Hillary’s Iraq Trouble: Is she trying to re-write history?

July 22, 2007

By Glenn Thrush & John Riley

Just after 4 a.m. Wednesday morning, a drowsy Hillary Rodham Clinton stood in the Senate chamber during the all-night debate on Iraq and declared matter-of-factly: "I have called for the strategic redeployment of U.S. forces out of Iraq for several years."

That surprised anti-war activists camped out near the Capitol, listening to the speech on the radio. Clinton, they knew, had supported withdrawal from Iraq for less than two years, 20 months to be exact.

"We thought it was ridiculous that she was trying to rewrite history," said Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CodePink, an anti-war group that has staged protests at Clinton's public appearances since she voted for the Iraq invasion in October 2002. "She's moving back her own timetable … We all let out a collective guffaw when we heard her say that."

Was Clinton's statement a verbal typo, a gaffe by a woman who desperately needed a nap? Or was she trying to backdate her record to make it seem like she's advocated withdrawal longer than she actually has?

She's said it before

Clinton opposed calls for redeployment until Nov. 15, 2005, when she voted with senators of both parties for a "phased redeployment" of troops without a specific timetable, her staff said.

A Newsday review of her speeches, press releases, votes and committee transcripts revealed no evidence that she publicly backed redeployment before the vote.

Still, Clinton has recently claimed her call for withdrawal came much earlier. On Jan. 18, 2007, she told PBS correspondent Gwen Ifill, "You know, for more than a year-and-a-half I've been in favor of phased redeployment of our troops … based on a comprehensive strategy."

She made virtually the same remark to Greta Van Susteren on Fox News a day later, suggesting she favored redeployment during the summer of 2005.

In fact, Clinton was advocating a significantly different approach at the time. In July 2005, she co-sponsored a bill with Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman to increase the Army's strength by 80,000 troops to deal with manpower shortages caused by Iraq and Afghanistan.

Clinton's language in the Democratic debates also has raised questions about the timing of her anti-war stance.

In the April 26 Democratic debate in South Carolina, for example, Clinton said she and other Democrats had advocated a withdrawal timetable "for a number of years."

But 10 months earlier, in a speech booed by anti-war activists, Clinton said it was not "smart strategy to set a date certain" for withdrawal.

Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines dismissed microscopic dissections of Clinton's statements as "gotcha" politics. He defended her "several years" comment as accurate, saying her redeployment votes stretched out over three calendar years.

"The Senate has voted on the phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq three times over the last several years, and Senator Clinton has voted for it every time," Reines said, referring to the November 2005 vote and two subsequent votes in 2006 and 2007.

"Senator Clinton has said for years that she disagrees with the way the president has used the original authority granted to him," he added. "Unlike the president, has been willing to look at … new realities, and speak and act accordingly."

Changing climate

But one of those new realities is a political one: The once-popular war she supported in 2002 has become her principal liability in the primaries. And the timing of her conversion from hawk to passionate anti-war candidate has created openings for her opponents.

Unlike former Sen. John Edwards, Clinton hasn't recanted her vote. Sen. Barack Obama, who was in the Illinois legislature during the Senate Iraq debate, has said he would have voted against the war — and has pounded Clinton for authorizing the invasion.

"She has been very late to come out against the war and that's Obama's tremendous advantage," said University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato. "She's trying to fuzz her Iraq positions.."

Grassroots anger about the war has fueled Obama's unexpected lead in fundraising and has hurt Clinton in Iowa. To shore up support there among the overwhelmingly anti-war Democratic electorate, Clinton earlier this month mailed a 15-minute DVD putting a positive spin on her Iraq record.

"Since the 1960's, Iowa has been a center of the peace movement," Sabato said. "Democratic caucus voters are very attuned to war and peace and she knows she's in trouble with them."

Source: Newsday

Posted by Hillary · Filed Under 2008, Editorials/Opinion, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton Make Overs, Hillary Lies, Iraq

Comments

One Response to “Hillary’s Iraq Trouble: Is she trying to re-write history?”

University Update - Hillary Clinton - Hillaryâ€™s Iraq Trouble: Is she trying to re-write history? on July 22nd, 2007 8:54 am

[…] Clark Link to Article hillary clinton Hillaryâ€™s Iraq Trouble: Is she trying to re-write history? » […]

Got something to say?

Against Hillary Clinton Where the facts are - Hillary Clinton News

Hillary’s Iraq Trouble: Is she trying to re-write history?

Comments

Angry Clinton Supporter Declares McCain Will Be Next President

Advertisement

Never Forget

Latest Headlines

Categories

Archives

Related Sites

Referrers

Admin