Monday, February 11, 2008

Is Iraq 'Hillary Clinton's War?"

Note: In this piece I raise "the great unanswered question of 9/11." Read on.

In terms of her oratorical "style," Mrs. Clinton invariably risks frightening small children. She's the female analogue to Ted Kennedy, an angry, red-faced individual who shouts a lot. She brays at us.

To understand the phoniness of Hillary Rodham Clinton (and of tomorrow's subject, Barack Hussein Obama), it's important to understand their target audience: the far-left Democrats who actually participate in primaries and caucuses. These are Moveon.org types, the 20% of the Democratic Party -- one-in-five -- who tell pollsters that they hope America loses the War in Iraq. To reach such people, overheated rhetoric is an essential ingredient.

Two of my favorite Hillary-isms are as follows: (1) "George Bush doesn't care about people"; and (2) THIS IS GEORGE BUSH'S WAR!"

On the notion that GWB "doesn't care" about the people he represents and who elected him twice: Mrs. Clinton offers no evidence that she cares any more about "people" than does President Bush. She's a person who desires to become President, and to that end, she dumps verbal trash on the man who currently holds the office. Thus, she engages in political statements that don't go beyond hurling gratuitous insults -- an approach her husband and others have called "the politics of personal destruction."

Why would she make such improper statements about Bush -- ones that "rise" to the level only of schoolyard taunts? Because she understands that he's an easy political target -- and because the most important thing in the world to her is winning the nomination. Her target audience, Americans who generally don't like their country very much, wants red meat, so she stuffs it down their throats.

Specifically, what about the "this is George Bush's war" comment? Again, it's a demagogic accusation. Hillary Clinton wants to become commander-in-chief. If as President she has to go to war, does she want many Americans to condemn it as "Hillary Clinton's war?" Or World War II "Franklin Roosevelt's War?" Or Korea "Harry Truman's War?" Or Vietnam "Lyndon Johnson's War?"

Some enterprising media type should ask her those questions, although no one will. She might accuse the questioner of being part of "a vast right-wing conspiracy."

Mrs. Clinton has a bad habit of speaking without thinking. Apparently, if she believes some statement will generate votes from left-wingers, the words just fly out of her mouth.

However, is the conflict in Iraq really GWB's war, or is perhaps in a sense "Hillary Clinton's War?" One could make the case -- if one were so inclined -- to say that it is.

In October, 2002, Senator Clinton voted for the Iraq war resolution. In November, 2003, she also voted for the $87 billion supplemental appropriation to fund the war.

A month later, December, 2003, she said the following: "The fact is we're in Iraq and we're in Afghanistan, and we have no choice but to be successful." For some reason, she's stopped making that important -- and accurate -- point.

In the spring of 2004, Hillary Clinton called Saddam Hussein "a potential threat [to America]." She added that the Iraqi dictator had been "seeking weapons of mass destruction . . . whether or not he actually had them." There's no real debate on these matters.

In other words, back in the period from 2002-2004 Iraq was not "George Bush's war." It was America's war -- and hers. She noted correctly that if Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs, he certainly intended to get them at the earliest possible time. Of course, she wasn't a candidate for President then.

Nowadays, of course, her comments on Iraq are much different. She indicates -- falsely -- that the Bush Administration somehow "misled" her about WMDs. What she neglects to say is that the CIA director appointed by her husband -- George Tenet -- had said to President Bush that Saddam's having WMDs was "a slam-dunk." Mrs. Clinton (and her husband) apparently agreed.

The approach Mrs. Clinton is taking allows her to be for a war when it's going well -- and against it when it's not. To paraphrase Kyle Smith, it turns politics and elective government into a circular firing squad, where ultimately no one is left standing.

George Bush clearly is a convenient scapegoat for Mrs. Clinton to use in her single-minded quest for the Democratic nomination. However, she fails to note that, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she had the same information about WMDs as the President. She cast her war authorization vote with the same knowledge GWB had when he made the decision to go to war.

The events of 9/11 were the reason the U.S. went to war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The fear that Saddam Hussein had -- or was seeking -- WMDs that he wouldn't hesitate using was the main reason the country went to war in Iraq. Of course, Saddam had possessed -- and used -- WMDs against Iran and the Kurds.

The catastrophe of 9/11 represented a major failure of intelligence by the CIA, headed by Bill Clinton's appointee. They also reflected a failure on the part of the FBI, headed by Clinton appointee Louis Freeh. (William Mueller, Bush's appointee, had been in his office for only about a week when 9/11 occurred.)

A great unanswered question of that time is this: Why didn't GWB blame the failures of his predecessor, Bill Clinton, for 9/11? No one knows the precise answer. However, it appears that Bush -- unlike people such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- didn't want to play the blame game. Instead, he gave Bill Clinton a pass so as not to divide the country.

As we've seen, Mrs. Clinton has no such concerns, or any real grasp of her husband's role in letting 9/11 occur. Instead, she has the old Democratic strategy of divide the nation -- calling Iraq GWB's war -- in order to conquer as her Party's nominee. The phoniness is as transparent as it is malicious. A cynic might ask: What else is new?


Tomorrow, I'd be writing on the phoniness of Barack Obama, who never quite reaches the total inauthenticity of Mrs. Clinton but at times comes perilously close. Obama said today, "We are at a defining moment in our history." That is not really profound. Rather, it's in the category known as cliches. He's good at them.

On TV, he just said, "Change does not happen from the top down. Change happens from the bottom up." I guess that's why he's running for President. He wants to start at the bottom. The emptiness of the man's rhetoric is truly awesome.

6 comments:

Mad said...

Thank you for all of your support. Our Bloggers have become quite literally McCain's entire online presence. We are the basis of the "Grass-Roots" efforts. Our new 'google-groups' launch (you'll see soon) will add to that effort greatly assisting both McCain Victory 08 and the official campaign.

Keep UP The Great Work!!

Slainte'

Mad
Executive Director McCain Victory 08
sfolger@mccainvictory08.com

http://www.mccainvictory08.com
http://madirishmaninc.blogspot.com/

The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.
Ronald Reagan

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Dear MadIrishman (SFolger): I'm deslighted to do everything I can to get John McCain elected POTUS. I know many bloggers are doing the same, and I look forward to seeing their numbers grow dramatically. We need especially to add millbloggers and veterans to the group, and I'm sure that we can do that. There will be nothing easy about winning this race. I hope every blogger that visits our McCain blogs will join up by going to: http://mccainvictory08.com and making the appropriate clicks to become a part of the group. All the best to you and thanks for your own yeoman-like work. Every blogger needs to reach out to family and friends. Good luck to John McCain tomorrow in the "Potomac Primaries."

steve maloney
ambridge, pa
mccainvictory08

kmorrison - PurplePeopleVote.Blogspot said...

I agree the the statement that this is 'George Bush's War' is not right. While I'm not thrilled with President Bush's handling of the war calling it his war ignores not only the fact that it was approved by Congress, but that the military is protecting the freedom of all Americans, not just those of George Bush. It strikes me as disrespectful, even if unintended, to characterize the sacrafices of the people serving in the military as a part of a partisan effort.

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Dear KM: I promise I'll visit your blog soon -- and often, if possible. Ahh, George Bush and Iraq. He has the wrong general there (Abizaid and Sanchez, among others) and he didn't have enough troops there (Rumsfeld's "war on the cheap"). You came up with the just the right word for Mrs. Clinton's screech about "GWB's War," disrespectful. People running for high offices should be courteous, a concept apparently foreign not only to Mrs. C., but also to Mr. Obama. Without such respect, politics turns into a shouting match -- or perhaps an exercise in mud wrestling. Thanks for visiting and for commenting so wisely. Tomorrow, it's Obama's turn in the barrell.

steve maloney

Roland Dodds said...

I am pushing for McCain, but I do think that if a Democrat taking office may make the war on Islamism a bipartisan endeavor. That is, assuming they are willing to fight it and not retreat to our borders with the hope that it all goes away.

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Dear Roland: I hope you're right about the Democatic President and bipartianism, but I must admit I fear you're wrong. Both Clinton and Obama seem to suggest that terrorism is yesterday's problem -- that it (9/11) occurred long ago and perhaps/maybe/hopefuly won't happen again. Many Americans don't like to think much about terrorism and the demands it puts on the nation. Anyway, thanks for visiting and please keep coming back.

steve maloney
ambridge, pa