Unprincipled Clinton Unfit to Be President
The truth is that it's really quite simple. Democrats, particularly those trying to win the White House, are running out of time to effect a course change in Iraq. The Democratic Party's far left, anti-war base is demanding that the newly won House and Senate act to stop the war and bring the troops home now. Pressure is building for immediate and resolute action and both the Congress and the Presidential hopefuls know it.
So far, the House and Senate have tried desperately to make it appear as if they are doing something meaningful to challenge the President's Iraq policy. The House pushed through, largely along partisan lines, a non-binding resolution purporting to support the troops while condemning their mission. The Senate failed in its attempt at an identical resolution.
Now the House, led by Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha, are looking at ways to attach stringent conditions on the funding for the war without making it look like they are cutting off the money, or tying the hands of the men and women doing the fighting. Harry Reid's Senate is considering changing the authorization for the use of force to restrict the role of American troops in a way that would undermine the fragile Iraqi government in Baghdad and probably lead to its collapse. Both of these efforts are nothing more than symbolic political ploys designed to appeal to the anti-war crowd without forcing Democrats to actually take any responsibility for the war or its outcome.
In fact, the entire strategy of the Democrats so far has been to criticize and obstruct without doing anything of substance, buying time in order to position themselves for the 2008 elections. They cannot support the so-called "surge" because the anti-war base would not tolerate standing by the President and his "escalation" of the war.
Yet they cannot stop the "surge" either, because to do so would be to undermine the architect of the plan, General David Petraeus, after overwhelmingly approving his nomination to take command of operations in Iraq. Nor can they cut off the funds, at least not without accepting some, if not all of the blame when the inevitable explosion of violence and bloodletting overtakes Iraq and possibly the region.
The truth is that the Democrats want the President's new Baghdad security plan to fail. They need it to fail because success would mean the President was right and they were wrong, leaving them out in the cold on the most important issue facing this country today.
So they take a middle-of-the-road approach, debating non-binding resolutions and ways to force the President to adopt their demands. That way the decisions are his, as is the blame if the new plan fails. They are gesturing to the base while trying to preserve their position in the Congress.
But the base is growing restless and will become even more vocal long before the elections in 2008. While her colleagues try to stall in the hope that the President will be proven wrong, Senator Clinton is quickly realizing that more immediate action is needed to secure for herself the Democratic Party's nomination for the Presidency. With that realization has come a whole new level of selling her soul for political gain.
Senator Clinton is telling the people (of her party, at least) what they want to hear. She is politically astute and she knows how to work Washington politics. In a video statement on her campaign web site, Clinton appealed to the anti-war sentiment of the left's base while knowing that what she was proposing would never come to pass: "Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war."
Senator Clinton doesn't speak for the Congress and she knows that such a measure is likely to be blocked by Republicans in the Senate. But she can claim the high ground with the Democratic Party by saying she is proposing real action on the war, and by promising to end the war if she is elected President. Of course, I don't believe for a minute that she would immediately end the war in 2009. She is too smart, and too aware of the consequences, for that to happen.
So the rhetoric is necessary to further her political ambitions. For Senator Clinton, who is secure in her Senate seat, the only thing at stake is the White House. But it is precisely the rhetoric that she is using to win the Presidency that makes her unfit for the job. She has abandoned principle in her quest for power. Anyone who would propose actions or ideas that they know to be harmful to the national security interests of our country just to get elected is not worthy of the privilege of serving as commander-in-chief of the men and women charged with protecting our nation.
Published by Greg Reeson
I am a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal and a The Veteran's Voice. I also regularly contribute to GOPUSA and The Land of the Free. View profile
Charlie Sheen and Brooke Mueller Threesomes with Men and Women -Their Wo...Charlie Sheen and Brooke Mueller's world is filled with sex, drugs, and violence. New reports have the couple participating in many threesomes with both men and women.
Why Do Men and Women Have Extramarital Affairs?Have you had an extramarital affair or planning to have one, have you been cheated on? If so, read why men and women cheat. Stress, trapped, lies and more, are all factors for c...
U.S. Men and Women to Both Play for Gold in Olympic Beach VolleyballIn an exciting development, both the U.S. Men and Women will have a chance to bring home the Gold Medal in Beach Volleyball.
Attraction Between Men and Women: The Mystery Solved!This article attempts to explain attracting between men and women and why some men are more successful at attracting mates then others.
Men and Women Living Together AloneMen and women frequently find it difficult to communicate with one another, yet they seldom know why. This article provides tips for couples whose communication is strained or n...
- Hair Loss Facts for Men and Women
- The Differences Between Men and Women
- Men and Women Light Bulb Jokes
- Purses Reveal Power Issues in Relationships Between Men and Women
- March Madness Basketball: Different Rules for Men and Women
- Men and Women and the Sharing of Household Chores
- The Day Will Come when Men and Women Are Equals
9 Comments
Post a CommentNo question there is a lack of education about how Israel came into existence. It was in large part payback for the Holocaust, but it wasn't just the Brits. All western powers were on board the current arrangement has the blessing of the UN. But what do you do with the Israelis now that they've been there for nearly 60 years? Nobody's going to make them move, so both sides need to find a solution to the violence. I return to the point about the Palestinians restraining the suicide bombers and rockets. All Israeli aggression for the last year has been in response to Palestinian aggression.
The general public needs to be notified as to how the nation of Israel started to exist back in 1948. I'm sure not many people know that Israel was founded on land that was owned by the Palestinians and was granted to the Jewish people by the British who only made the land available for them because they didn't want a flow of Jews into the European countries for fear of an other anti Jewish movements taking place all over Europe one more time.
I have one fundamental question to ask; In the very beginning, who gave Israel the right to exist and start a religious based nation on a land that was taken by the use of power and by someones generosity, meaning the British Colonials,who granted a land they didn't own to the Jews? Do Israeli citizens realize that they are living in homes that belonged to people who fled those homes running away for their personal safety?
I'm not sure what this has to do with Hillary Clinton, but since you seem to be on a rant about changing Israeli policy, how about asking the Palestinians to stop suicide bombings against civilians or asking Hamas to stop firing rockets into Israel. It's hard to have peace when one side (Hamas) refuses to recognize the right of the other side to exist. In typical anti-Israel fashion, you conveniently left out the violence and provocations of the Palestinians.
Mr. Bush may have to offer, but who is going to believe he will carry on a promise? His track record shows the opposite of a president who can and will deliver, are they willing to trust such promise? Well, may be the President needs his Israeli friends' help after all, and that isn't what may come to ones mind at all. Mr. Bush needs to make his Israeli friends perform some major change in policy and attitude towards the civilians in the occupied territories, some thing like stopping the erecting of parts of this 14 feet high wall in the West Bank and resuming negotiations with the Palestinian Authority as part of the peace process that has been jeopardized for quite some time. Sounds like a hard task, isn't it? He is the president and nobody knows how this president think at any rate, so, let's wait and see.
Israeli troops were to be placed on the firing lines.
European countries won't be good candidates because their economy depends a great deal on the Arab consuming market and they will not give that up for any reason. There is one source of help left for the President; The Arab League, not a powerful group of countries in terms of military powers, but have the authority that can play a major role in stabilizing politics in the area. Mr. Bush would have the attitude of " I'm in trouble, we messed up and we need your help". But, this man never admitted to the American people that he was wrong ever, is he willing to admit so to a foreign entity at all? And if he did, The Arab League will only offer help conditionally, they need something in return for their help. Solving the Palestinian's issue would be somethin
Can President Bush end the Iraqi operation before the 2008 elections?
Many of us wonder if the President willing or able to stop the war in Iraq in timely manner or before the crucial election time in November 2008. The fact is, if the President was to be convinced the Iraqi war is wasting our resources and that it's becoming a burden on the US economy, plus the fact that such war had already lost its legitimacy in the eyes of the International Community. If Mr. Bush was to believe in all that, it will be hard or may be impossible for him to end the war single handedly.
Where would the President turn to seeking help? Our allies in the region; meaning Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Emirates, all of those countries do not have armed forces to take charge from the US troops. Our other ally Israel, a terrible choice, and rather impossible as we all know that Israel gained the friendships of the leaders in the region but the people are not quite as friendly and would be troublesome in case
Hillary scares the crap out of me.
Nicely written and very accurate Greg, as always.