Hillary Clinton: Goal to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge
Q: In 2006, Democrats were elected to the majority in the House and Senate, and many believed that was a signal to end the war. You have said that will not pledge to have all troops out by the end of your first term, 2013. Why not?
A: It is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term. But it is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting. We do not know, walking into the White House in January 2009, what we're going to find. What is the state of planning for withdrawal? That's why last spring I began pressing the Pentagon to be very clear about whether or not they were planning to bring our troops out. And what I found was that they weren't doing the kind of planning that is necessary, and we've been pushing them very hard to do so. You know, though, about the Democrats taking control of the Congress, I think the Democrats have pushed extremely hard to change this president's course in Iraq. The Democrats keep voting for what we believe would be a better course.
I think it's a fair criticism of Obama to say he is waffling a little on his exact plans to end the war. Kucinich and Richardson, who both pledged to remove troops immediately, with none of this ridiculous "slow draw-down" crap, had a better position. This is a tremendous failing of the Democrats. But at worst, Obama has the same position as Clinton, who as shown above has waffled plenty. I have suggested she could easily be the LBJ of this war before, and I say it again.
Her current posture on the war is solely political. Her actions, as shown by her capitulation to Bush's war drive 6 years ago, speak louder than what she's currently saying. The war must be ended, immediately. Clinton will simply not do that. The proof of this pudding is in her vote for the Lieberman/Kyl amendment, virtually granting to Bush the power to go to war with Iran that she granted him to go to war with Iraq.