I really will try to hold back my disgust at Clinton's positions, but I came across this post from Frank Dwyer that encapsulates my position. When we first heard of Bush's *surge* aka escalation, I fully expected the Democrats to push back and stop Bush from this reckless and immoral action. Nope. But at least there was an expectation that the Democrats would not get behind Bush's policy and praise it! As Dwyer says, perhaps Clinton was just pandering to a veterans audience.

What does she mean by "working"? How is the surge working? What is it accomplishing? What is it meant to accomplish? What, in the war gospel according to Hillary, is the goal of the surge? Is it the same goal she had in mind when she voted to allow Bush to go to war in Iraq if he wanted to? Is her only regret now that our "tactics" were flawed, i. e., we did not send enough Americans to accomplish whatever the Bush/Clinton goal is right from start?

I suspect all she meant to do in Kansas City yesterday was pander a little to the Vets, be enough of the Hillary they want to get some of their votes, you know. But her declaration that the surge is "working" and that we're just "years too late in our tactics" goes beyond standard politician-pander to reveal something terribly wrong in her thinking. She has given us a glimpse beneath the mask -- there's the real Hillary. Years too late in our tactics? How many more Americans and Iraqis should have died under her leadership, with her superior tactics, to achieve her unspecified goal ("victory"?)? Does she think the American people have turned against this unwinnable, unconstitutional, criminal war only because Bush didn't surge from the beginning?

The other day, I read an article about what exactly the military in the surge are doing. I already knew they were building walls around parts of Baghdad. High, concrete walls modeled in the same way that you see the Israelis building high concrete walls. The article was about Basra, which is the area the British are in, (and are about to leave, except for contractors).

The concrete walls that surround the Fadhila party's compound in Sharish, north of Basra city centre, resemble the barricades around the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad.

Plus, we found out a couple of weeks ago that Bush's success in the Anbar Province, which he is always blabbing about, is because they BRIBED THE GOVERNMENT. And Gates thinks that's the way to be. Does Clinton, too??????

Overall, I don't really care what one person or another says about the surge in Bush's administration. Because they are going to lie and they're going to spin whatever is going on to justify keeping troops there. But I don't want to hear DEMOCRATS playing into that. It's like somebody said on a post I read recently. When a Republican does something shameful and immoral, I just expect it. But if a Democrat does it, it breaks my heart. Back to Dwyer, who's probably being attacked by Kossies by now.

I have been thinking I would feel compelled to vote for Hillary if the Democrats nominated her because that would be the only meaningful way to cast a vote against the horrifying, entirely and eternally discredited Republican party.

I'm not sure now how meaningful that vote would really be. And I don't think I'm going to be able to do it.

That does NOT make him a Republican. Or someone who is a shill for Republicans. It makes him a thinking person who is tired of the Democratic wanna-be-Republican nonsense that passes for good sense. But is actually just as immoral.

P.S. Let me give an example. You have a chance to vote for a man who beats his wife daily three times per day with a stick versus a man who beats his wife twice a week once a day with a bat. You don't want to vote for Man #1, but doesn't it turn your stomach to think about voting for Man #2?

UPDATE; I see a media matters listing that says the comment originally came from Drudge. So what DID she say?