Hillary's War
Hillary Clinton addressed a group of veterans in Kansas City yesterday and proclaimed that "we've begun to change tactics in Iraq," and those changed tactics are "working." "We're just years too late in our tactics," she lamented.
(Note: The first report I read, on Huffington Post and from the New York Post, quoted Hillary as saying "the surge" is working. Now that I have seen the full speech, I can quote her exactly. "We've begun to change tactics" . . . But what else is she talking about except George W. Bush's Hail Mary surge? What other "new tactics" have we begun to try? The surge is the story. She was, of course, talking about the surge. Arguing about how she characterized it misses the essential and crucial point. It obfuscates, as in Karl Obfuscate Rove, which is exactly what every Republican argument is meant to do.)
What does Hillary mean by "working"? How is the surge working? What is it accomplishing? What is it meant to accomplish? What, in the war gospel according to Hillary, is the goal of the surge? Is it the same goal she had in mind when she voted to allow Bush to go to war in Iraq if he wanted to? Is her only regret now that our "tactics" were flawed, i. e., we did not send enough Americans to accomplish whatever the Bush/Clinton goal is right from start?
I suspect all she meant to do in Kansas City yesterday was pander a little to the Vets, be enough of the Hillary they want to get some of their votes, you know. But her declaration that the surge is "working" and that we're just "years too late in our tactics" goes beyond standard politician-pander to reveal something terribly wrong in her thinking. She has given us a glimpse beneath the mask -- there's the real Hillary. Years too late in our tactics? How many more Americans and Iraqis should have died under her leadership, with her superior tactics, to achieve her unspecified goal ("victory"?)? Does she think the American people have turned against this unwinnable, unconstitutional, criminal war only because Bush didn't surge from the beginning?
I have been thinking I would feel compelled to vote for Hillary if the Democrats nominated her because that would be the only meaningful way to cast a vote against the horrifying, entirely and eternally discredited Republican party.
I'm not sure now how meaningful that vote would really be. And I don't think I'm going to be able to do it.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
What I hope she meant is not that the surge is working that that we, meaning the congress, has changed direction. I think it has, although no evidence as far as troops pulling out. At least it's begun to question the policy. I hope that's what she meant. Didn't anyone ask her? Could anyone have asked, did the format permit that kind of question?
Let me encourage you to check out Congressman Ron Paul, if you don't like the Iraq war, high taxes and big government.
He's the breath of fresh air we've all been waiting for...a true statesman.
www.ronpaul2008.com
http://www.mediatransparency.org/originalresearch.php
this is the truth and our hostess is one of the worst yachstman so far
Chulthu for President! Why choose the lesser of 2 Evils?!
G.McGovernW.MondaleM.DukakisH.Clinton
Will we ever learn about nominating the unelectable?
Edwards '08
Hillary like her Husband say things they think people want to hear in any given venue. She will say one thing to a veterans group and something opposite to an anti war group. Her only consistent position is to WIN. Just like her husband. Say just enough to keep the wacko base while trying to draw in some moderates. But we Republicans always knew this about the Clintons.
I've been saying it for months now - I'll vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination. Then I'll go home and wash my hands in boiling water and lye. I can't stand her, I think she has tremendous potential to become as despotic as Bush, I think she is artificial, and I think it wouldn't take a very strong breeze to make her a Republican. One could argue that the Republican candidates are better because they admit to their agenda, rather than pretend to be liberal. Once again, trembling hands at the touch screen.
I dream of the day when I dont have to choose the least disgusting candidate. Imagine the thrill of electing someone you really love and support. I hope it happens one day.
I would vote for hillary.
I would vote for a skunk rather than a
repub. I'd rather not vote
for hillary because she refuses to acknowledge one thing. And that is that we have no f...ing business shooting up Iraqis with our much fawned over military. Trooops out a.s.a.p.
No bases - get out of their faces.
Hilary’s war is not with the Bush Administration but within herself. Flip flop Hilary needs to stop the rhetorical nonsense. If, she was so knowledgeable as the adulterous mate of former president Clinton and having deceived the people thereby becoming senator in a state she never previously lived for any reasonable amount of time; at least not long enough to understand the plight of the people. How can she claim to be so consolatory concerning the war in Iraq? She is a deserter to her own so-called convictions claiming to be Christian yet disavowing Christian doctrine as established in the Bible. Hilary Clinton. like so many other so-called Christians are like children with a bag of jelly beans, enjoying the ones she likes and throwing away the rest and that is exactly what she is doing to the Christian faith as well as the American people. How can she support illegal immigrants who are breaking the law and causing grievous hardship on the American people and claim to be both Christian and supporter of the laws of America? She supports homosexuality and again claims to be something that she is not! The war in Iraq is simply another tool in the hands of a very deceptive individual seeking nothing more than to make a name for her in the history books. Yes, something needs to be done concerning the Iraqi people and their need for solidarity because without it no amount of interaction by any government, America or otherwise will help a nation hating its own people. Hilary needs to pay equally as much if not more attention to what is taking place in America and destroying this nation from within. A confused spirit in a questionable mind and body leads to further troubles America will not be able to sustain.
If Hillary is the nominee, I'll either 'write-in' my choice for president or I'll just skip that portion of the ballot. I can't in good conscience, vote for another 'war cheerleader'. Hillary is basically a republican....corporately bought & owned.
If she is the candidate, then the 08 election will reveal that we've moved from a 2 party system to a 1 party monopoly.
As a Veteran I am insulted, After truly considering supporting her I find myself truly believing all the talk that "She will say and do anything just to get elected President".
I don't understand how we the American People can continue to ignore the most qualified Candidate's (Who in the whole Democratic field can compare qualifications to those of Governor and Ex UN Ambassador Bill Richardson).
If we continue to elect the least qualified Candidates because we either like the way they look etc. Then we need to quit acting so surprised when they turn out to do the idiotic things that least qualified dummies like the current President will do.
Hillary has always been too clever by half!!!! Everything that comes out of her mouth has been calculated to the enth degree. I will not vote for her, because she IS the "republican lite" candidate, and I've had enough of republicans to last me a lifetime. If Hillary is the candidate, I will write in the candidate that I think is really good for this country and to hell with the democrats and the republicans.
Anybody but Hillary.
Politics is tactical. Those who fail to recognise and accept that tactics and compromise are necessary elements of democratic elections are living in a dream world. To paraphrase Tony Blair, principle without power is futile.
Does anyone seriously believe that should Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination (which is ever more likely with each passing day) that it would be a better idea to not vote than to vote for her? Another four years of cronyism, of polarising politics, of religiously biased pseudo government by those who have proven themselves incapable of representing the policy interests of all Americans?
Did Hillary Clinton make a statement that panders slightly to a miliary crowd? Yes. Was that statement accurate. More or less, but the important point here is that she still reiterated her support for ending this pointless war and redeploying our troops to where they should be-- fighting terror in Afghanistan, for instance.
Living in the political age we do means that principles about what liberal or centre-left politics should be about needs to be coupled with an understanding of what is actually possible. Hillary in the Oval Office would be a vast and incredible change because she is a competent manager and she fundamentally understands the difference between politics (what helps you get elected) and policy (what makes for good governance). Isn't that a principle worth fighting for? We will never get a perfect candidate but at the point at which she wins the nomination she is the country's best hope for turning around what will have been eight years of poor governance, fearmongering and bald ignorance.
So she deploys the tactics that will get her into office. So what. Prove to me that tactics aren't a necessary evil in politics. Otherwise, get on the reality bandwagon and support a Democrat, Hillary or otherwise, for the sake of doing the best for this country.
»Prove to me ...«
I will not prove to you what need not be alleged, in order to expose your argument as thoroughly misleading.
Tactics are part of politics, - truism (nobody knew better than FDR, the soon-again-to-be hero of all those disenfranchised by the looming economic crash, - the very thing which to cover up the whole “war on terror” was invented). - But in morally sound(er) times it rests at that point. You, however, promote an outlook where tactics completely submerge everything else what counts in public life: strategy, honesty, and the true art of statesmanship, - which is to know your real enemies and guarantee by leadership that the moral values of the majority become the decisive factor for organizing public.
Too complicated? I guess, I am. Because for all the sophisms you overlook the elephant in the room:
»To paraphrase Tony Blair, principle without power is futile.«
I beg your pardon. IF YOU REALLY FEEL NEED TO SPEAK WITH A PERSON LIKE TONY BLAIR, – here, where most are concerned of how to finally END the very quagmire that this person, Blair, was the coldly calculating mastermind behind dragging Bush into, through Cheney, – ... if you really go on citing assets of that incurably imperial British politics as intellectual authorities, THEN INDEED, NOBODY SHOULD WONDER that you do not see a more the tactical fault in the person who exposes herself to the need to “reiterate” what a single straightforward commitment would have long since settled.
And, besides, be it observed that I AM NOT INTERESTED in any persuasions of what “liberal” or “centre-left” politics “should be” about. I am interested in how politicians who set out by avowing august values (liberal, conservative, libertarians, religious, it’s all the same: in principle good, but ...), how such politicians WILL BE CHECKED from gradually deteriorating under the constraints of this and that “tactical need” to end up, regularly, accomplishing the opposite from what they “stand for”.
You have not written a single sentence to make me sense you know the answer, or even see the problem.
I'm confused as to how to respond to you. First, you don't actually advance any arguments or evidence as to why what I have said is incorrect or misleading.
The first area which you try to respond to takes completely out of proportion my original point-- not that tactics submerege everything in political decision-making but that it is naive to assume that political decision-making doesn't involve tactical maneouvres. Further, it's all well and good to say you're concerned with real 'statesmanship' but surely you're not seriously suggesting that statesmen don't make tactical considerations?
Second, whatever you might feel about Tony Blair, the veracity of the statement I quoted is hard to refute, especially in a political context-- especially in this specific electoral political context (incidentally, a context not too different from the one in which Blair uttered those words). I also think inserting an assumptive adhominym attack on me and my political outlook is mistaken. That quote has nothing to do with British imperialism; I don't see the relevance in trying to tie it in to this discussion.
On your third point, I too share a concern about what politicians stand for but I think that can also change. Tactical considerations might come into that process but if that's the case, I think it's worthwhile then to look at the general outcome of the policies they advocate. It is true that Hillary's initial support for the war has had a disastrous outcome. But across the board-- education, healthcare, the economy, restoring America's influence, the list goes on-- I think she represents the thinking of a great majority of the electorate. And if it takes some tactical considerations to ensure that we move forward on at least some of those issues towards more progressive and inclusive national policies, then I can live with tactics.
.
Bill must have really made a pact with the Devil to get stuck with her for life!!
Hillary is so smug and such a smart ass.
No one likes her or will vote for her.
Besides who wants the Clintons back again?
Or the Bushes, for that matter.
.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
