Hillary says we're winning in Iraq...

---

U.S. senators visit Iraq;
Clinton says insurgency is failing
By Todd Pitman, Associated Press

Both Clinton and McCain have been strident critics of the Pentagon's planning and management of the war in Iraq. But Clinton said Saturday that Sunni Muslim insurgents were failing in their efforts to destabilize Iraq through sectarian violence.

(snip)

Clinton said insurgents had also failed to disrupt Iraq's landmark Jan. 30 elections, won by the Shiite clergy-backed ticket. The United Iraqi Alliance won 140 seats in the 275-seat National Assembly.

``Not one polling place was shut down or overrun and the fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure,'' she said.

``The results of the election are a strong rebuke to those who did not believe that the Iraqi people would take this opportunity to demonstrate their own commitment to their own future.''

Oh, this should just rile the devil out of you, TrekMed... LOL! Hillary is dutifully toe'ing the line to keep her record and nose clean for a 2008 run. It is an interesting choice of words. She refuses to say the US Coalition forces are winning, but instead says the "insurgency" is losing. Very telling perspective, IMHO.

It might be noted that Hillary is not on record as an "anti" type. She voted in support of the war. But then again... so did Kerry. But unlike the losing candidate, she voted for the $87 billion in reconstruction aid, and additional equipment.

Any criticisms Hillary has had, she has wisely held to unquotables, offering only soft material. It was relatively safe to chime in with her fellow peers, critizing the Bush administration for a flawed "post Saddam" plan.

All in all, the Senator has nothing on Iraq solid enough to be dug up and used against her in the future. Perhaps, since regime change was also a Clinton/Albright goal in her husband's reign, it would have been somewhat disingenuious for her to contest the logistics of removing Saddam from power.

I do welcome the support of Hillary for the Iraqis. However I do wish she had given more credit to our troops as well as her notations on the hopes and determination of the Iraqis. Afterall, had it not been for the US and "coerced" coalition, that election would never have taken place, and the Iraqis would still be dodging Saddam's night time henchmen prowling for dissidents.

But Hill's not done. The NY Senator's doing a little war mongering of her own by suggesting that NATO troops should be deployed to Sudan at the Munich Conference this past week.

Heaven know, talking isn't doing whit to stop the genocide runnin rampid in Darfur. But African leaders, as well as the NATO countries, are adamantly opposed to sending troops.

But this does beg an analysis of the former First Lady. Obviously she, like Kerry, supports UN sanctioned military warfare. Where will she stand if countries like Iran and Lebanon embark on civil wars, demanding democratic governments. Will she wait for UN nods of approval? Or come to the call of democracy?

Personally, I think she will do whatever is best for her public opinion, and contributes to her rise of power.