Hillary Clinton's Stance on Iraq and Afghanistan

[Ethelk2044]

IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN

Clinton, in an interview with the American Urban Radio Network, stressed the importance of the Pakistanis "taking the actions that only they can take within their own country."

But she did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998.

"If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured," she said.

Another Democratic candidate, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, said he would not hesitate to use force against extremists but said, "I believe we must first use maximum diplomatic and economic pressure on states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to take all necessary actions to stop al Qaeda."

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/8/2/worldupdates/2007-08-02T023102Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-287732-2&sec=worldupdates

[William769]

1. Sounds like a plan to me. Unlike someone else. NT.

[Ethelk2044]

2. Same plan. She would go into Pakistan if she had to. It just shows

how much bull shit her supporters push. It is okay for her to say the samething.

[illinoisprogressive]

3. hillary is the biggesst phoney

[Ethelk2044]

4. Her supporters were stating she has a different stance. However

Her words in this post states she would do the same thing

[eweaver155]

5. Same plan, same strategy no matter what any candidate proposes.

There is very little room for any candidate to use any strategy other than what Obama proposed. Fight the terrorists in Afghanistan, ensure Pakistan ramps up their efforts and use available force when needed. There is no political spin here, all courses of action will be similar, no matter what, all leading to the same conclusion.

[Skip Intro]

6. "I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured" is not the same thing

as Obama telling them he would attack/invade. Ensuring something is done doesn't have to mean doing it yourself. Nuance is important in diplomacy. Just as you don't tell a potential enemy, or a current enemy, that you would not, probably, use some portion of your defense. Of course, you don't drop nukes, but you don't tell the enemy that you will come after them in a year and a half when you're president, and you don't tell them what you will and will not do. And to do so through day-after clarification?

There is a big difference here. The world, enemies and allies alike, is listening.


We're just coming off a cross your fingers "how bad can it be" presidency. Its just not the right time for another. Getting your point across, correctly, the first time, could prove a valuable asset in the next eight years. A lot is at stake.