Well, the key word here is "yesterday", Feb 28---i.e 4 days before Hillary's "Last Stand" (tm) (as if).
So I don't thinks it's "progress" so much as "opportunism"---born of desperation.
Why so late co-sponsoring this legislation if Hillary's such a leader on this issue? She hadn't heard of Blackwater before yesterday? Hadn't gotten around to reading it before?
Anyway, good for Hillary, it's smart politics in her situation.
Posted by euzoius at February 29, 2008 06:47 AM"Obama's broader Iraq withdrawal plan provides for some US troops to remain in Iraq--how many his advisers won't say. But it's clear that Obama's "follow-on force" will include a robust security force to protect US personnel in Iraq, US trainers (who would also require security) for Iraqi forces and military units to "strike at Al Qaeda"--all very broad swaths of the occupation."
In other words, people AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING OVER AND OVER AGAIN, Obama does not plan to withdraw your troops. Obama, like Hillary, plans to continue the occupation with a lower profile, and including combat roles.
What part of that is still not clear?
Posted by Shirin at February 29, 2008 06:59 AMI brought this article up in the open thread yesterday. Thanks eRiposte for delving deeper into it.
Interesting to note that Hillary had not mentioned merceneries or Blackwater before the Scahill article.
So her staffers read Obama's response, she goes out and one up's him. A little calculated right?
And what legislation did she cosponsor? I can't find a record of the bill?
Is it Bernie Sanders bill "...Stop Outsourcing Security (SOS) Act, which mandates that US personnel undertake all diplomatic security in Iraq within six months of enactment."?
eRiposte, Obama has been on the issue of accountability further than your link suggests, since Feb. 2007.
From the Scahill article:
The irony is that it was Senator Obama who sponsored a bill in February 2007 defining a legal structure to prosecute State Department contractor crimes in US courts. Obama staffers say they will "fight like hell to get it passed." But it may not pass before the next President takes power... Obama campaign and Senate staffers characterize this as an inherited problem with no good alternatives.
On that last sentence, I whole heartedly agree.
I'm glad Hillary now realizes that a problem with private security contractors exist. It only took her a year after Obama brought it up for her to address it.
Does anyone else think Hillary's reaction is related to Mark Penn's ties to Blackwater?
Posted by Seven of Six at February 29, 2008 07:54 AMSoS,
The link was intended to provide an additional example of Obama's position on this separate from Scahill - not intended to time date Obama's position.
However, you are mistaken in assuming Hillary has said nothing about mercenaries or Blackwater until now. She's been very aggressive in criticizing them and calling for accountability - and calling for an end to the use of mercenaries - for a long time now. I even wrote about it briefly last year.
Posted by eriposte at February 29, 2008 08:08 AMThanks eRiposte. I missed that article, I think I was prepping for my fall vacation to Mexico.
I still can't understand why she waited until now to cosponser legislation? I guess it's all in the timing.
Posted by Seven of Six at February 29, 2008 08:26 AMnot trying to usurp the thread, but i couldn't find info concerning drudge's outing of prince harry...
any fall out from that? i haven't heard anything on this mornings news lines... figures.
btw, what does it say about us, if a prince of england feels so convinced he needs to fight for his country that he threatened to quit the army, and not a one of the able bodied hawks in the our country enlisted to fight in a war they steadfastly cheerleaded, and continue to do so.
this speaks volumes, imo, of how hypocrisy permeates the arguments of the hawks...
Posted by anthony at February 29, 2008 09:26 AMPardon me Anthony, Sen. Tim Johnson's son has served in Iraq, he voted for the AUMF. There are others from both parties with kids serving there. Just because you don't know about them doesn't mean they're not there. It's not like they want to advertise they're there.
A German reporter actually broke the story about Price Harry, not Drudge.
Posted by peter at February 29, 2008 09:40 AMLinks peter, links...
Posted by Seven of Six at February 29, 2008 09:42 AMpeter,
i knew about sen webb's son. didn't know about sen johnson's son. not trying to bait anyone, just a question.
our military is strapped, and it would alleviate many problems if those with the yellow magnets on their cars, actually enlisted.
i would, but three knee ops, and a pin in my elbow disqualifies; however, i do what i can, i work with military members and their families over the pond...
my point is that royalty is fighting in a war, and a majority of those of serviceable age, trumpeting this war, choose not to go and fight.
Posted by anthony at February 29, 2008 10:00 AM"i would, but three knee ops, and a pin in my elbow disqualifies"
Why would you? Do you consider Bush's imperial efforts a cause worth fighting for?
"royalty is fighting in a war"
One has to wonder just how much fighting this royalty has actually done. In any case, I am sure his late mother, who was rather a humanitarian, would be appalled and ashamed.
Oh, and did you hear that his tour in Afghanistan has ended effective immediately? It was on the news this morning.
Posted by Shirin at February 29, 2008 10:07 AMi originally asked for more news concerning this, but it seems that it digressed...
yes, he was evac'd due to his becoming a high profile target, (from ac 360) named by the taliban. attracting more attention, a "bullet magnet," and from the same newscast, he was coordinating air strikes.
yes, i would join. i dont believe in what 'he who must be obeyed,' has done to our country or our military, but as a military brat, i feel obligated to give back in some way...
Hillery reads blogs?
When did she start and when did she "get It"?
During the Iraq war resolution debate, giving the President the power to go to war, the anti war, progressive blogs were crying out in words, with information and opinion about the power being given to Bush. About the "lies". Hillery wasn't reading those days, and she wasn't listening to people like Senator Feingold, Senator Boxer, Senator Durban and Senator Robert Bryd who read the constitution on the floor of the Senate. Hillery wasn't reading or listening. When did she get it?
"yes, i would join. i dont believe in what 'he who must be obeyed,' has done to our country or our military, but as a military brat, i feel obligated to give back in some way..."
So, you would "give back" by participating in the imperial projects in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Posted by Shirin at February 29, 2008 10:39 AMshirin...
im not going to go round and round with you, troll elsewhere. if you do not want to join, fine, don't. you do your thing, and i'll do mine, solid?
again, is there any other news concerning the fallout of prince harry? i see today in the post there's something, but are folks calling out drudge, or is k. olberman the only on one?
Posted by anthony at February 29, 2008 11:15 AMback on topic...
reading these threads, correctly, both obama and clinton are looking to eradicate mercs, no? what is mc cain's position on this, or is he johnny come lately?
Posted by anthony at February 29, 2008 11:17 AM...reading these threads, correctly, both obama and clinton are looking to eradicate mercs, no? what is mc cain's position on this, or is he johnny come lately?
Boy anthony you don't get the news over the pond... McCain is going to join up and bust them all in the chops!
Posted by Seven of Six at February 29, 2008 11:50 AMAnthony,
Look, I am asking because I honestly do not understand, and am trying to get a handle on how people think about these things. My questions are not in any way hostile - just trying to get into the head of someone who appears to see things and think quite differently than myself. If you don't want to answer, then fine, but please don't be so quick to hurl the troll accusation.
As for me joining or not joining, I would last about 30 seconds in the military, if that. I have never, even as a small child, been able to accept the kind of absolute authority over my life and my actions that the military needs to assert. And that is part of what I am trying to understand - how many otherwise thoughtful, reasonable people will willingly put themselves under that kind of power. I'm not criticizing, just trying to understand.
In addition to the above, there is simply no way I would put myself in a position to be ordered to kill anyone or anything, or to bomb or otherwise destroy or damage anything for any reason. I am not a pacifist, but I believe that violence, and especially deadly violence, should be used only when absolutely needed for defense. And here, I confess, I AM making a value judgment.
Posted by Shirin at February 29, 2008 12:06 PMBut seriously, folks. Does anyone here realize how many contractors are employed by DOD and State to provide security or para-military operations (poppy or coca spraying, e.g.)? Try thousands, or rather tens of thousands (DynCorp alone has 15,000). And they own ALL the helos, trucks, guns, APCs, computers, analysts, radar, drones, robots, etc. Someone tell me what happens when they go home...where and how are we going to hire and train 25,000 MPs, Marines, GIs, etc.? This is not to say one word in defense of the mil-ind complex, but rather to suggest that you cannot dismantle something that has been built up over 50 years at the point of a statute. It's going to be a long slow, probably generational transition. To suggest HC is going to walk into the Oval Office and turn off the switch is just silly.
Posted by Nick L. at February 29, 2008 02:14 PMMy way of departing Iraq would be to withdraw the US military forces rapidly, and then leave Blackwater, et. al. to fight their way out on their own.
Posted by bob h at February 29, 2008 02:41 PMBob h, I like your plan!
Posted by Shirin at February 29, 2008 02:48 PMWe're gonna have to get rid of the mercs in our backyards first.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 29, 2008 02:54 PMThis post isn't shocking at all. I watch a lot of CSPAN, plus I live in NY. I've seen Hillary Clinton talk about this for years and Congress didn't start moving on until the Dems took over and public backlash was brought to the forefront bc of hearings.
The fact that Barack Obama hasn't ruled out using the private security firms isn't surprising either. I still find it laughable that he's the "anti-war" candidtate. I've been paying attention to Barack Obama for a while and yes he was against the war in 2002, but if you follow what he's said in the Senate, he's a lot more hawkish that he pretends to be.
Posted by kacey at February 29, 2008 06:23 PMEri, fair enough but my underlying issue is you are so focused on anything you can dig up on Obama you never take the time to find fault in HRC. Being in the military I know for a fact private contracters are here to stay, however, Obama does need to go after companies like Blackwater. If he doesnt it would indeed be a disgrace. That being said HRC's ad last night was Rovian to say the least, and frankly a microcosm of the total ineptness of a campaign and a candidate that cannot decide to this very day who to be. If HRC had stuck to being herself, a principled, intelligent woman that could lead this country she would be doing better, much better. Instead she has shown no consistency or been herself since NH. Her campaign pushes more BS than a snake oil salesman in a tacky spaghetti western. Yet she listens to these hacks? Sorry but that kind of judgement is not good, not good at all. You like to paint Obama in the same light as Bush, but isnt listenign to yes men/women a trait that HRC shares with Bush? As for the policy flaws in HRC, well you can spin her Iraq vote anyway you please but she puts out a 3am ad that demands we focus on those that would have the gumption to make the right call...the Obama answer? Yet again (immhoo) won the battle of salience: how can one be the arbiter of judgement when they failed to carry out the right choice when it counted most? Hell when asked for foreign policy experience in a presser her camapign sat for 30 seconds in bizarre silence then ran the punt team out faster than the Dolphins of last year. Neither of these candidates is perfect (i use the olaf palma standard :)) but both are good candidates and the best we have seen in a long, long time. If Obama wins does he have work to do? Yes. Do we need to hold his feet to the fire? Hell yes. The same applies if HRC wins and if you did that a bit more I would be perfectly happy to share a hoegarden and a decent blether with you until then all I can offer is a marmite sandwich
Posted by jesse at March 1, 2008 07:38 AM