WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that President Bush is following a "losing strategy" in Iraq and she will introduce a bill to cap troop levels there.
The New York Democrat said that she instead would like to see more U.S. troops go to Afghanistan.
"We could, with our attention focused on this strategy -- which I think is a losing strategy -- turn what has been a very positive development in Afghanistan to a loss," Clinton said on NBC's "Today" show. "We're going to have a big Taliban offensive in the spring. We need more troops in Afghanistan."
Clinton's bill would cap the number of troops in Iraq to their January 1 level and also require the president to seek approval before sending more troops, according to a top Senate aide.
And Clinton said Iraq's government "is not committed to taking the steps both militarily and politically that would help them to gain control over Baghdad and other places in the country."
She said Washington should cut off financial support for the Iraqi government until it does so.
She was expected to give details at a news conference Wednesday afternoon.
Clinton's legislation is similar to a bill introduced Wednesday by another Democrat, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, that would cap troop levels in Iraq at existing numbers.
Bipartisan resolution opposing surge to be introduced
Meanwhile, other Senate Democrats and a key Republican came together Wednesday to propose a resolution opposing any increase in troops in Iraq.
Democratic Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, joined Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska in sponsoring the nonbinding resolution.
Hagel is a Vietnam War veteran who is a leading GOP voice on foreign policy issues.
The resolution will say that "U.S. strategy and presence on the ground in Iraq can only be sustained with the support of the American people and bipartisan support from Congress."
"... It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating U.S. troop presence in Iraq."
One GOP opponent of a troop increase, Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, said he opposes the resolution because it uses the word "escalating," which he said is a partisan term used by Democrats that "unnecessarily inflames the resolution."
The resolution is not expected to offer any alternative to Bush's plan.
House GOP trying to block cuts to war funding
On the other side of the Capitol, House Republicans plan to introduce a bill Wednesday that would prohibit Congress from cutting off money for troops in the field. House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced that Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, will sponsor the bill.
Boehner argued that the president's Iraq strategy, which would add 21,500 troops to the war effort, deserves a full hearing and called on Democratic leaders who are criticizing it to offer their own plan.
"And for those who don't agree with the president's plan, what's their alternative, what's their plan?" he asked. "We have a new majority in the House and Senate, and I think that at some point they need to begin acting like a majority, and that means that if you don't approve of the president's idea and his plan, you're required, really, to put one forward, and we've not seen that yet."
Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, said Johnson's experience in Vietnam gives him insight into the debate on money for the Iraq war. "He knows what it feels like sitting in a cell when Congress cuts off funding for a war, and he'll never let that happen again," Cantor said.
In response to GOP criticism, Brendan Daly, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said, "It sounds like [Republicans are] trying to play politics. We've said repeatedly we support funding for troops in the field."
Countering Boehner's claim that Democrats don't have an alternative plan for Iraq, Daly said that the party has been saying for months it's for "responsible redeployment" of troops out of Iraq.
"That's the united position. We've written several letters to the president," he said, pointing to the letter from Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, sent to Bush before last week's Iraq speech.
Ya know, while I'm skeptical that the President's idea is the best one, atleast he's trying to put forth
some
kind of plan. While I like Hillary (being a Centrist and all), I don't exactly see anything in the post that says that her or Congress has any sort of an alternative solution.
For this Democrat, it's very frustrating. I think that rather than telling the President "No more troops!" they need to ask, "So what exactly are you going to
do
with those extra troops that makes your plan viable? And then what do you plan on doing afterwards?".
_________________ ""...despite abnormality, human beings can fulfill their social role within the community, especially if they find understanding, love and guidance." - Hans Asperger"
sjc Thinker
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
Posts: 423
Posted:
Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:47 am
tinker683 wrote:
Ya know, while I'm skeptical that the President's idea is the best one, atleast he's trying to put forth
some
kind of plan. While I like Hillary (being a Centrist and all), I don't exactly see anything in the post that says that her or Congress has any sort of an alternative solution.
Oh, they have an alternative solution. Gradually pull out the soldiers from this mess and stop throwing their lives away needlessly.
Bush's solution for a failed policy is to continue using it. Its got to work one of these times he believes. But than again he has stated that even if only his wife and his dog support him he'll continue on doing it.
Quote:
For this Democrat, it's very frustrating. I think that rather than telling the President "No more troops!" they need to ask, "So what exactly are you going to
do
with those extra troops that makes your plan viable? And then what do you plan on doing afterwards?".
He already tried this plan a couple years ago, it failed. Things only got worse over there. He is ignoring the advice from his generals on this and if they keep telling him what he doesn't want to hear, he replaces them. He just put a navy man in charge of this land operation. The man maybe a qualified leader, but this is not a sea war.
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:49 am
I'd imagine, and I hope, that the additional troops will be used to launch strong offensives against the most concentrated areas of insurgent activity and also to take out more of their leadership.
Also, I'd like to see supplies and reinforcements coming into Iraq through the borders stopped.
Jason_Harvestdancer Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 665
Posted:
Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:08 am
The ironic thing about Sen. Clinton (D-AR, oops, NY) saying that Bush has a losing strategy in Iraq is that she is every bit as hawkish as he is. She has the same strategy he has. She has the same position he has.
How do you know what are actual beliefs are? She keeps those secret until or unless they align with popular opinion. If popular opinion changes she goes with it. Exceptions are cases where political damage would result of holding the popular opinion.
Jason_Harvestdancer Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 665
Posted:
Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:34 am
All I have to go by are her actions and her statements, so it is quite possible that everything she's ever done or said is no guide as to what she believes.
Of course, you know how notoriously unreliable actions and statements are in determining what someone stands for.
I'd imagine, and I hope, that the additional troops will be used to launch strong offensives against the most concentrated areas of insurgent activity and also to take out more of their leadership.
Also, I'd like to see supplies and reinforcements coming into Iraq through the borders stopped.
But you won't see that since they're all going to be stationed right in Baghdad instead of out in the rest of the country....
sjc Thinker
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
Posts: 423
Posted:
Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:18 am
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
The ironic thing about Sen. Clinton (D-AR, oops, NY) saying that Bush has a losing strategy in Iraq is that she is every bit as hawkish as he is. She has the same strategy he has. She has the same position he has.
She just demolished her own beliefs.
:rotf:
Riiight.
hillbillyatheist Forum Master
Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 10797
Location: oklahoma
Posted:
Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:29 am
.
sjc, hilary voted for the iraqi war and does not regret it. read the article below.
Yes, they voted for the use of force in Iraq
IF
it proved necessary. So, Bush lied to everyone about it being necessary. You know, all those WMD Saddam was suppose to have and that he was 45 minutes away from nuking America and later Bush switched it to that Saddam had 120,000 Kurds killed with some of these WMD........ Don't you find it strange that in the end what he was tried and executed for had absolutely nothing to do with that?
Code:
Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority."
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:42 pm
sjc wrote:
Saitou wrote:
I'd imagine, and I hope, that the additional troops will be used to launch strong offensives against the most concentrated areas of insurgent activity and also to take out more of their leadership.
Also, I'd like to see supplies and reinforcements coming into Iraq through the borders stopped.
But you won't see that since they're all going to be stationed right in Baghdad instead of out in the rest of the country....
That better not be the case. It'd make no sense and what little support he has left on the war would shrink even further.
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:49 pm
sjc wrote:
Yes, they voted for the use of force in Iraq
IF
it proved necessary. So, Bush lied to everyone about it being necessary.
He didn't lie. Got any evidence showing he lied? Most evidence supports that he did not.
sjc wrote:
You know, all those WMD Saddam was suppose to have and that he was 45 minutes away from nuking America and later Bush switched it to that Saddam had 120,000 Kurds killed with some of these WMD........ Don't you find it strange that in the end what he was tried and executed for had absolutely nothing to do with that?
Nearly everyone who's business it was to know such things (such as heads of state and intelligence agencies) from every country believed he had WMDs. The case made for war with Iraq in Bush's speeches and the authorization from congress gives many reasons beyond WMDs and his nuclear program.
It's pretty pointless for me to try to convince anyone about the war but when people come up with these old nonsensical unsupported claims it undermines my opinion of them.
Take the "Bush Lied People Died challenge" at http://www.larryelder.com/ if you think I'm wrong.
sjc Thinker
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
Posts: 423
Posted:
Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:13 am
Saitou wrote:
That better not be the case. It'd make no sense and what little support he has left on the war would shrink even further.
That never stopped him before. Remember, all he needs for support is his wife and dog. Everyone else can go to hell as far as he's concerned. He's like a Pit Bull. One stupid SOB.
sjc Thinker
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
Posts: 423
Posted:
Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:24 am
Saitou wrote:
He didn't lie. Got any evidence showing he lied? Most evidence supports that he did not.
Where are the WMDs then?
Quote:
Nearly everyone who's business it was to know such things (such as heads of state and intelligence agencies) from every country believed he had WMDs.
Is that why had so much real support when he invaded?
Quote:
The case made for war with Iraq in Bush's speeches and the authorization from congress gives many reasons beyond WMDs and his nuclear program.
They were still the main excuses. And still a lie.
Quote:
It's pretty pointless for me to try to convince anyone about the war but when people come up with these old nonsensical unsupported claims it undermines my opinion of them.
Please, it has all come out in the wash since than.
A "firebrand libertarian". In other words a fundie. Do you have any credible and unbiased sources? What you're doing is no different than going to a creationist's site for evidence that evolution is not true. You can do better than a demagogue.
I don't think you're wrong, I know that you're wrong. I present facts and all you give me back is religion.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
But than again he has stated that even if only his wife and his dog support him he'll continue on doing it.
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file