Well, this article in the NYtimes actually makes me feel a little better about Mrs. Clinton. She says that
she would keep a reduced military force there (in Iraq)to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.
That is one step ahead of completely cutting and running. She also notes the reality that Iraq has a strategic interest for the US and that Iraq as a failed state would aid Al-Qaeda.
So excellant. She’s at least attempting to be aligned with reality. Then she shows her true – anyway the wind blows-colors. Her military sitting right there north of Baghdad
would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.
Why is that? Knowing to our shame what happened in Rwanda and believing that a viable Iraq is important to our national interest.
Asked if Americans would endure having troops in Iraq who do nothing to stop sectarian attacks there, she replied: “Look, I think the American people are done with Iraq. I think they are at a point where, whether they thought it was a good idea or not, they have seen misjudgment and blunder after blunder, and their attitude is, What is this getting us? What is this doing for us?”
So because the public is tired and wants a clear return, this lady who is looking to be the Commander in Chief would let it all go. Yeah – that’s what I’m looking for in a leader! Me and all my military discipline get tired of any project within a half an hour. I’m “done with it”.
Yeah – leaders of the free world should really look to me as a test of what needs doing! LOL.