Hillary Clinton hat Bush"s Iraq Politik scharf kritisiert

[Mondgoettin]

Mooni:

Keine Angts. Mir faellt nix raus irgendwo.

Ich habe das nur erwaehnt, weil ich es fuer ratsam hielt, dass Du Deine saubloeden Seniorenwitze ad acta legst.

Die haetten Dich naemlich sonst irgendwann als wirkliche Idiotin blamiert.

Du protzest natuerlich sofort.
\
Das bestaetigt die alte Knieleinger Bauernweisheit: Die duemmsten Bauern haben die groessten Kartoffeln.

Tschuess, Rocky

Du scheinst mir einen festen "SChuss"zu haben,wie man in unserem schoenen Bayern sagt.
Du hast einen an der waffel,Rocky!!
Und Minderwertigkeitskomplexe dick und dick.
Geh mal zum Psychiater!
Wer hat den mit"Protzen" angefangen?
Du hast nen Knall,weiter nix

[MorganLeFay]

Du hast nen Knall,weiter nix

Du auch. Wolltest Du nur etwas um Dich hauen? Dann mach dafür einen Strang im Plauderforum auf.

[MorganLeFay]

So, und zum Thema habe ich auch was, wenn auch auf Englisch...

A good indicator of the way the wind is blowing in Washington is often the position of Senator Hillary Clinton. A human weather-vane, Clinton has been a long-time supporter of the Iraq war, has visited Iraq, kept close contact with the military, served on the relevant Senate committees, and made hawkish noises that helped her with her rural New York state voters, but slowly alienated her anti-war liberal base.

Now, as with the rest of Washington, she’s shifting a little with the breeze. Yes, she recently voted against both Senate resolutions demanding immediate withdrawal or a fixed timetable for withdrawal. But last week she sent out an e-mail to constituents, finessing things. “We are at a critical point with the December 15 elections that should, if successful, allow us to start bringing home our troops in the coming year,” she wrote.

She still opposes a rigid timetable. But she has made it clear that the Iraqi elections next week will be a critical milestone in the American effort. After that the Iraqis had better step up or the US will start stepping down.

How different is this from the position of the president? On the face of it George W Bush is still insistent on fighting until “victory”, but Washington’s little secret is that the difference between Clinton and Bush is not much more than rhetorical. The president’s “major” speech on Iraq last week was at least an attempt to persuade an increasingly disenchanted public that this consensus-strategy has a decent chance of success.

He even almost conceded he had made a few, er, mistakes. In Bush-speak, a mistake is called a “setback”. He declared, in a clear shift, that foreign terrorists were the smallest part of the insurgency; and that there was still an awfully large amount of work to do before Iraqi forces were adequately trained to maintain any semblance of order. No indication, as the vice-president recently insisted, that the insurgency is in its “last throes”.

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]