism isnt a Dem v Rep issue and that Iran is the real problem and will take years to defuse. We have Iran in a pincher with Iraq and Afganistan. Time to truly "contain" the problem.

It's time for a woman president fellow Americans. A real woman with a real head and a smart husband behind her. Call Sam Nunn and get him on the road to washington. Start up the steel mills, start a real and unending search for alternate energy and rebuild our military asap. They ain't building all that stuff for nothing. Wake up America.

... if there was praise for Bush's strategy in that statement, I must have missed or misread that part.

It's not that the tactics were wrong, it's that the whole concept of the war was wrong from the start and gets worse as it goes along. A marginal change of methods can't salvage a project that never had any rational basis in the first place. Clinton as usual is just trying to hedge her bets and split the difference.

Hillary is just trying to attract the attention, and votes, of Republicans. Beware of anything she says, for the truth is not in her.

Another example of Hillary saying whatever she thinks the crowd wants to hear. She changes her tune (and regional dialect) depending on where she is. If her next speech is in front of an anti-war group her message will be exactly the opposite.

What does a woman like Hilary Clinton know about war and the suffering that IRAQI people are enduring from an illegal war whose goal is to disown the IRAQI people from their natural resources? She is only using IRAQ to gain politically on her bid to get to the White House. She is plainly deshonest. She is not a leader. She does not deserve to be president of the United States. This most inhumane WAR must be brought to an end.

Among the Dem candidates, Hillarity is further right than anyone on the war, and will tell the VFW whatever they want to hear. But she's like Fonzie in that classic episode where he can't say he was "wr..., wro.., ..." to vote for the AUMF. Too stubborn, trying to be tough. Silly "girl".

The Surge is working or not; it may work in some areas for a temporary period of time. It is honest to oppose the Surge and acknowledge any success made temporary or not.

The Surge may help the Iraqi’s to take over. Actually they will take over just as soon as we stand down. Saying that “we will stand down when they stand up” is backwards. Soon hopefully the Iraqi’s will become tired of being the victims of useless terrorism.

Typical Hillary – when things don't seem to be going well, this is 'Bush's war'. Now that she thinks progress is being made, she's using 'we'.

I wonder if she takes a poll before she decides what to eat for breakfast?

I think it is "naive and shows a lack of experience" for Clinton to be making statements that the surge is working just yet. She is obviously pandering to the Vets. She is a politician who is uniformed and lacks good judgment for sure! There is no defending it Hillbillies she said it load and clear. More Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton for America! It’s got to stop. At least Obama has integrity and sticks by what he says. Obama 08!

And Senator Clinton is 100% correct.
There is no military solution to end the Iraq war. There never was a military solution, just an Administration that perceives bombs, artillery and troops as the only tactic to win their desired goal.

What's good for America is bad for the Democrats. Democrats-don't even think about joining this President in any success he has in the War on Terror. It's a shame he has to fight two enemies. One here and one over seas. Shame on Mrs. Clinton!

Hmm,I think this is a nice day for Obama,well Hillary keep on flip floping, we are keeping eyes on you.

Well she voted for the war.

There was no strategy change in Al Anbar. The surge is not in Al Anbar. How can Alexander Mooney have failed to mention that?

Does this really suprise anyone? she will say anything to get elected .

I congratulate Ms. Clinton in putting politics aside and looking directly at the issue. She put her interest in polls and votes behind what is in the interest of the United States. The founders of our nation did not intend for policy to be dictated by polls, media, emotion or the public for that matter. Ms. Clinton has shown maturity in leadership with her apprasial of the this situation and others. She is winning my vote.
signed
a Republican

So let me get this straight.

Hillary says the surge is working to win favor with a group of veterans.

Her rivals attack her for championing the surge.

Her "spokesperson" says she has always been opposed to the surge and believes there is no military solution for Iraq.

She is talking about getting ready for a "new war."

She supports the war, she doesn't support the war.

My God, this is getting confusing just trying to keep up with ALL of her positions.

Well, well, well. David Bonior agrees there is progress (some success) in Al Anbar but we should not say that because, telling the whole story will hurt Congress in stopping the war. Maybe just maybe, telling what is really happening whether good or bad and going from there may be good for the entire government. Wonder why no one trust either party?

I have read Senator Clinton's remarks concerning the surge.

Nowhere does she offer praise of President Bush or his failed policies. What she said was "it appears to be working in some areas". She does not say we need to remain in Iraq, in fact, she reiterates that it is too little too late. You'd have to be a complete idiot not to expect or acknowledge that the surge may be partially succesful.

I am more concerned with Senator Obama's unilateral position that sanctions against Cuba need to be relaxed or eliminated. Have they done something to warrant such a one sided, out of the blue change in policy?

Experience counts for most things in life, including election as President.

Hillary is right that MILITARILY the escalation of troops is having a positive effect in Al Anbar, as everyone should assume that it would given the extraordinary capabilities of the US Military. The problem - and Hillary knows this - is that such an escalation is clearly unsustainable both in terms of security (whack-a-mole) and in terms of troop levels. Some may call it playing to both sides, but really, this is a fantastic example as to why Hillary is the most gifted politician in the country and why she will win the general election in a landslide. She knows, just as all the Democrats know (and NONE of the Republicans are willing to say) that we MUST leave Iraq ASAP by way of a CAREFULLY planned exit strategy.

Hillary Clinton will do and say anything to become President. She might have been, as a young woman, a very idealistic person. But she lost that a long time ago. It's frightening to see what the desire for power can do to a human being.

Clinton Rules

What a credible candidate we have here! Mrs. Former 1st Lady with all the experience in the world. Yes, Clinton has experience, but his name is not Hillary.

Sen. Clinton is very savy. That I imagine drives her opponents mad. but the fact is that we as a nation are not stagnant in our ideals, that is what makes us not only more intelligent, but allows us to adapt, if there are places where the surge is working, we should praise our men and women for the good job, this does not tell the world, our president was right, NO, but it tells the world perhaps that we are finally getting it! good for Hillary to acknowledge the positive, perhaps this should allow us to move out of that place sooner rather than later, the ultimate test is diplomatic, what is this administration willing to do for the good of ALL iraqui's and in the end for the good of ALL americans. I will not shed a tear when Mr. Bush drives away from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

let's unite as Americans, let's find the common ground, support your candidate for their ideals not their slogans. I for one I'm willing to give Hillary a chance, she is not afraid to talk frank to the American people.

So let me get this straight. Hillary is saying she opposed the surge but by golly it's working so she likes it. Now she's saying she voted for the war but is against it now. Which is it? Kerry got into trouble for saying he voted for the war before he voted against it. Sounds to me that Hillary is saying that she's for the war AND against the war. Which is it Hillary? Enough of her already! Why is she polling so high? Oh that's right, it's the Clinton News Network/Gupta Poll...OBAMA '08!

Hillary just gives credit, although small, where it is due. There is no point, like other canadates, keep talking 100% about the negatives and ignoring the reality or truth.

She talks and looks presidential to me.

Heaven forbid she state the truth, that the surge is working...even if it's the truth. The dems only care about attack Bush, attack Rove and especially attack Cheney. It's getting quite old. Richardson has got to be the biggest pretender/poser I have ever seen in a presidential race.

I was just waiting on the Clinton Bashers. ah you know Edwards, Obama people. They are sure to jump like a pack of wolfes. Hey did you notice Clinton never claimed victory for the ABC Debate. Because she is the grown up of the bunch. Senseable and Forthbearing. Edwards and Obama keep trying to confuss the Ameriocan people to get them to believe in their rethoric. I still can not get over Obama continues use of Clintons war vote. When Obama's Senate vote is exactly like Clintons except for where he misssed one vote. and Voted with Bush on one of his war Generals. sending Bush a message of support where Senator Clonton voted against. You watch. She will stand by what she says. It would be noice if the campaign of hope and change would do the same.

The fact that not everything George Bush does is wrong really must be killing then.....

If Mother Hillary said it, it must be true. She can say no wrong, do no wrong.

I think your mistaken Hillary!!!

Unless measurable means the same thing as ""Iraq policy was leading to success in "some areas."""

Personally i think you were brown nosing the veterans last night.

But it didn't work thanks to Iraq war veteran and congressman from Pa Patrick Murphy who threw his support to your opponent Barack Obama!

Senator Levin Calls On Iraqi Parliament To Boot Maliki
By Eric Kleefeld | bio

As we reported earlier today, Senators John Warner and Carl Levin just returned from Iraq, issuing a statement today saying that while the surge is producing "measurable results" the two Senators are "not optimistic" about the likelihood of political reconciliation in Iraq.

This afternoon Levin held a conference call with reporters, and he went even further, making news by calling on the Iraqi parliament to boot Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Levin — lest anyone mistake him for a "war critic supporting the surge" — also said that the only way to spur the Iraqis to action is by drawing down troop levels. More from his interview after the jump.

Levin was very harsh towards the Maliki government, calling it "non-functional" and saying it has failed to use the time he's been given by the surge to forge important important political agreements.

"Even those who support the surge would be the first to acknowledge that the purpose of the surge was to give those leaders that opportunity," Levin said. "They have not grasped that opportunity, they have frittered it away."

Although Levin said he would not presume to dictate to the Iraqis how to run their own government, he did take the extraordinary step of saying what he hopes the Iraqis will do about the problem: "So I hope that the Iraqi Assembly, when it reconvenes in a few weeks, will vote the Maliki government out of office, and will have the wisdom to replace it with a less sectarian and a more unifying prime minister and government."

"As one U.S. soldier who is in his 3rd deployment to Iraq told us, that the Iraqi soldiers will let U.S. soldiers do the job that they’re supposed to be doing, forever, and that we need to let them do it on their own," Levin said from Tel Aviv, in the middle of a trip to the Middle East.

Levin argued that one of the surge's stated goals — to buy time for more training of Iraqi forces — was a success, and this in turn it's time to move on to the next stage of forcing the political leaders to take responsibility and draw down U.S. troops.

"It is clear to me that the capability that the Iraqi military now has and will have by the end of this year will allow us to begin reducing U.S. forces significantly below our pre-surge level," Levin said. "We should begin that reduction within four months. The increased Iraqi capability will also sallow us to move most of our forces out of Iraq by the middle of next years, and transition the forces that need to remain to perform missions away from the civil war."

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/aug/20/senator_levin_calls_on_iraqi_parliament_to_boot_maliki

Okay, I took Senator Obama to task earlier today for his morally correct and politically less-than-strategic position on Cuba, so now I guess I’ll pick on Senator Clinton, even though I support both of them.

Part of the problem that smart, nuanced people have in running for office is that sometimes they give smart nuanced answers. (John McCain costs himself with such behavior on a regular basis).

Now, I don’t know if we’re making progress in Al Anbar, or not. I don’t have the facts at my disposal and I’m no military strategist. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised.

(Even if we are it doesn’t justify an occupation in the middle of a civil war. Americans are still dying in other provinces. Osama bin Laden is still laughing free in Afgahnistan or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia somewhere. We still can't spare another trillion.)

But I know enough about political strategy to know Hillary shouldn’t have said it. She shouldn’t have said we we’re safer than we were before 9/11 either, even if it’s true. Those are the two real slips that Senator Clinton has made in a nearly flawless campaign. They're not mistakes that Bill Clinton, or Ronald Reagan or even George W. Bush would have made. (Clinton and Reagan were too politically sophisticated, and Bush may not be the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree but he knows how to stay on message, even if the message is completely insane).

Overall, I don’t think it’s going to cost Clinton much in the primaries since the only people who care are all in the Obama or Kucinich camps anyway. But come November, if Hillary is the nominee, she’s going to need that liberal base. I think she’ll get it, since the alternative will be Giuliani or Romney or Thompson and many more years of costly, senseless, bloody war.

Well I feel better now, so I’ll get back to supporting Democrats and exposing Republicans. I know better strategically than to write a negative post like this. I should stay on message. But sometimes a little honest nuance is so appealing that I just can’t resist.

John Edwards is trying to manipulate the strong anti-war base of the Democratic Party against Hillary the same way Bush and his lackies used evangelical christians with the gay marriage issue to get voters out against Kerry. It is obvious Senator Clinton was acknowledging that there has been one aspect where improvements have been made. Surely her critics over this realize that in any situation you can find some sort of positive, no matter how miniscule. Just another expample as to why she is the perfect candidate for president. I find it funny that people criticize her for being so "divisive" yet turn around and criticize her ability to have some sort of common ground even with her enemies. After all isn't that a key part of diplomacy?

When are people going to realize that Hillary is the key to a renaissance for the Democratic Party? I feel she would be my generation's Ronald Reagan. Except for the fact that she would be concerned with more than just straight, white, christian America unlike he was.

Who appointed Wolfson to also speak for Edwards and Obama? The Clinton machine is not well-greased, just greasy.

The fact is that Hillary was speaking to the Vets and thought she might win some votes from those who still believe in Bush's failed policies. But she also jumped all over Obama for saying essentially the same things she said about nukes a year ago and , more recently, about talking to adversaries and acting on "actionable intelligence". So, I guess what goes round comes round, Hill. At least they aren't calling you "irresponsible" and "naive" for saying what you believe.

Typical Hillary Clinton...says one thing in front a specific group, then the next day when speaking to VFW, she changes her tune.

That's why the Democrats had better wake up and pick someone else.

Otherwise Clinton will provide very little change from what Bush offers and that she will keep us in Iraq permanently to serve the interests of the oil industry whom is bankrolling her campaign.

Had Obama said this all hell would break out in the media! Clinton and crew would be attacking him non-stop! Obama is the right choice for president in 08!

While I agree that evidence shows some progress in al-Anbar, it's obviously a moot point unless serious political and, most difficultly, social progress is made in Iraq. That is obviously not happening, and nothing the U.S. military can do will force it to happen. I hope Hillary doesn't backtrack on her promises (if she becomes president) to get us out of Iraq so that we can rebuild our military and pay attention to our own country's problems for a change.

WHAT A FAKE! Clinton is taking this country for a ride and everyone who follows her needs to wake up! First she votes for the war, then is against it, then says a troop surge won't work, then won't own up to her mistakes, then attacks Obama for telling the truth, then goes on about how Karl Rove is against her, now she in line with the Republicans and Bush on the troop surge. PEOPLE WAKE UP! The only reason people want to vote for her is because they hope Bill Clinton can become president again through her and because she is a white woman! She is a new novelty for [.......] in America who will never support a black man but will gladly take our votes! At least [......]are honest about their hatred of black people. If Clinton gets the nomination I hope all black people stay home and let the chips fall where they will. America deserves its mess because of it arrogant, ignorant, racist, contradictory, selfish ways. I love my country but lately I'm feeling tested!

"We have to keep preparing to fight the new war." Mrs. Clinton, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. How about fighting the current war? I don't know what the "new war" is, will you please elaborate? I am a soldier and hope you do not become the next commander-in-chief.

I don't like Hillary but I'm actually glad she has the courage to call it like it is in this instance despite the political consequences.

I thought the surge was a terrible idea and I still don't think its going to work, but if by chance it does, if the reports all come back positive, should we be disappointed? What would that say about our motivations? If Bush's policy happens to make Iraq safer we should be pleased and acknowledge the success rather than rejecting it just because we despise the person it came from. Senator Edwards and Governor Richardson seem to be putting partisanship and political points before results in this instance, and its disappointing.

Howard Wolfson is such a tool, just total dickery coming out of that guy's mouth. Can he not say anything substantive about his candidate without referring to poll numbers? Probably not, considering that's all Clinton stands for: what the polls are saying. And what a joke, him trying to insinuate than Edwards and Obama did not oppose support the surge from the start, which they did. However, Clinton was the LAST to come on board for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. You can have it both ways. Howard Wolfson is so dishonest and unlikeable, I hope he continues to speak for Senator Clinton, so as to help the other candidates.

Thank you Hillary! By your suggestion there has been ANY successes you have exposed the other candidates as non-objective doom-and-gloom nay-sayers,

Bill Richardson "The fact is the surge is not working"

Edwards Campaign, "by cherry-picking one instance to validate a failed Bush strategy, it risks undermining the effort in the Congress to end this war."

Why does the HINT of success in Iraq scare the bejesus out of many democrats??

It is a very sad thing when a democratic candidate makes noises that the Iraqi war is going well and all the other democratic candidates jump. The worst thing that can happen for the democrats is for the Iraqi war to go well. Their doom and gloom in Iraq campaign would crumble like wet cardboard.

Woe be it to the democrat who acknowledges gains made in Iraq.

People of both parties that have been to Iraq recently admit that progress is being made. Heck, the media have been reporting as much for a month now. To deny the facts is nothing more than to try to appeal to the liberal base and tell them what they want to hear.

I personally think that while the war has been screwed up by Bush and Rumsfeld for the past 4 years, if we continue to make the progress that has been acknowledged by reasoned observers in both parties, we actually have a chance to leave the Iraqis with a representative government when we withdraw.

Hopefully, that's what we all want.

I want to see how Hillary tries to double talk her way out of this one. Seems to me like she has stepped in it and stepped in it good this time. She is just proving that she would be a continuation of the old guard in the White House – only difference is there would be a D behind her name versus an R.

Let's vote for a Democrat that will really lead us in the direction for change, someone who will really get our troops out of Iraq. The one person running for President that has opposed this war since day one and has stayed consistent on it – Barack Obama.

Democrats, please keep repeating this mantra: "No matter what the facts are, the surge is not working. No matter what Democrats who have actually gone to Iraq to see what progress has been made say, the surge is not working. No matter that Doctors Without Borders say that casualties have dramatically gone down across many of the areas where the surge has been inacted, the surge is not working. The surge is not working. The surge is not working. We have lost. Americans are losers. We are all losers. Bush is a lier, and all those who differ from the opinion of immediately pulling troops out of Iraq are idiots." Please keep that mantra going. I just want to remember what kind of optimistic future I should be looking forward to starting in 09.

another unprovoked mention of Obama. Hillary is definately in the wrong here, i agree with both Richardson and Edwards.

"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."

Well, yeah.

let the hair-splitting begin...

Van