|
Hillary on the war: Finish It
Sen. Hillary Clinton has e-mailed her friends to explain her position on the
War in Iraq – and drawn the wrath of liberals who want immediate surrender
and withdrawal.
Here is her e-mail:
Dear Friend,
The war in Iraq is on the minds of many of you who have written or who have
called my office asking questions and expressing frustration. When the
President addresses the nation tomorrow on the war, the American people want
and deserve to know how we got there, why we are still there, how we have
executed the war and what we should do now. In short, the President must
explain his plan for the war in Iraq.
There are no quick and easy solutions to the long and drawn out conflict
this Administration triggered that consumes a billion dollars a week,
involves 150,000 American troops, and has cost thousands of American lives.
I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment
without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of
Iraq immediately. I believe we are at a critical point with the December
15th elections that should, if successful, allow us to start bringing home
our troops in the coming year, while leaving behind a smaller contingent in
safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities. This
will advance our interests, help fight terrorism and protect the interests
of the Iraqi people.
In October 2002, I voted for the resolution to authorize the Administration
to use force in Iraq. I voted for it on the basis of the evidence presented
by the Administration, assurances they gave that they would first seek to
resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United
Nations sponsored inspections, and the argument that the resolution was
needed because Saddam Hussein never did anything to comply with his
obligations that he was not forced to do.
Their assurances turned out to be empty ones, as the Administration refused
repeated requests from the U.N. inspectors to finish their work. And the
"evidence" of weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda turned out
to be false.
Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been
asked to give the President authority to use force against Iraq. And if
Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have
agreed, given the lack of a long-term plan, paltry international support,
the proven absence of weapons of mass destruction, and the reallocation of
troops and resources that might have been used in Afghanistan to eliminate
Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and fully uproot the Taliban.
Before I voted in 2002, the Administration publicly and privately assured me
that they intended to use their authority to build international support in
order to get the U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq, as articulated by
the President in his Cincinnati speech on October 7th, 2002. As I said in my
October 2002 floor statement, I took "the President at his word that he will
try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all
possible."
Instead, the Bush Administration short-circuited the U.N. inspectors - the
last line of defense against the possibility that our intelligence was
false. The Administration also abandoned securing a larger international
coalition, alienating many of those who had joined us in Afghanistan.
From the start of the war, I have been clear that I believed that the
Administration did not have an adequate plan for what lay ahead.
I take responsibility for my vote, and I, along with a majority of
Americans, expect the President and his Administration to take
responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement
of the war.
Given years of assurances that the war was nearly over and that the
insurgents were in their "last throes," this Administration was either not
being honest with the American people or did not know what was going on in
Iraq.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I heard General Eric Shinseki,
the Army Chief of Staff, tell us that it would take several hundred thousand
troops to stabilize Iraq. He was subsequently mocked and marginalized by the
Bush Administration.
In October 2003, I said "In the last year, however, I have been first
perplexed, then surprised, then amazed, and even outraged and always
frustrated by the implementation of the authority given the President by
this Congress" and "Time and time again, the Administration has had the
opportunity to level with the American people. Unfortunately, they haven't
been willing to do that."
I have continually raised doubts about the President's claims, lack of
planning and execution of the war, while standing firmly in support of our
troops.
After my first trip to Iraq in November 2003, I returned troubled by the
policies of the Administration and faulted the President for failing to
level with the American public. At the Council on Foreign Relations, I
chided the President for failing to bring in enough international partners
to quell the insurgency.
I spoke out often at the Armed Services Committee to Administration
officials pointing out that the estimates they provided about the war, its
length and cost lacked even basic credibility.
And I challenged Secretary Rumsfeld more than once that he had no
benchmarks to measure actual progress which would lead us to believe we had
a strategy that was working.
Last month, I signed a letter with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and
dozens of other Democratic Senators voicing strong concerns that, without a
solid plan, Iraq could become what it was not before the war: a haven for
radical Islamist terrorists determined to attack America, our allies and our
interests. The letter asked the Administration "to immediately provide a
strategy for success in order to prevent this outcome."
Just a few weeks ago, I joined a bipartisan majority in the United States
Senate in voting for an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill calling
upon the President and his Administration to provide answers and a plan for
the war.
It is time for the President to stop serving up platitudes and present us
with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor – not a rigid
timetable that terrorists can exploit, but a public plan for winning and
concluding the war. And it is past time for the President, Vice President,
or anyone else associated with them to stop impugning the patriotism of
their critics.
Criticism of this Administration's policies should not in any way be
confused with softness against terrorists, inadequate support for democracy
or lack of patriotism. I am grateful to the men and women of our armed
forces and have been honored to meet them twice in Iraq. They honor our
country every day with their courage, selfless dedication, and success in
battle. I am also grateful to the thousands of unknown men and women in our
security forces and around the world who have been fighting the larger war
against terrorism, finding terrorists’ cells, arresting them and working to
prevent future attacks. And I applaud the brave people who have been risking
their lives every day to bring democracy and peace to Afghanistan and Iraq.
I recently returned from visiting Israel and Jordan, seeing first hand the
tragedy of spreading terrorism. As a New York Senator, I believe New York
has a special bond with the victims of such terrorism, and we understand
both the need to fight terrorism and the need for a clear plan in Iraq so
that we can focus our resources in the right ways to prevent it from again
reaching our shores.
America has a big job to do now. We must set reasonable goals to finish what
we started and successfully turn over Iraqi security to Iraqis. We must deny
terrorists the prize they are now seeking in Iraq. We must repair the damage
done to our reputation. We must reform our intelligence system so we never
go to war on false premises again. We must repair the breach with the Muslim
world. And we must continue to fight terrorism wherever it exists.
Like all Americans, I hope the Iraqi elections are a true expression of
democracy, one that is committed to majority rule, minority rights, women's
rights, and the basic rule of law. I hope these elections will finally put
the Iraqi people on the road to real security and independence.
If these elections succeed, we should be able to start drawing down our
troops, but we should also plan to continue to help secure the country and
the region with a smaller footprint on an as-needed basis. I call on the
President both for such a plan and for a full and honest accounting of the
failures of intelligence – something we owe not only to those killed and
wounded and their families, but to all Americans.
We have to continue the fight against terrorism and make sure we apply
America's best values and effective strategies in making our world and
country a better and safer place. We have to do what is right and smart in
the war against terrorists and pursuit of democracy and security. That means
repudiating torture which undermines America's values. That means reforming
intelligence and its use by decision makers. That means rejecting the
Administration's doctrine of preemptive war and their preference to going it
alone rather than building real international support.
I know when America leads with its values and fearlessly faces the facts, we
make the best decisions. That is what is missing at the highest levels of
our government, and what we desperately need now – answers to the questions
about Iraq that only the President can provide. I hope he will level with
the American people and provide us those answers in his Annapolis speech and
give us the plan that has been sorely lacking.
Sincerely yours,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Milk money fight
It has been said that money is the mother’s milk of politics. For some
endangered Republicans, it is the money for milk that matters. Republican
candidates in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Minnesota are seeking to make sure
that small dairy farmers continue to receive the milk income loss program.
However, it is other Republicans -- who want to cut the budget -- that are
their opposition.
The
Associated Press story offers these comments:
For some, like Rep. Mark Green of Wisconsin and Sen. Rick Santorum of
Pennsylvania, their political lives could be at stake. Green and Santorum
represent states dotted by family dairy farms. Their battle is with
Republican colleagues from Western states with much larger dairy operations.
Compared with hot-button issues, the internal GOP battle over the Milk
Income Loss Contract program seems pretty obscure. The program expired Sept.
30. Extending it for two more years would cost taxpayers $1 billion.
Republican Green is running to unseat Wisconsin's Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle;
Santorum is lagging in the polls in his bid for re-election; and in
addition, Rep. Mark Kennedy is running for the Senate seat of retiring
Democrat Mark Dayton.
Important Western state Republicans like Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) have
large dairy farmers who do not benefit from the milk income loss program. An
Agriculture Department study shows that large farms do not benefit as much
from the milk program, and in fact they "may be disadvantaged by the program
altogether" because it encourages oversupply.
Secret Proposed bio-shield
The Associated Press is reporting on Republican plans to create an agency
that would not have to comply with cumbersome disclosure laws. The hope is
to speed up the development of drugs to deal with a possible pandemic. The
Senate Health Committee also approved language that would limit drug
companies' liability provided that they did not act with willful misconduct.
Frist spokeswoman Amy Call said," There's really no financial incentive for
them to get into the market, sell to the government at a reduced rate and
then open themselves up to losses that could potentially bankrupt them."
Oh, Monsieur Kerry!
On the Liberal website
Daily Kos, Democrats are complaining about Monsieur Kerry:
There's a little kerfuffle inside the Democratic Senate caucus over John
Kerry's insistance in being part of the official party response to Bush's
hilarious "plan" in Iraq. Reid originally had designated Sen. Jack Reed to
provide the official response. Reed did the "prebuttal" yesterday and had a
press conference set up for today.
However, John Kerry stomped over Reed by deciding he was going to hold a
press conference this morning as well in a naked bid to steal the limelight.
Eventually, Reid was forced to combine the two press conferences to try and
maintain a unified Senate Democrat response, but Kerry's antics have
generated some ill will.
National Strategy for Iraq Victory
Go
HERE to read President Bush’s "Plan for Victory."
The Democrats still do not have a plan.
Pataki signs up Ganzi
Walter Ganzi Jr., chief executive and co-owner of The Palm Restaurants, a
chain of upscale steakhouses was the national finance chairman for George
H.W. Bush's successful 1988 presidential campaign. Now, he has signed on to
New York Governor Gorge Pataki’s efforts.
Pataki is expected to seek the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.
"I'd be very, very proud to have Governor George Pataki as my president,"
Ganzi said .
Allies leaving
The Associated Press is reporting that Bulgaria and Ukraine will begin
withdrawing their combined 1,250 troops from Iraq by mid-December.
Australia, Britain, Italy, Japan, Poland and South Korea are expected to
reduce their troop strength in Iraq following the Iraqi elections.
|
