Oh, you’ve got to be kidding me:
If Senator Clinton can best Senator Obama in today’s round of primaries and caucuses and go on to capture the White House, a co-author of the surge strategy in Iraq says he is convinced she would hold off on authorizing a large-scale immediate withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq.
In a weekend interview, a retired four-star general, Jack Keane, said that when he briefed Mrs. Clinton in late 2006 and January 2007 on the counteroffensive strategy known as the surge, she “generally supported the surge strategy in the sense she wanted it to succeed but she was skeptical about its chances.”
Mr. Keane is in a position to know Mrs. Clinton, having worked informally with her since 2001, when he was vice chief of staff for the Army. Early last year, the Clinton team even asked the retired general to become a formal adviser to the campaign on military issues, a request Mr. Keane declined, as he has done when asked by other candidates.
Via Spencer. First off, Jack Keane should not be consulting any Democratic presidential candidate, ever, not when every candidate is, publicly at least, opposing the surge that Keane formulated. Keane, like O’Hanlon or Pollack (two other Clinton advisors), is anathema to progressive foreign policy, an evangelist of belligerence who’s more responsible for the continuation of the war over the past year than just about anyone. Secondly, if this is anywhere close to true, the central rebuttal to Obama’s attacks on Clinton’s war vote is bunk. The only reason any Democratic voters disregarded the AUMF vote was because they were confident that Clinton was as committed as Obama to withdrawing. Now that it’s clear that she’d be more inclined to continue the occupation, it seems she’s closer to McCain than Obama on Iraq policy. How depressing that there’s a non-zero chance that both parties will nominate pro-AUMF, pro-occupation candidates. Here’s hoping Texas and Ohio made the right call.