On the September 23 edition of CBS' Face the Nation, following host Bob Schieffer's interview with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Schieffer and guest John Harris, editor-in-chief of the Politico, discussed Clinton's statements during the interview concerning how long U.S. troops should remain in Iraq. Schieffer asserted that Clinton had “today recognized that ... there is going to be an American presence, military presence, in Iraq for some time to come,” to which Harris replied, “She did, and I was struck by that in a sense that she was projecting herself really in this interview as a future president, not as a candidate for the nomination.” In fact, as Clinton told Schieffer during the interview, her position that some U.S. troops should remain in Iraq is consistent with legislation she has introduced, as well as other Senate bills she has voted for and her public statements on withdrawing troops.

From Clinton's interview with Schieffer:

CLINTON: Well, what I have voted for -- and I did it again this week -- was setting a date to get the majority of our combat troops out as much as we possibly can, but to recognize there will be remaining missions: the counterterrorism mission against Al Qaeda in Iraq, the protection of our embassy and our civilian work force in Iraq, the continuing mission of training the Iraqi army, if the changes that [retired] General [James] Jones and his commission recommended are made.

There will also, in my view, be a continuing mission with respect to the Kurds in the north. But that is a much different mission than what is currently being pursued now. So when I have voted to say that we're going to start withdrawing troops by a date certain, it has always included a recognition of these continuing responsibilities.

As Media Matters for America has documented, Clinton introduced a bill on February 16 providing for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, while stipulating that the United States maintain a “limited presence” of forces there for training Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. personnel and infrastructure, logistical support of Iraqi security forces, and targeted counterterrorism activities. Further, Clinton said in May: “We don't want Al Qaeda to get a foothold in Iraq. They weren't there before but they're there now,” adding, “So we may need to leave some troops to deal with the Al Qaeda remnant, primarily situated in Al Anbar.”

Clinton has also voted for other legislation that included provisions for keeping a reduced U.S. troop presence in Iraq. In July, the Senate debated an amendment to the defense authorization bill -- offered by Sens. Jack Reed (D-RI) and Carl Levin (D-MI) -- calling for a “reduction” of U.S forces in Iraq, to begin “not later than 120 days” after the amendment's enactment, but also stipulated that the United States maintain a “limited presence” of troops there to protect U.S. and coalition infrastructure, train Iraqi security forces, and conduct counterterrorism operations. A motion to cut off a filibuster of the Levin-Reed proposal garnered 52 votes on July 18, including Clinton's.

Additionally, earlier this year, the Senate, with Clinton's support, passed an emergency supplemental bill that would have required the “Secretary [of Defense] ... [to] commence such redeployment no later than October 1, 2007, with a goal of completing that redeployment within 180 days.” It also contained a provision to:

Prohibit[] the Secretary, after the appropriate redeployment period, from deploying or maintaining members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than: (1) protecting American diplomatic facilities, American citizens, and other U.S. forces; (2) serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions; (3) engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations; and (4) training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

Clinton herself referred to Senate votes during her interview with Schieffer, saying: “So, when I have voted to say that we're going to start withdrawing troops by a date certain, it has always included a recognition of these continuing responsibilities.”

From the September 23 edition of CBS' Face the Nation:

SCHIEFFER: And good morning again. Joining us now from her home in Chappaqua, New York, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Senator, thank you so much for joining us. Let's go right to it.

You have been saying for some time you want to end this war. You said this morning you are not ready to spend one more penny on it, and yet you have said over these past months that you do not think it is wise to set a date certain for when we will get all of our troops out. Is that still your position?

CLINTON: Well, Bob, as I have followed the president's policies, with respect to Iraq, it became clear to me that the benchmarks that he and the Iraqi government set were never met; timelines that had been promised to the Congress and the country were never met; that there really is no alternative but to try to extricate us from Iraq by setting some deadlines, so I started voting for deadlines, and I believe it is unfortunately the only way to register strong disapproval of this president's policy.

I'm well aware of the fact that the president has said repeatedly now that he is not going to change course. He's going to leave this to his successor, which I regret and do not believe is responsible, but that's the state of our plan right now with respect to the White House and the Congress -- and therefore, I believe we should vote against funding the war.

In the absence of any clear signal or any straight-up-and-down policy that puts pressure on the Iraqi government to make the political decisions that it makes -- that gives the Bush administration the sense of urgency to engage in the diplomatic efforts -- we are putting this all on the backs of our military, and there is no military solution. So, no matter how heroically and dedicated the performance of our young men and women and their officers are in Iraq, which it has been, they cannot referee successfully a sectarian civil war. So, I voted against funding last spring. I will vote against funding again in the absence of any change in policy.

SCHIEFFER: But let me get to the question about a date certain for having those troops out. Are you ready now to vote for a date certain to have all American troops out of Iraq?

CLINTON: Well, what I have voted for -- and I did it again this week -- was setting a date to get the majority of our combat troops out as much as we possibly can, but to recognize there will be remaining missions: the counterterrorism mission against Al Qaeda in Iraq, the protection of our embassy and our civilian work force in Iraq, the continuing mission of training the Iraqi army, if the changes that General Jones and his commission recommended are made.

There will also, in my view, be a continuing mission with respect to the Kurds in the north. But that is a much different mission than what is currently being pursued now. So, when I have voted to say that we're going to start withdrawing troops by a date certain, it has always included a recognition of these continuing responsibilities -- and I think that's the right way to go. Because that is a much clearer definition of what we're trying to accomplish than what we face today. Where we have seen Southern Iraq moving towards battles between militias vying for power, the British forces are now basically out of that mix on a base not participating in what's going on in the area, Basra and the surrounds.

We've got the ethnic cleansing continuing in Baghdad, our troops trying to protect civilians, but the ethnic cleansing has continued unabated. We've had some tactical success in Al Anbar Province in making alliances with the tribal sheiks, but, you know, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend for how long?” is a question no one can answer.

SCHIEFFER: Yeah, well, Senator --

CLINTON: And we've got to do more to make sure that the Kurds are both protected and don't harbor terrorists on their property.

SCHIEFFER: But let me get back. It's clear now that there are going to be about 100,000 troops at least still in Iraq when the next president takes office. You're saying we are going to have to have a continuing presence there, as you see it. Do you think it will require that many troops and for how long?

CLINTON: No, I don't believe it will, but we are going to inherit whatever we're left with. And the first day that I'm president, I'm going to call my secretary of defense, my Joint Chiefs of Staff, my security advisers, to give me a full briefing on what is the planning that has gone on in the Pentagon. You know, planning hasn't exactly been a strong suit of the Bush administration, and you might recall, I was in quite a dispute with them last spring and early summer over whether they were conducting the planning necessary to withdraw our troops.

I will have to figure out how to bring our troops home as quickly and responsibly as possible, and then take stock of where we are at that time with respect to the viability of these remaining missions that I and others have been speaking about. But it's hard to make any hypothetical or speculative answer to that question, Bob, because 15 months is a long time. We don't know what Iran will have done in the region. We don't know what other kinds of security challenges we will be facing in the broader area, so, I am committed to bringing the vast majority of our troops home, and I will begin to do that as soon as I am president.

[...]

SCHIEFFER: With us now John Harris, he's the editor-in-chief of Politico.com and David Sanger, chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times. John, Hillary Rodham Clinton today recognized that there are going to be -- there is going to be an American presence, military presence, in Iraq for some time to come.

HARRIS: She did, and I was struck by that in a sense that she was projecting herself really in this interview as a future president, not as a candidate for the nomination. She referred to, when I'm president, not if, stylistically, but I thought that was interesting. And substantively, you can see her preserving her options. She's not promising figures or saying we're going to have a complete exit in January of 2009. That's something a future president wants to do: preserve flexibility.