Liberal Activists Boo Clinton

[@DCGoldPants]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6061301449.html

Liberal Activists Boo Clinton

Rejection of Iraq Timetable Gets Cool Reception at Conference

By Dan Balz

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, June 14, 2006; A10

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) drew boos and hisses from an audience of liberal activists yesterday as she defended her opposition to a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, and later she received an implicit rebuke from Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) for failing to acknowledge that her support for the war was a mistake.

Clinton's and Kerry's appearances at the Take Back America conference at the Washington Hilton put on vivid display the Democratic Party's divisions over the foreign policy issue that dominates this year's midterm elections, and the two possible 2008 presidential candidates offered a preview of the debate that could dominate the battle for the party's nomination.

Clinton and Kerry supported the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing the Iraq war. Kerry recently renounced that vote, but Clinton has never done so. She finds herself in opposition to a majority of Democratic activists and is the target of passionate criticism from some of them.

Clinton won repeated applause through most of her speech, which dealt at length with domestic issues but also sharply criticized President Bush's handling of the war. But the audience turned against her when, in what she called a difficult conversation, she restated her long-standing position about timetables for withdrawing U.S forces.

"I have to just say it," she began. "I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment, which I think does not put enough pressure on the new Iraqi government, nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not agree that that is in the best interest of our troops or our country."

Clinton finished on a more positive note, with an exhortation about winning the November elections that brought audience members to their feet cheering. But within minutes, as she worked the rope line on her way out of the hotel ballroom, she was the target of protesters, who chanted "Bring the troops home" and "Stop the war."

Later, after Clinton's departure, Kerry delivered a fiery denunciation of the war that was continually interrupted with cheers and applause, and he repeated his call for "a hard and fast deadline" for withdrawing troops. At one point, Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 presidential nominee, appeared to be directing his comments at the woman who leads early national Democratic polls for 2008.

"Let me say it plainly," Kerry said. "It's not enough to argue with the logistics or to argue about the details or the manner of the conflict's execution or the failures of competence, as great as they are. It is essential to acknowledge that the war itself was a mistake, to say the simple words that contain more truth than pride. We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true. It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote for that Iraqi resolution."

Kerry struggled throughout the 2004 campaign to square his vote for the resolution and his later opposition to an $87 billion funding bill for the troops. As if to drive home the point that he thinks Clinton and others who share her views are in a similarly untenable position, he told the audience yesterday: "One of the great lessons of life is that you cannot change the future if you're not honest about the past. And we cannot have it both ways in the war in Iraq."

Spokesman David Wade said Kerry's remarks were not directed specifically at Clinton.

Even before Clinton arrived for her speech, it was clear that she faced a potentially hostile audience. Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, the conference's sponsor, admonished the audience to be friendly to the morning speakers. "We owe them our courteous attention," he said. As the audience waited for Clinton to arrive, some passed out anti-Clinton literature to reporters.

The Campaign for America's Future, a leading liberal group, has battled with centrist Democrats over the direction of the party.

Clinton and Kerry spoke just as the news was breaking about Bush's secret trip to Baghdad. Administration officials have seized on the formation of the new government in Iraq and the killing last week of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, to mount an offensive to turn around public perceptions about the war that threaten to damage Republicans in the November elections.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who called the war a "grotesque mistake," challenged the administration's claims of progress during her appearance at the conference.

"As we talk about a new direction for America, I think one place that it is very clear that we need a new direction is in the war in Iraq," she said.

Pelosi joined Kerry in calling for a timetable to pull out the troops, saying she supports a plan outlined earlier by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).

One Clinton adviser dismissed questions about whether the senator had sought to draw dissents from the crowd as a way to burnish her credentials as a strong-on-national-security centrist. "She had enough respect for her audience not to pander or duck the issue," said strategist Howard Wolfson.

[Art]

Clinton's position was a riot.

She doesn't believe in an open-ended deployment. She doesn't believe in a date certain to leave Iraq. Uh. Um. Uh. What? Those are the only two choices. Every single person in the world is for us ultimately leaving Iraq -- as an occupation force or as a support military force, though we should have many permanent bases there like Gitmo .

Either you support a fixed date, or you support an open-ended deployment where the date to leave will be defined by events. You can't support neither. She should have been booed .

[@DCGoldPants]

Well, you could support a range with conditions.

Something more specific than a "When Iraqi's stand up for themselves" Fairytale.

However, I'm just glad she's getting booed.

Still don't think she's running for Prez.

[Art]

Well, you could support a range with conditions.

Something more specific than a "When Iraqi's stand up for themselves" Fairytale.

However, I'm just glad she's getting booed.

Still don't think she's running for Prez.

When the Iraqi's stand up for themselves is a range of conditions, so, I'm surprised you'd couch your own beliefs as a fairy tale. That's exactly what we're doing. As each milestone is reached proving the stability of the Iraqis to handle their own affairs, the need for us in this role will diminish until we can draw down comfortably. Most reasonable people would hope for this as the outcome. It's the only viable position.

[jbooma]

Well, you could support a range with conditions.

Something more specific than a "When Iraqi's stand up for themselves" Fairytale.

However, I'm just glad she's getting booed.

Still don't think she's running for Prez.

Oh she is running all right You haven't got the letter yet

[@DCGoldPants]

When the Iraqi's stand up for themselves is a range of conditions, so, I'm surprised you'd couch your own beliefs as a fairy tale. That's exactly what we're doing. As each milestone is reached proving the stability of the Iraqis to handle their own affairs, the need for us in this role will diminish until we can draw down comfortably. Most reasonable people would hope for this as the outcome. It's the only viable position.

sure if its a range, if you define it as such. But, when you keep calling it that without specifics. Then it becomes a head scratcher as to why nobody can even give a few realistic steps.

Like journalists and U.S. Gov't officials behind allowed to leave the green zone without more armor than the troops are currently wearing.

Or, being able to pull U.S. troops back and let the Iraqi troops do the dirty work, while our guys sit outside of the towns and cities to provide backup if needed.

[Art]

sure if its a range, if you define it as such. But, when you keep calling it that without specifics. Then it becomes a head scratcher as to why nobody can even give a few realistic steps.

Like journalists and U.S. Gov't officials behind allowed to leave the green zone without more armor than the troops are currently wearing.

Or, being able to pull U.S. troops back and let the Iraqi troops do the dirty work, while our guys sit outside of the towns and cities to provide backup if needed.

Bufford,

There are incredible specifics behind all this. That you somehow think your lack of direct understanding of them means there aren't is the problem you have. It ill serves us to announce to the world a series of milestones that trigger any specific actions, because, it merely serves as methods for the bad guys to time their attacks triggering preset, announced conditions so their attacks have greater impact, and FORCE us to go back on the plans, therefore seeming like we're being dictated to.

Our deployment is different today than it was in the days after the major combat ended. It'll be different next year. It'll change constantly until we can simply base in the desert and launch air strikes against anyone in the Middle East .

It's not a head scratcher at all why you don't see big signs as to what triggers what military action. It is, absolutely, a head scratcher that you can't figure out how dumb that is to want.

[@DCGoldPants]

See, this is what just isn't cool. You're backhanded insults thrown at everybody that you don't agree with. Why take shots at posters?

My lack of direct understanding?

Considering our post war planning. I'd suggest this Gov't lack of direct understanding. We're not exactly good at it right now. Need some Opium? Check out Afghanistan. We're doing a bang-up job there. We might be hearing Taliban again before you know it.

[Sarge]

I never thought I'd have something in common with liberal activists

[Henry]

I have to agree with Art on this one. Even if Hillary was thinking of subtle nuances regarding timetables and withdrawal conditions, what she said was "I'm not for X. I'm not for no X."

That's the sort of speak that a Democrat, and Clinton specifically, really needs to avoid. If she's not simply against everything, she needs to outline what, exactly, she's for. Maybe she did and the article took her quote out of context. But as the article reads she sounds pretty ridiculous.

[Zguy28]

How dare the royal subjects boo Her Majesty the Queen? Draw and quarter them I say!

PS. Even if they don't boo her, draw and quarter them I say! :laugh:

[Air Force Cane]

when she tries to act "tough" and starts yelling during her speeches it sounds like a dying crow and every man's worst nightmare ex-wife.

Hannity plays those clips and it is literally like having your eyes gouged out listening to her hysteria.

can anyone imagine her giving the same speech in Baghdad that President Bush did yesterday?

the troops would laugh at Her Thighness..

[Art]

See, this is what just isn't cool. You're backhanded insults thrown at everybody that you don't agree with. Why take shots at posters?

My lack of direct understanding?

Considering our post war planning. I'd suggest this Gov't lack of direct understanding. We're not exactly good at it right now. Need some Opium? Check out Afghanistan. We're doing a bang-up job there. We might be hearing Taliban again before you know it.

You and I don't actually disagree Bufford. You're just being a goof. That you seem to think there are no detailed understandings as to appropriate times to scale various aspects of our military efforts in Iraq are so childishly dim, it's hard to avoid telling you so.

What isn't cool is to suggest we need to have detailed plans made available to the world as to when we might be able to alter our military posture given you know we've adjusted it many times since the end of major combat, including adding more people, being more involved, taking people away and being less involved. The situation is not rigid or fixed.

There is no plan to account for the near daily changes in tactics. You address the realities. You improve the situation. And when you reach comfort points, you alter what you do. Which is exactly what we've been doing.

Apparently you foolishly think somehow victory is defined by there not being a single person who believes in Taliban or Baathist or fundamentalist rule. Quit being a tool. There are always going to be factions in EVERY society that want things the rest of the world don't like. They may even fight for it.

I am amused watching liberals attempt to make Afghanistan a failure though. You guys are adorable.

[TimmySmith]

Sad how Kerry thinks a reversal on his VOTE exonerates him from his responsibility attached to that vote. The type of idiot thinking the kept him out of the White House. This is one where Clinton has it right.

[@DCGoldPants]

Talking down, and more backhanded insults from the Mod. Thanks.

Look, there is a difference between being 100% transparent with plans, and not being able to even give an abstract idea of the steps that are in place to get as many troops possible out of Iraq.

Why do you think a greater number of American's don't approve of this? Or think its headed in the wrong direction?

Its not that these people support Saddam or Al-Queda once they moved in there after the 1st war ended. They're tired of thinking that all we've got is reactive planning. Even if its not the case. They're doing an awful job of presenting their point of view.

We can't even present abstract planning that is believable to the average American.

[Art]

Talking down, and more backhanded insults from the Mod. Thanks.

Look, there is a difference between being 100% transparent with plans, and not being able to even give an abstract idea of the steps that are in place to get as many troops possible out of Iraq.

Why do you think a greater number of American's don't approve of this? Or think its headed in the wrong direction?

Its not that these people support Saddam or Al-Queda once they moved in there after the 1st war ended. They're tired of thinking that all we've got is reactive planning. Even if its not the case. They're doing an awful job of presenting their point of view.

We can't even present abstract planning that is believable to the average American.

Bufford,

The average American can't tell you the capital of 50 states in his own country. The average American is an idiot. We're not really going to judge what we ought to understand by the base idiocy of feeble-minded robots. Support for the war spiked with recent news. Nothing changed. This is what idiots who have no actual beliefs do.

The administration has done a very solid job of presenting the dial down plan being tied to the ability of the country we destroyed and took over to take back its own future. That's highly believable to every American, save the liberal activist who wants us out before that point.

Oh, and Bufford, my name is Art, not mod. When I engage you as a mod, you'll know the difference than when I engage you as a poster. You've had this problem in the past apparently thinking if you're on staff you're not allowed to talk to others. We are. Don't fall back into this pattern of stupidity.

[TGateNGDad]

Clearly, Clinton has not yet decided what position will generate the most votes in a general election. Thus, for now, she equivocates.

[Sarge]

Talking down, and more backhanded insults from the Mod. Thanks.

Call him a Nazi!

Call him a Nazi!

[@DCGoldPants]

So, guess we have more faith in the average Iraqi Voter, then American Voter.

and, I know it might be tough. But try to look at what you just said from the averager poster point of view. Of course you should be posting in threads, and in on topics. But, when you rip on other people because they don't agree with you. Everybody knows nothing will come from it. Doesn't matter what you say to who. Because, you can't separate the Art the Mod from Art the Poster.

[jbooma]

Bufford,

Oh, and Bufford, my name is Art, not mod. When I engage you as a mod, you'll know the difference than when I engage you as a poster. You've had this problem in the past apparently thinking if you're on staff you're not allowed to talk to others. We are. Don't fall back into this pattern of stupidity.

Thats the problem how are we supposed to know when you are talking as a mod or poster? Where exactly is the line drawn, or for you there is none and you can step over it when you feel like it.

I have never heard of someone in a debate that needs to keep insulting someone the entire time. Unless that was in debate 101 which many on this board has not had the priveledge to take.

Don't get me wrong I feel you are one of the more intelligent posters, but you do have the I am biogger then you approach when it comes to many subjects, which is not the case.

[rictus58]

The administration has done a very solid job of presenting the dial down plan being tied to the ability of the country we destroyed and took over to take back its own future. That's highly believable to every American, save the liberal activist who wants us out before that point.

Bufford, buddy, I have to agree with Art on this. The admin has always held the same withdrawl plan. While it may be vague in nature, you can't really nail down a set date when Iraq will be able to function on it's own.

however, I do think the long our troops stay, the more dependant the Iraq citizens will be on them. Just like those on Welfare years.

[@DCGoldPants]

Thats the problem how are we supposed to know when you are talking as a mod or poster? Where exactly is the line drawn, or for you there is none and you can step over it when you feel like it.

I have never heard of someone in a debate that needs to keep insulting someone the entire time. Unless that was in debate 101 which many on this board has not had the priveledge to take.

Don't get me wrong I feel you are one of the more intelligent posters, but you do have the I am biogger then you approach when it comes to many subjects, which is not the case.

Thank you.

[Sarge]

Nazi! Nazi!

Seig heil!

[@DCGoldPants]

Bufford, buddy, I have to agree with Art on this. The admin has always held the same withdrawl plan. While it may be vague in nature, you can't really nail down a set date when Iraq will be able to function on it's own.

however, I do think the long our troops stay, the more dependant the Iraq citizens will be on them. Just like those on Welfare years.

I understand what you're saying. I'm not asking for a specific date. But, an abstract idea beyond when they can stand for themselves would be nice.

Considering the conflicting numbers of Iraqi troops trained, and the current waves of violence coming from Insurgents and Terrorists without being specific. I can't imagine how telling American's what we plan to do to stop these guys would make anything much worse. Just don't use Cowboy talk.

[rictus58]

I understand what you're saying. I'm not asking for a specific date. But, an abstract idea beyond when they can stand for themselves would be nice.

Ok, let say they give the date on Dec 12,2006. But that date comes and the situation still doesn't warrant a withdrawl. Then people are up in arms. The soliders who thought they were coming home aren't. Moral is sunk. In some regards, doing this can make things worse.