Honestly, as I keep saying, you cannot make this up.

As this memory from September recalls:

Hillary Clinton in essence called Gen. Petraeus a liar when she remarked: “I think the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.” I wonder who wrote that line for her. It sounds like it came straight from James Carville, the former Clinton advisor. Earlier, Clinton had said: “I was against the Surge when it was first proposed.” Really? She voted for it. It’s funny how what Clinton says publicly, and what she does in the Senate are usually two different things.

And so her nuanced¹ position continues (emphasis mine):

Another one from MTP this morning, a day after the first fragile measure of political reconciliation passed the Iraqi parliament. Whom to thank? Not David Petraeus, whose claims of improved security and lowered sectarian tensions we were assured require “the willing suspension of disbelief.” Thank the Democratic candidates like Hillary Clinton — who opposed the surge, who opposed funding for the surge, who even opposed a symbolic resolution defending Petraeus from the “Betray Us” smear. It took the looming prospect of withdrawal by a Democratic president, she says, to finally get the Iraqis in gear, neglecting the fact that the election of the Democratic Congress in 2006 was also supposed to get them in gear and never quite did. Thus do the stars align for Hillary: the failure of her own party plus the success of an operation she dismissed produce a credit-taking opportunity only the dumbest Clinton supporter could fall for. The fact is, troop levels are increasingly out of her hands and nobody knows it better than the Iraqis she cynically pretends to be influencing:

[T]he new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president. It will become just another piece of the complex global security framework involving a hundred or so countries with which Washington now has bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements. Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton urged Bush not to commit to any such agreement without congressional approval. The president said nothing about that on Saturday, but Lute said last fall that the Iraqi agreement would not likely rise to the level of a formal treaty requiring Senate ratification. Even so, it would be difficult if not impossible for future presidents to unilaterally breach such a pact.

More from Gateway Pundit,via Stop the ACLU (emphasis mine):

Judith Apter Kliinghoffer at the History News Network posted this amazing attempt by Hillary Clinton on Meet the Press to take credit for the success in Iraq even though she opposed the Bush Surge that brought about this success:

MR. RUSSERT: If General Petraeus says, “Senator, in September you called the surge the suspension of belief. It has worked, and you know it’s worked”–let me finish–”you can see on the ground. I’m saying to you, Senator, or president-elect Clinton, don’t destroy Iraq. It’s working, the surge is working. Keep troops there just a few more months to get this reconciliation complete.”

SEN. CLINTON: …The point of the surge was to quickly move the Iraqi government and Iraqi people. That is only now beginning to happen, and I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor, as it is with Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, those of us on the Democratic side. It is a big factor in pushing the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along.

Amazing!She voted to surrender Iraq with the rest of the Democrats– a move that would have brought total destruction to the country.

Now, she wants to take credit for its success!

Truly, amazing!

Consider the utter hubris in that:

I know very well that they follow everything that I say.

Literally, she is claiming that the success is because of her.  And how?  By being determined to cut and run:

And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor, as it is with Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, those of us on the Democratic side.

So there you have it.  Cut and run = VICTORY!

One other bit of  Clintonion Nuance, this time from Captain Ed:

The Clinton campaign has been trying to sell Democrats on the notion that Hillary voted for a more restrictive authorization for the Iraq war, one written by Chuck Hagel that only pertained to WMDs. The New York Times calls shenanigans on Hillary and Bill, pointing out that Hillary supported and voted for the White House version of the AUMF:

In interviews and at a recent campaign event, they have said that Mr. Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, helped draft the resolution, which they said was proof that the measure was more about urging Saddam Hussein to comply with weapons inspections, instead of authorizing combat.

Mrs. Clinton repeated the claim Sunday during an interview on “Meet the Press,” saying “Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war.”

“It was a vote to use the threat of force against Saddam Hussein, who never did anything without being made to do so,” Mrs. Clinton said.

But the talking point appears to misconstrue the facts.

Just a bit, anyway. Hagel did manage to get the White House to narrow the AUMF to only Iraq, which forced them to come back to Congress if the administration wanted to expand military action to Iran or anywhere else. However, Hagel’s attempt to narrow the scope of the Iraq mission failed well before Hillary stood on the floor of the Senate in support of the Bush administration’s version, declaring that Saddam had to “disarm or be disarmed.”

So to summarize, in regards to the war that she argued and voted for, that she opposed and didn’t actual vote for, she has voted for a troop surge, that she opposed, and expected to fail so much that when it was showing signs of succeeding she denied that reality, until it was proven it worked, after which it was her and the democrats whose demand to cut and run and end the war that brought about success.

Got that?  Just wanted to be clear.

Hmm.  That twisted logic reminds me, almost time to do my taxes…

Exit question:  In comparing how well She and Bill spin Nuance,  who is the teacher, and who is the master?

Or is it just a marriage made in Nuance heaven?

 Trackposted to Meme, Mark My Words, Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, Allie is Wired, DragonLady’s World, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, Big Dog’s Weblog, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

1. Nuance means you can be for and against something, without being a hypocrite or a liar, apparently [back]