Seriously, has Hillary Clinton said anything at all about the Baker report?

[wisteria]

I have seen no mention anywhere. Obama appeared today and expressed his opinion, Gore had his say, Kerry has commented, Biden, Reid and Palosi refered to it today, but nothing from the woman who wants to be president, at least from what I can locate. If nothing has come out, I have to say, why not? What is taking her so long to respond to something as important as the Iraq War?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greccogirl]

2. She is waiting to see

which way the wind blows.

[JeffR]

3. She has to touch base with Shrum to see what she thinks

and maybe Carville and Begala.

[jgraz]

4. Give her a break -- craven political triangulation takes time!

[Clarkie1]

5. Haven't heard. Clark is in the Middle East, looking forward to hearing his view

when he returns. I expect he will find much in it to agree with, based on his long-established positions.

[Ninja Jordan]

6. Please, don't make her talk. Her voice is annoying as hell.

x(

[jgraz]

9. lol

:rofl:

[Clark2008]

10. I agree and was told on this board that her speaking style

was the perfect radio voice when I pointed that out.

:shrug:

I was a Communications major and, while my concentration was newspaper reporting, I still took radio classes and no one told us we needed to sound flat and uncharismatic. :7

Edited to add: Obama grew up in the same area of the country as HRC and he doesn't have that flat, nasal intonation; so, it's not indicative of the mid-West or anything. It's just her voice.

[NoPasaran]

13. It curdles milk

And makes puppies cry!

[sandnsea]

7. Of course not

Does she ever lead on anything? Nah, she's waiting around for the Nintendo Study Group report.

[maddezmom]

8. here is a statement on her website

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=266453&&

[AtomicKitten]

11. thanks for the link

[wisteria]

14. Thank you. Good to see a statement but it appears a little thin.

Everyone has spoken. We must change course and I will work with both sides to bring about change. Did I miss any main points?

[mtnsnake]

12. Her statement came out yesterday, but continue with the witch hunt at all costs

[wisteria]

15. I know you didn't mean to refer to her as you did.

Witch?
I was asking a question. She does want to be President. I think as such we are entitled to know what opinion she has on the number one issue- Iraq.
I hadn't seen anything published yesterday.

[Bake]

17. But her "statement" doesn't say JACK ...

That's the problem. Obviously she's waiting to see which way the wind is blowing before saying too much.

Wow. What a LEADER.

:sarcasm:

Bake

[TayTay]

16. Sen Clinton has spoken on Iraq

and her views are consistent. You can see remarks and speeches going back to 2000 on the Council on Foreign Relations site at 222.cfr.org with the key word search Hillary Clinton.

This is from the Senator's speech to the CFR gathering on 10/31/06

I want to suggest three principles I believe should underlie a bipartisan consensus on national security and consider how they apply to some of the most difficult challenges we face.

First and most obviously, we must, by word and deed, renew internationalism for a new century. We did not face World War II alone, we did not face the Cold War alone and we cannot face the global terrorist threat or other profound challenges alone, either. A terrorist cell may recruit in Southeast Asia, train in Central Asia, find funds in the Middle East and plan attacks in the U.S. or Europe. We can stop a deadly disease anywhere along the line as it hopscotches from continent to continent or we can wait until it arrives at our own doors. We can deal with climate change together now or excuse its calamitous consequences later. We can turn our back on international institutions or we can modernize and revitalize them, and when needed, get about the hard work of creating new ones.

Second, we must value diplomacy as well as a strong military. We should not hesitate to engage in the world’s most difficult conflicts on the diplomatic front. We cannot leave the Middle East to solve itself, or avoid direct talks with North Korea. When faced with an existential challenge to the life of our nation, President Kennedy said, “Let us never negotiate from fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.” Direct negotiations are not a sign of weakness, they’re a sign of leadership.

Third, our foreign policy must blend both idealism and realism in the service of American interests. If there’s one idea that has been floated about over the last six years that I would like to see debunked, with all due respect to some of the political scientists in the room, it is this false choice between realism and idealism. Is it realist or idealist to stop nuclear proliferation? Is it realist or idealist to come together on global warming? Is it realist or idealist to help developing nations educate their children, fight diseases and grow their economies? And is it realist or idealist to believe we must turn around the ideology underpinning terrorism?

http://www.cfr.org/publication/11874/

This is from the transcript, you can also view the video or listen to the audio alone.

[IndianaGreen]

18. She is doing some polling and running several focus groups

as soon as everyone has staked out a position, she will state the safest position possible.

My guess is that she will parrot Jerusalem's line about not negotiating with Syria and Iran. Holy Joe has already taken that tack.