I think the folks at The Politico blew this one:
First of all, how did Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N,Y.) get stuck with a 4 a.m. time on the Senate floor? She is a relatively junior senator, yes, but she is still Hillary Clinton. I am surprised to see her stuck in this time slot.
Gee, I can't imagine how she would get stuck like that. Do you think maybe it's because she wanted to be stuck at 4:AM when no one would be around to hear her say "there are no good answers" while stopping short of calling for an immediate withdrawal?
Clinton said she was supporting the amendment by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) to pull most U.S. troops out of Iraq by April 30, although she was not optimistic about whatever strategy the United States adopts to resolve the situation.
"There are no good answers" in Iraq, Clinton said. The New York Democrat also stated that "al Qaeda is not the major source of instability in Iraq."
The Democratic presidential candidate said she believed "the counter-insurgency cannot succeed unless there is a major change in the government and people of Iraq. I do not see that happening."
Clinton, however, stopped short of calling for an immediate, complete withdrawal from Iraq, instead calling for U.S. troops to be "removed from harm's way," the same scenario called for under the Levin-Reed amendment.
Clinton backs a three-pronged strategy for Iraq: 1) getting U.S. troops "out of harm's way": 2) cut off aid to the Maliki government brings about political reconciliation between warring sectarian factions; and 3) a "regional and international" diplomatic offensive aimed at bringing about some framework to end the violence in Iraq.


Comments