Sept. 23, 2007

Clinton: Cut Iraq Funding To Force Change

Hillary Clinton Says U.S. Troops Can't "Referee" A Civil War In Iraq

  • Play CBS Video Video Clinton On Iraq

    Sen. Hillary Clinton tells Bob Schieffer that there is no military solution in Iraq and that American troops cannot referee the country's sectarian violence.

  • Video Clinton's Campaign Funds

    Sen. Hillary Clinton talks to Bob Schieffer about how her campaign was affected by a fundraiser's illegal actions and how she plans to prevent future problems.

  • Video Roundtable On Clinton

    Politico.com's John Harris and David Sanger of The New York Times sit down with Bob Schieffer to analyze Sen. Hillary Clinton's policy and presidential bid.

  •  (CBS)

  • In-Depth 2008 Presidential Hopefuls

    Profiles and the latest news on the Democrats and Republicans running for the White House.

  • Interactive Battle For Iraq

    The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.

(CBS)  Congress should stop funding the Iraq war to force President Bush and the Iraqi government to "change course," Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said Sunday on Face The Nation.

"No matter how heroically and dedicated the performance of our young men and women and their officers are in Iraq - which it has been - they cannot referee successfully a sectarian civil war," Clinton told Bob Schieffer. "So I voted against funding last spring. I will vote against funding again in the absence of any change in policy."

President Bush has said that, by setting deadlines for withdrawal and cutting funding, Congress will embolden America's enemies. Clinton, however, said, "The idea that our having a policy that reflects the reality on the ground will embolden enemies, I think is off base. They have been emboldened by the policies pursued by this administration."

The junior Senator from New York pointed to continued nuclear development by Iran and North Korea - and reported cooperation between Syria and North Korea - as evidence of U.S. enemies growing stronger.

Clinton said, if elected president, she would set deadlines for withdrawing the majority of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, but said there would be a continuing American military presence in Iraq.

"I am committed to bringing the vast majority of our troops home, and I will begin to do that as soon as I am president," Clinton, the early front-runner for the Democratic nomination, said.

Clinton said she recognized "there will be remaining missions" for American forces in Iraq, but she said they would not require the roughly 100,000 troops expected to be in Iraq when the next president takes office. She listed counterterrorism, protecting U.S. personnel and training Iraqi forces as the other missions.

"That's the right way to go because that is a much clearer definition of what we're trying to accomplish than what we face today," Clinton said.

Mr. Bush has compared America's future in Iraq to the peacekeeping role U.S. troops play in South Korea, where they have been stationed for some five decades, but Clinton said that she would review the basis for Mr. Bush's plans.

"I'm going to call my secretary of defense, my joint chiefs of staff, my security advisers to give me a full briefing on what is the planning that has gone on in the Pentagon," she said. "You know, planning hasn't exactly been a strong suit of the Bush administration."

John Harris, the Editor in Chief of politico.com, noted that, while Clinton was presenting a strong platform for her presidential campaign, she was leaving herself plenty of wiggle room.

"You can see her preserving her options," Harris told Schieffer. She's not promising figures or saying that we're going to have a complete exit in January of 2009. That's something a future president wants to do: preserve flexibility."

David Sanger, chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times, said that Clinton's plans for Iraq sounded very similar to President Bush's.

"It's a very small difference, and when you tick off the tasks she said the troops would do while she was president - if that happened - counterterrorism, protection of the Kurds, training of the Iraqi army and then protecting us against Iran, that's a big set of tasks," Sanger said. "And it's very hard when you talk to Pentagon people to have them figure out how you do that with fewer than 100,000 troops."

© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 362 Comments
by getloud1 September 25, 2007 7:39 PM EDT
Ron Paul has it all.

**** TAKE AMERICA BACK ****
**** STOP THE WAR & Corporate Corruption****

Ron Paul has it all.

He has NEVER voted:
* to raise taxes
* for an unbalanced budget
* to raise congressional pay
* for a federal restriction on gun ownership
* to increase the power of the executive branch

He HAS voted:
* against the Iraq war
* against the inappropriately named USA PATRIOT act
* against regulating the internet
* against the Military Commissions Act

He will eliminate the IRS, Wasteful Government Spending & Stop The Iraq War Immediately!

Most importantly, he voted NO on anything in Congress that is not allowed by the Constitution.

He is the only candidate not a member of the CFR!

Shouldn''''t ALL members of Congress uphold the Constitution? Aren''''t they SWORN to uphold it? You can bet Paul won''''t call the Constitution "just a G**D***ed piece of paper" like George Bush is reported to have.

If you want a candidate you can TRUST due to a proven track record, visit ronpaul2008.com and get busy spreading the word. The Mainstream Media is Blacking Out Ron Paul From Exposing The Truth! He has won 6 straw polls already and growing daily!

Ron Paul Revolution: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ron+paul

Get Active Join The Revolution In Your City Today! http://ronpaul.meetup.com/cities/

Also checkout http://video.google.com search for Federal Reserve Fraud
Reply to this comment
by prinzowhales September 25, 2007 1:13 AM EDT
Draftreid--And just what keeps the ''al Qaeda'' in Iraq, when they could strike at the US? Your imagination?
Reply to this comment
by undermyboot September 24, 2007 11:46 PM EDT
Latest News: Congresswoman Harman (Chairwoman of House Terrorism subcommittee) revealed today that BUSH THREATENED CONGRESS with a bogus "terrorist threat" in order to scare Congress into voting for more dictatorial powers for Bush (It worked). On Aug. 2, just before Congress agreed to give Bush the power to spy on Americans without FISA warrants, Bush officials told Congress (in secret session) that CONGRESS was a target of an "IMMINENT ATTACK" and that the powers he wanted them to give him were needed to protect Congress from attack. Bush''s monkey in the Senate (Trent Lott) said, "Disaster could be at our doorstep". The intelligence agencies already knew that there was NO THREAT, but the truth only came out AFTER the vote. I guess Bush thought he could get away with this and no one would dare break silence (calling the lie a "state secret"). Too bad for him that at least one patriot told America what its petty dictator tried and lied about this time.

Can you smell a rat? A big, fascist, dictatorial, un-American, "Presidential" rat? This "King" is nothing more than a petty dictator-wannabe. He (and his cabal) should be tried and shot for crimes against our country, laws, and our Constitution. NOW! If Congress and the courts do not soon grow a pair our liberty and way of life are doomed.
Reply to this comment
by draftreid September 24, 2007 9:33 PM EDT
Cut the funding, stop the war - AND BRING AL QAEDA TO AMERICA...

If you had a brain, especially those of you Neo-Fascist Leftists - NOT Liberals, (true Liberals were Scoop Jackson and Hubert Humphrey who''d have NOTHING to do with you)you would have picked up on what Ahmedinejedad was spewing today - and he was giving you his version of "Mein Kampf"...

But I forgot. Many of you were cheering him on, and those of you who hate Bush so much actually love this Islamic version (besides your other hero - and Eli Pariser''s too - Osama) of Adolf Hitler.

Yes, bring the troops home - and you will have to serve when the bomb hits New York. Unless of course you''ll be serving in the ranks of America''s enemies.

Just as your MoveOn, Daily Kos, and Democratic idols already are.
Reply to this comment
by pastdue1 September 24, 2007 7:32 PM EDT
Cut the funding, end the war, and fund America.
bush will not allow fund for children, for the elderly, for the infrastructure, for the veterans. But, he will allow money for Halliburton, Blackwater USA, and any other private contractor who can suck the funds out of Iraq. There is something wrong with us if we allow this president to continue to think we are so stupid not to see through his schemes.
Reply to this comment
by voteronpaul3 September 24, 2007 6:30 PM EDT
There is only one person with enough Balls to stop this war and end corporate corruption that is Ron Paul 2008! If he does not win kiss America goodbye, it will be like an old dream of glory. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about
Reply to this comment
by homespunlady September 24, 2007 6:04 PM EDT
Posted by pepperwood2 at 02:16 PM : Sep 24, 2007

I suspect that this involves A LOT more than race and simplifying the problem to vilify a group BEFORE knowing all the facts is also BIGOTED.
Personally I think that the "Lord of the Flies" setups known as the current Public Schools with their cliques and "initiations" are more to blame.
I''m sure THAT fact is not even on your radar as a cause.
Maybe All the candy-dates need to address the DECLINING conditions in our public schools but the WAR Profiteers would get mad that they might not vacuum every last nickle out of this country for their Dubai Estates if we spent some for REAL EDUCATION for our future generations.
Reply to this comment
by homespunlady September 24, 2007 5:51 PM EDT
RE: Posted by screen_verif at 01:08 PM : Sep 24, 2007

Why is screen_verif so s-e-x-ua-lly OBSESSED? Oh, I forgot - ARDENT NEOCON fantasies seem to twist the brain that way AKA Foley, Jeff Gannon, Craig, etc.

How about some INTELLIGENT Political discourse (that means discussion for those that confuse it with a certain physical act) rather than this lowlife obsession with what you''re probably not capable of.
Reply to this comment
by pepperwood2 September 24, 2007 5:16 PM EDT
Alleged Attack Against 13-Year-Old Virginia Boy Caught on Tape

Police in Norfolk, Va., are investigating whether an alleged attack against a 13-year-old boy that witnesses caught on tape Saturday was racially motivated, WAVY-TV reported Monday.

The tape shows the victim, Damien O''Rourke, who is white, being violently beaten by a group of African American teenagers. According to the report, Damie and his mother, Reesha Price, said the fight was unprovoked and believe Damien was attacked because he is white.

Damien said he was attacked while going to meet friends to play football. Price told WAVY-TV that she found her badly beaten son just blocks from her home after receiving a phone call alerting her to the attack Saturday afternoon.

The family had just recently moved to the Norfolk area, WAVY-TV reported. Damien said one of his alleged attackers was among a group of students at his school that mistreated him because he was the new kid. Price told WAVY-TV that she now fears her son is being targeted because of his race.

It''s time for Hiliary Rodent to get the DEM boys the Reverends Al & Jesse to look into this matter.

I''m sure there''s been some mistake why neither one of the Dynamic Duo has ever preached a smite of Bigotry & Racist toward the White''s. As demostrated by their example.
Reply to this comment
by name_verify September 24, 2007 4:08 PM EDT
- REALITY CHECK -

Maybe if Hillary had got a boob job, and had shown more affection to Bill, she wouldnt have this big chip on her shoulder about being a scorned woman, and wouldnt feel the need to prove herself so much to others in the public arena.
Reply to this comment
by hwy71so September 24, 2007 3:58 PM EDT
Yeah Hillary, strike at the heart of they Iraq war, the troops. You should be proud of yourself.
Reply to this comment
by voteronpaul3 September 24, 2007 3:21 PM EDT
Ron Paul has it all.

He has never voted:
* to raise taxes
* for an unbalanced budget
* to raise congressional pay
* for a federal restriction on gun ownership
* to increase the power of the executive branch

He HAS voted:
* against the Iraq war
* against the inappropriately named USA PATRIOT act
* against regulating the internet
* against the Military Commissions Act

Most importantly, he vote NO on anything in Congress that is not allowed by the Constitution.

Shouldn''t ALL members of Congress uphold the Constitution? Aren''t they SWORN to uphold it? You can bet Paul won''t call the Constitution "just a G**D***ed piece of paper" like George Bush is reported to have.

If you want a candidate you can TRUST due to a proven track record, visit ronpaul2008.com and get busy spreading the word. The Mainstream Media is a lagging indicator!!
Reply to this comment
by tbweb September 24, 2007 2:55 PM EDT
Congress should enact and pass a Windfall Profits TAX!

In 1980, United States federal legislation was passed that levied such a tax on oil companies because of the profits they earned as a result of the sharp increase in oil prices brought about by the Arab oil embargo. Since then, the tax has not been reenacted, however with gas prices once again reaching record levels there is renewed pressure on the U.S. government to bring back the tax. Amid low oil prices, the tax was ended in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan.

The Congressional Research Service has analyzed that the windfall profit tax brought in $80 billion in extra revenues for the United States government, which was far less than the projected $393 billion. Also, domestic oil production by oil producers was said to be lowered.

These are not to be confused with the excess profit taxes of WWI, WWII, and the Korean War eras. Windfall Profit Taxes are more of an excise-type of tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windfall_profits_tax
Reply to this comment
by ioweign September 24, 2007 2:35 PM EDT
Still waiting for a cogent, coherent answer to the question why Hillary couldn''''t even give her friends in the Nazi MoveOn.Org a "love tap", let alone b*tch slap over General Petreaus

Posted by Draftreid at 10:11 AM : Sep 24, 2007

You are worried over a free speech item.

When this guy (Gen. Pet)was in charge of Iraqi security troop training in 2004-2005, about 190,000 weapons are missing under his watch too. He had time to publish an article in the Washington Post though on 9/26/2004.
Reply to this comment
by homespunlady September 24, 2007 2:34 PM EDT
I''m so tired of the Lars008 form of twisted logic.

This administration has SOLD OUT our nation to their friends in exchange for misbegotten CONQUEST and foolish Midas style GREED.
9 Months into this Administration this nation was attacked by 19 hijackers of which 15 were SAUDI and the rest from scattered tiny countries.
Their hero and the ringleader of this (OSAMA BIN LADEN) was the SPOILED BRAT OF A SAUDI BILLIONAIRE with known business/political TIES to the family of this President.

IMMEDIATELY after THE ATTACK those useful RELATIVES of OSAMA BIN LADEN are "SECRETLY" rounded up and HELPED OUT of this country by OUR HIGHEST OFFICE!
So what do the Bush Backers do?
They run around in circles looking for a scapegoat!!
Our Administration makes a TOKEN PASS at "trying to capture" this 6 foot dialysis patient then conveniently provides - as a DIVERSION - ANOTHER WAR in a country that DIDN"T ATTACK US but had a loudmouthed jerk that could be goaded into being stupid and Saddam proved HOW stupid he could be.
So WHERE is the ROOT of the "problem"?
Lars008 claims it''s with the MINOR Islamic counties yet he CUTS SAUDI A BREAK!
WHY?
If he''s SO IN FAVOR of killing - and war is nothing less - than shouldn''t he be advocating putting an "end" to what he''s griping about - Islam.
If that''s the case, then Mecca should be his REAL TARGET! Not Innocent women and children of ALL religions that just have to be in some distant scapegoat country.
QUIT PROTECTING OSAMA BIN LADEN LARS.
Reply to this comment
by abbe91 September 24, 2007 1:52 PM EDT
"The biggest anti-Semites and Islamonazi appeasers in America today are in the Democratic Party.
Posted by Draftreid".

You can criticize Israel policy without being anti-semite. Interestingly enough, the jewish community in the US tends to vote left. Go figure.

"But do continue to make apologies for the lack of guts, moral clarity and intelligence on the part of the party you clearly endorse."

O boy ... WTC = Reichstag,"patriot act" = "enabling act" ... need to say more ?

As for moral clarity, yes, the Good Old Perverts party shows a great example with Foley, Cunningham, Ney, Delay, Abramoff, ... the list is long.
Reply to this comment
by abbe91 September 24, 2007 1:41 PM EDT
"Incidentally - you know who he is - and HE was a Democrat.
Posted by Draftreid at 10:15 AM : Sep 24, 2007".

There was also a democratic president when Lemnitzer planned operation Northwoods (fortunately), by the way. So that doesn''t prove anything, little worm.
Links between Bush and Nazi Germany are pretty well documented.
Reply to this comment
by glossypan September 24, 2007 1:21 PM EDT
Democratic candidates - looking forward to America resuming her role as a beacon of freedom. An America where we can find jobs, manufacture the things we need and pay taxes to build our infrastructure.

Republican candidates - looking backward to the politics of division and intolerance. Building a service sector economy with manufacturing profits piled abroad in China, the Caribbean and Dubai.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968 September 24, 2007 1:20 PM EDT
Bill Clinton presided over the HIGHEST TAX RATES in U.S. history leaving the economy on the verge of recession. The Bush tax cuts have resulted in THE HIGHEST REVENUES to the U.S. Treasury in history. It''''s called ECONOMIC GROWTH you moron.
Posted by mbcsmith at 10:12 AM : Sep 24, 2007


Cutting taxes for the rich increased tax revenues?

Did you happen to notice that Clinton WAS PAYING OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT, and Bush DOUBLED IT IN just TWO YEARS?!?!

Borrowing the nation into bankruptcy, isn''t considered "good economic policy".
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968 September 24, 2007 1:15 PM EDT
OMG,,, ARE PRESIDENTS ABOVE THE LAW???

wow, the president says he has the right to perjury????

President to Senate: Perjury is my right...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_
qa3827/is_199901/ai_n8836610

Posted by lars008 at 09:49 AM : Sep 24, 2007



What did Harriet Miers and Karl Rove say in their testimony to Congress and the Senate?

Oh that''s right I forgot - EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION HAS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE from the President down to the kid that cuts the White House lawn. Funny how you don''t complain about that.

But what else can be expected from a proven hypocrite and liar?
Reply to this comment
See all 362 Comments
Latest News
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Connect with CBS News

Stay connected with the CBS News using your favorite social networks and online news applications: