What does Clinton mean when she says, "We have to keep preparing to fight the new war."?

[calteacherguy]

How about preparing for peace? What is this new war? I don't like what I'm hearing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070821/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_iraq_6

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

1. Our Next President

I'm sure things will be much better.

Or not.

[az chela]

3. She wont be the next prez!!!!!!!!!

Her ambitions for power and money make her just like the repukes

[spotbird]

14. If she is the nominee

it won't matter if she wins or not.

[killbotfactory]

2. In the future, we have to learn how to occupy and pacify nations we illegally invade

So that they don't get mad when we steal their national resources.

[Hardrada]

4. And that is exactly what she means, this woman so fair-seeming

yet breathing out fiery and sulphurous threats!

[Stephanie]

24. We should do it more competently.

And not go over budget or past deadline.

[redqueen]

44. That's sure what it sounds like.

Ugh.

[bahrbearian]

5. She is saying "If Chimpy won't do it, I will" attack Iran

[spotbird]

10. Bush will attack Iran

the next neocon administration will go for Syria.

[MethuenProgressive]

6. honor soldiers is "by beginning to bring them home," Clinton

From your link. The FIRST LINE in the story, which was ignored so as to bash Clinton:

New military tactics in Iraq are working but the best way to honor U.S. soldiers is "by beginning to bring them home," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told war veterans Monday.

[HeraldSquare212]

9. Saying it's working

just gives cover to those who don't want to bring the troops home.

[spotbird]

13. Beginning to bring them home..

put out part of the fire.

Make some of the glass of water you are about to drink clean.

It is nonsense.

[mrgorth]

7. I don't support Hillary

but I'm pretty sure she's referring to the fight against terrorists/jihadists that DO wish to do us harm. This is a real fight, which we have bunked up pretty bad, with her help btw, but which does need to be fought.

[spotbird]

12. Why must all solutions be

military? Hasn't it dawned on one of these lunatics that we simply can't afford to settle all our problems with a bomb? In fact we make more terrorists by killing their children, destroying their lively hood and treating them like they are less than human?

I know this will be viewed as nuts, but what is lost by considering their perspective? How will we suffer if we find out why they want to obliterate us?

[mrgorth]

17. I'm not saying

they have to be. I'd much rather use intell and law enforcement to find these people. Fight is just a euphamism. To think that we can just "talk" to people that want to blow us up is kind of naive however. Real evil does exist in the world. Yes, here too. Regardless of how much I can't stand republicans, I don't want any more Americans killed.

[eridani]

27. Yes, but it isn't a military fight

There are 6 billion people in the world and a shrinking resource base to support them. If 20% of these keep insisting on stripmining the rest of the world to feed their overconsumption, the other 80% are going to be highly alienated. If dominating powers stop dominating, asymetrical warfare loses its entire reason for existence. However, that will still not fix the alienation problem.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/opinion/03pape.html?ex=1312257600&en=622d42186901404b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

In writing my book on suicide attackers, I had researchers scour Lebanese sources to collect martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and the biographies of the Hezbollah bombers. Of the 41, we identified the names, birth places and other personal data for 38. Shockingly, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were from leftist political groups like the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union. Three were Christians, including a female high-school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon.

What these suicide attackers — and their heirs today — shared was not a religious or political ideology but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation. Nearly two decades of Israeli military presence did not root out Hezbollah. The only thing that has proven to end suicide attacks, in Lebanon and elsewhere, is withdrawal by the occupying force.

Signing on to Islamic jihadism is just one of many ways to deal with having no real reason to live. Our own homegrown Rapture whackjobs haven't done much besides killing the occasional talk show host or abortion provider so far, but given the right circumstances they could do a lot worse. And our current war veterans could well provide the next crop of Timothy McVeighs.

Japan is neither Islamic nor Christian, but alienated people still join groups like Aum Shinrikyo.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol5no4/olson.htm

The cult's operations were worldwide, promoting a theology drawn from different sources, including Buddhism, Christianity, Shamanism, Hinduism, and New Age beliefs. Cult membership around the world was likely 20,000 to 40,000. One cult leader estimated the cult's net worth in March of 1995 at about $1.5 billion. The money was collected through donations, tithing, sales of religious paraphernalia, videotape and book sales, and other sources. The cult conducted seminars and hosted training courses for members, offering indoctrination in Aum's teachings, charging believers from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars for attending these sessions. Aum Shinrikyo also had a number of commercial enterprises, even a company that manufactured computers. Imported components from Taiwan were assembled in a cult factory at Kamakuishki and sold in Aum's computer store in downtown Tokyo. The cult also ran a chain of restaurants in Tokyo and several other Japanese cities.

Millennial visions and apocalyptic scenarios dominate the group's doctrine, evidenced by the prominent role of Nostradamus as a prophet in Aum Shinrikyo teaching. Ashahara has, on many occasions, claimed to be the reincarnated Jesus Christ, as well as the first "enlightened one" since the Buddha. He has frequently preached about a coming Armageddon, which he describes as a global conflict that would, among other things, destroy Japan with nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. According to Ashahara, only the followers of Aum Shinrikyo will survive this conflagration.

And a single nutcase with an old-fashioned Molotov cocktail with no known group affiliations easily beat out the decades long planning of Aum Shinrikyo in the casualty department. A couple of billion for sophisticated WMD labs vs a few dollars for flammable liquid.

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2003/02/18/story88617.asp

More than 130 people are feared dead today after a man started a fire on a subway train in South Korea’s third-largest city.

A fire department official said at least 100 bodies have been found in the train. “We are receiving reports from firefighters at the scene that there are at least 100 bodies inside the train cars,” said Chung Myong-sook.

YTN television said some of the bodies were only skeletons. More than 130 people were rushed to hospitals around Daegu, 200 miles south-east of the capital Seoul.

A man was under arrest, but police said they had no idea what motivated the attack. Firefighters took three hours to extinguish the blaze, which sent thick black smoke pouring from the entrance of one station.

TV footage showed the charred frames of the subway carriages. The seats in were burned away, revealing their steel frames, and the subway platform was strewn with discarded shoes and other belongings.

Witnesses said Kim Dae-han, 46, was carrying a milk carton filled with flammable material when he boarded the subway train.

The good news is that fewer than 0.1% of us will ever be that far off our rockers. The bad news is that 0.1% of 6 billion is 6 million. Anyone who thinks there is a military solution to this problem is completely deranged and not fit for higher office.

[papau]

8. the next war - if it comes - will be a new as to how it's waged - that is all I see here. n/t

n/t

[karynnj]

34. Could we maybe try a completely different approach

like maybe engage in diplomacy as whole heartedly as we leap into war.

America should never go to war because it wants to, only because it has to. War should be a last resort! Why can't Hillary say something like this - stolen from some 2004 guy - and then add that we have to be prepared. It does not make you weak!

[papau]

50. that idea is everyones idea - Hillary/Obama/ other Dems/even in the GOP more diplomacy is

claimed as a policy.

[welshTerrier2]

11. could it be ................... Iran?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3463624&mesg_id=3463660

[mentalsolstice]

15. Y'all are getting about as stupid as can be!

Having lived and worked in a military town, I know that even in times of peace, the troops are all about preparation and war readiness. As a potential CiC, I would expect her to say something like this. Of all the candidates, she is going to have the toughest fight against the pubes if she is the nominee. Although it won't be said outright, it will be hinted at that she's weak on security because she's a woman.

When she says "preparing to fight the new war", she is talking about military readiness. To tell the truth, our military is in such a state of unpreparedness, worn out, and stretched thin...if we were attacked right now we would not be able to respond. I hope that our next president brings home out troops, and then replenishes them. I didn't read into HRC's statement that she's talking about another peremptory strike, just that she referring to military readiness.

[calteacherguy]

19. Well, if she's talking about military readiness then she should have said so. nt

[karynnj]

36. If so, she is not being the least bit clear

as there is no way to read all that into the words said - not to mention "next" or a "future" war would have been the obvious words rather than "new".

[CANDO]

16. She will give us a virtual third GWB Presidency.

Hell no to Hillary.

[frylock]

18. ask these folks over here..

they avoid topics of this nature like the plague.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3464213

[QueenOfCalifornia]

33. Yikes....

My visit to that thread was fucking scary. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

frylock - you are debating a person who will not admit Clinton made some bigassed mistakes - Can you say NAFTA? I like Bill. I voted for him. But I went mental when he shoved the failed policy of NAFTA down our collective throats. How's that NAFTA thing working for ya?

Hillary's speech to the VFW was downright weird. She was pandering to the crowd and saying what she thought would pacify them. I listened to the whole speech and I felt like I was listening to someone who wanted to jump into another preemptive strike on either Syria or Iran. I'd like to know how Hillary would explain just how well that surge is going? Hillary scares the shit out of me.

[karynnj]

37. The odd thing is that at least from the news account I read, she got a tepid response

This is not a Democrat friendly crowd, but in 2004, in the middle of the SBVT attacks, Kerry got a standing ovations when he finished. (though not as warm a react as Bush did the week.) Kerry did not take positions there that conflicted with positions he took elsewhere.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. Has calteach ever started a positive thread about a Democratic candidate? nt

[TeamJordan23]

28. DMC, why not try answering the question? nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

31. She means exactly what BO means when he has the same thing nt

[IndianaGreen]

21. Hillary's AIPAC friends want us to go to war against Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Hamas

So many wars, such little time!

[Desertrose]

22. With friends like that.....

who needs enemies...

DR

[cui bono]

23. It means she wants to attack Iran. Then she'll start thinking about who to attack next.

Then she'll attack them. Then she'll start thinking about who to attack next. Then she'll attack them. Then she'll start thinking about who to attack next. Then she'll attack them. Then she'll start thinking about who to attack next. Then she'll attack them. Then she'll start thinking about who to attack next. Then she'll attack them. Then she'll start thinking about who to attack next. Then she'll attack them. Then she'll start thinking about who to attack next. Then she'll attack them. Then she'll start thinking about who to attack next. Then she'll attack them. Then she'll start thinking about who to attack next. Then she'll attack them. Then she'll start thinking about who to attack next. Then she'll attack them. Then she'll start thinking about who to attack next. Then she'll attack them. Then she'll start thinking about who to attack next. Then she'll attack them. Then she'll start thinking about who to attack next. Then she'll attack them. Then she'll start thinking about who to attack next. Then she'll attack them.

[RufusTFirefly]

25. Dog bless Hillary!

She is a Democrat, which, by definition, makes her infallible on this site.
Shame on you for suggesting otherwise.

[redqueen]

45. aahaahahahahahah

I am lovin your posts on this thread!

[illinoisprogressive]

26. She makes me very very uneasy....

[RufusTFirefly]

29. That's because you are a Rove-hypnotized misogynist. Next!!

:sarcasm:

[Look My Way]

39. Did you consider that Rove wants to run against Hillary?

The Republicans are licking their chops and salivating about the prospect of running against Hillary, or Obama.

[RufusTFirefly]

43. Did you consider my prominent "sarcasm" icon? n/t

And, by the way, if you read the body of this post (even though I told you not to), welcome to DU!

[Look My Way]

49. Thanks, I appreciate that. n/t

[WillTheGoober]

30. Please watch the video ...

It seems that Republicans can extract a small piece of any speech, put it out there, and even liberals eat it up.

Come on guys -- let's use common sense here -- why would any politician in their right mind talk about a new war?

Watch the entire video ... in context.

I don't expect anybody to come over to Clinton; but I do think we should be fair.

Thanks.

[JTFrog]

32. Why did she give

Bush a blank check for the last war. Why would any politician in their right mind have done that?

Maybe the clue is in your question.

[WillTheGoober]

40. Listen ...

I think there are legitimate reasons why America allowed Bush into this war.

Like it or not -- but this Country supported that war and this President.

Hillary Clinton, like all Senators, is a representative of her people.
Following 9/11, this country put all of their trust and faith behind George Bush.
Especially New York.

He took that trust and betrayed this country by taking us away from the real cause of 9/11.

Let's not be distracted from the real problem here.

[JTFrog]

41. Trust me, I'm not the

one distracted.

[MadHound]

42. No, "this Country" did not support the war or the IWR

At the time of the IWR vote, sixty eight percent of the American people didn't want to do a damn thing until inspections had been completed. In both houses of Congress, email, letter, phone and fax messages to Senators and Representatives were running 268-1 against voting for the IWR. Around the country millions of people were in the street saying NO to the IWR.

It wasn't the country that supported the war, but a minority of Reps and Senators who supported the war. Hillary was among those, and she continued to support the war, even in the face of her constituents wishes, up until quite recently when she has softened just a tad for political purposes.

[WillTheGoober]

47. Right ...

I have not forgotten the climate then.
It was about supporting America's war on terrorism, which this President sold as equal to the war in Iraq.

Throw out all the figures you want.
The basic fact is that in 2004 Bush was re-elected.

9/11 shook this country to its core.
Bush played on our insecurities -- and as a result he got powers he wouldn't have received otherwise.

This is not uncommon.
With Pearl Harbor, we had the same result.

I think, at this point, we need to stop pointing fingers at each other. The fact is that a lot of Americans, like Hillary, have changed their minds about this war -- and in that way, a lot of Americans can relate with her and other Democrats.

So it's time to move forward and decide how to get the hell out of there.
It's clearly a disaster and we need a strategic way out.

As Obama has now said - there are no good options left on the table.

We need to map our way out of there -- and do it in a way that doesn't result in the perception by the American people that our party abandoned those troops. We're an odd country like that; we're prideful -- for better or for worse.

[redqueen]

46. Oh, do you now? What "legitimate" reasons would those be?

The country supported that war in part because feckless politicians HELPED HIM SPREAD THE LIE.

Let's not be played for fools.

[Totally Committed]

35. It's all very logical, really:

Hillary = DLC

DLC = DINO

DINO = Republican

Republican = Neverending War

Neverending war? = Hillary

Hillary = A Republican in the WH, no matter who wins, and as we all know....

Republican = Neverending War


TC

[New Earth]

38. maybe something will make her drop out of the race

[WillTheGoober]

48. haha ...

Well -- I wouldn't rest your hopes on that.
She's a determined woman -- no doubt about that.