... Because much as I came to admire Hillary's grit and grasp of policy, at the end of the day she was only two ticks to the left of Obama. This shows it.

for the SecState job ... on the other hand, WHY would the US still need to suppress information on something that happened -- and was found out earlier?

just askin'.

I love Hillary, but this isn't a very smart move.

on FP:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009...
Reply

Every administration says they will focus on womens rights, but Hillary actually see's it as crucial to FP. I think that's unique. I once heard Bill Clinton say that the solution to most of the world's major problems; poverty, extremism, disease, war etc. started with giving women an education and a chance in the economy. I think Hillary believes that and I think she is acting on it. So, I don't think she's a poor Secretary of State or something.

I do think she should not be helping Obama, or certainly advising him, to cover about torture, and bully other nations into helping us do so. I think that's terrible policy.

Bringing up Hillary is a red herring. Unless someone has evidence she argued for this with a reluctant Obama, this isn't Hillary policy, it is Obama policy, and as a member of his administration she has to carry it out.

And, I think I know why now. Diplomacy ain't bean bag. Yes, everyone knows this guy was tortured. However, it's one thing for some journalists to report the where and how, it's another thing for the British High Court to. Probably, the intelligence community went ballistic with reports the Court would make public its findings because it probably makes our few friends in the region, Saudi Arabia particularly, highly vulnerable. They are probably legitimately worried about government collapse and instability in a region where we have few friends.

So I know it's not the moralistic stand, but I can see, from a diplomatic stance, why the WH and State would want to quash this.

All Hillary's Fault.

I think I've already seen this movie.

who claimed that he didn't resign because he thought he could have a positive inflluence on foreign policy and thus do more good by remaining as SOS under Bush? Perhaps (probably) one reason she accepted SOS is that she views Obama as dangerously underexperienced in geopolitics in general and the grand game in particular. I suspect Clinton will use some variation of the Powell rationale one of these days. Her 'hawkishness' for lack of better word always has seemed a bit incongruous to me, but I guess 8 years on the armed services committee only strengthened her instincts in that direction. Sigh....

The country wants warriors.

The country's way more conservative and hard-right than we like to think.

or at least guys like Col. Timothy Reese do.

and Obama's foot-dragging (quelle surprise!)

During the campaign the Obama Administration had originally had a similar pullout strategy, saying they would have all troops out by May 2010. This was quickly revised after taking office, however, to removing all combat troops from the nation. This was further revised to note that the troops remaining would still be conducting combat missions, but wouldn’t be officially called combat troops.

Though his administration has hardly removed any troops at all since taking office, President Obama maintains that the pullout remains “on schedule.” The Reese memo will almost certainly raise further questions of whether that schedule needs dramatic revision, particularly at a time when Maliki is openly talking about keeping the troops in Iraq past 2011.