Mrs. Clinton has Turkey with the troops in Afghan.

... and she's <b>not</b> running for President?

 

That's right. Some people just do these things to look good for their constituants in their state, or to make the democrats look more in line with military in general, or to point out that while Bush may have forgotten Afghanistan the Democrats haven't, or maybe because she really wanted to support the troops there.

 

I also heard her thanking all the troops for protecting America and keeping us safe. Problem is that she doesn't say that on the Senate floor or in front of most other cameras.

 

Are you saying that she doesn't really believe that?

 

Hilary voted for Bush to have the authority to use Force in Iraq, and has several times voiced her approval of the use of force in Afghanistan.

 

We have so few troops there, she could have met all of them.

N O T E B O O K
A Dearth of Troops
A lack of manpower is becoming a serious issue for peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan
By TIM MCGIRK



Monday, Nov. 24, 2003
While the U.S. and its allies have dithered for months over whether to deploy more troops outside Kabul, Afghanistan's countless warlords have established a reign of terror in the nation's small towns and rural areas. At the same time, a recrudescent Taliban, aided by its al-Qaeda allies, has stepped up attacks on U.S. troops and reconstruction efforts in southern and eastern regions of the country, assassinating 13 aid workers since May. The latest, a French U.N. employee, was shot in the face and killed early last week by suspected Taliban gunmen in the southern town of Ghazni.

Although NATO has finally decided to send additional soldiers to establish what it calls "islands" of stability outside the capital, its 19 member nations have managed to scrape together only 200 extra troops for the task — all from Norway. Afghan security officials expected 3,000. Of the troops already in Afghanistan — from Canada, Britain, Germany and many other countries — few can be spared from their current duties. Roughly 8,500 U.S. soldiers are busy hunting down the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and some 5,300 NATO troops are required for security in Kabul. That is because 30,000 unruly, battle-hardened and under-paid Northern Alliance soldiers remain in the city, and their commanders, who despise Afghan President Hamid Karzai, have ignored the allies' polite requests that they leave. Manpower is not the only problem. NATO, for all its wealth and might, has only three working helicopters at its disposal in Afghanistan. And the U.N. and other aid agencies, citing security concerns, have suspended operations in the impoverished south and east. "If we fail" to restore civil order in the country, NATO Secretary-General George Robertson told reporters at the NATO parliamentary assembly this month, "we will find Afghanistan on all of our doorsteps." Unfortunately, dire warnings alone will not win the Afghan peace.

From the Dec. 01, 2003 issue of TIME magazine

 

Other people voted formally and informally for our troops to be in Iraq (especially) who are now warbling that they are misplaced and that they are not doing anything for America's security because 1) Saddam posed no threat to the US and 2) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Are you guys denying this?

 

Other people voted formally and informally for our troops to be in Iraq (especially) who are now warbling that they are misplaced and that they are not doing anything for America's security because 1) Saddam posed no threat to the US and 2) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Are you guys denying this?

What does this have to do with Afghanistan?

 

While I despise her politics, props to her for doing this. My right-leaning goggles tell me it's just another photo op, but try telling that to the troops. I don't think they care either way. I would think that a visit from any politician from home would do wonders for morale and that's what counts.

Again, props to her.

 

Sending Hillary to boost the morale of troops in Afghanistan is about the same as sending John Rocker to boost the morale of 7-train riders in Queens.

 

My citation was in reference to her all-inclusive remarks about <b>all</b> troops everywhere... or some wording to that effect that I read/saw. She didn't limit her remarks to troops in Afghanistan.

 

Great move by Hillary showing our troops support in a war ravaged country during the holidays. Those who find fault with this are just being cynical.

 

My citation was in reference to her all-inclusive remarks about all troops everywhere... or some wording to that effect that I read/saw. She didn't limit her remarks to troops in Afghanistan.

Your statement was this:

I also heard her thanking all the troops for protecting America and keeping us safe.

Presuming she was talking to the troops in Afghanistan, I don't see the confusion. "I want to thank you all for protecting America and keeping us safe." That has nothing to do with Iraq.

Besides which, the troops everywhere do protect America and keep us safe. They may not be doing so in Iraq any more than they are in peacekeeping in Bosnia, but the fact is that that is their job and what they do.

 

I don't know what Hilary thinks of what's going on in Iraq, but once again we see that if you disagree with how the military is used, it must automatically mean that you don't support them and aren't thankful for the work they do.

 

I want to see the Republican look them in the eye and tell them we're cutting their pension and benefits while they're dying for this country.

 

Is that quote you use above an actual quote or just an approximation? The one I heard or read had a different emphasis... which is why I came down hard on her.

Taken out of context it could be construed to mean different things. Can somebody post the entirety of her remarks. The link above required registration so I didn't pursue it.

 

I saw on CNN that she went to Iraq as well. She visited both places in one day? That seems like a lot of travel.

 

"I'm a big believer that we ought to internationalize this, but it will take a big change in our administration's thinking," Clinton, a Democrat from New York, said during a nearly 10-hour visit to Baghdad where she met with U.S. troops, military chiefs and civilian officials including U.S. administrator Paul Bremer. "I don't see that it's forthcoming," said the wife of former President Bill Clinton.

Hillary Clinton Wants Wider International Role in Iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq (Reuters) - Senator Hillary Clinton called Friday for a wider international role in running Iraq, but doubted the U.S. administration would cede much control in the country it invaded and occupied.

"I'm a big believer that we ought to internationalize this, but it will take a big change in our administration's thinking," Clinton, a Democrat from New York, said during a nearly 10-hour visit to Baghdad where she met with U.S. troops, military chiefs and civilian officials including U.S. administrator Paul Bremer. "I don't see that it's forthcoming," said the wife of former President Bill Clinton.

Clinton, who has ruled out a 2004 presidential bid, arrived in Baghdad with Democrat Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island a day after President Bush's surprise Thanksgiving visit to U.S. troops and Iraqi officials in the capital.

Bush's trip was widely seen as a move to boost the flagging morale of a U.S. military facing mounting casualties at the hands of a deepening guerrilla insurgency nearly eight months after the overthrow of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

The Bush and Clinton visits also come as senior Iraqi officials on the U.S.-backed Governing Council struggle to define terms of an agreement for the handover of sovereignty to Iraqis.

Clinton said the United Nations - which pulled all but a handful of foreign staff from Iraq after the August bombing of its Baghdad headquarters -- could still play a role in administering Iraq, easing the burden on the United States.

"We're in a very difficult political situation, trying to expedite a process for self-governance that will be very challenging," she said.

"It's no longer sufficient for our military to win battles, but they have to win the hearts and minds. It's a very big challenge," Clinton said.

In an interview Friday in the French newspaper Liberation Secretary of State Colin Powell also called on the United Nations to play an active role in Iraq, notably in setting out the timetable and arrangements for restoring self-rule.

The head of the Governing Council, Jalal Talabani, said on Thursday a roadmap for transferring power to Iraqis would need to address the concerns of the country's top Shi'ite Muslim religious authority, which has said the current plan sidelines Iraqis and gives short shrift to Islam in governing.

Shi'ite Muslims, who make up 60 percent of Iraq's population, hope to play the lead role in a future government and their support would be crucial to the success of a proposed transfer of power to Iraqis by the end of June.

Clinton and Reed arrived from Afghanistan, where Thursday she met Afghan President Hamid Karzai as well as troops from the 11,500-strong foreign force in Afghanistan pursuing remnants of the Taliban and allied Islamic militants, including al Qaeda. (This story was based on a pool report from the Associated Press.)