Hillary Clinton’s first campaign visit to Iowa this weekend provided an opportunity for potential voters to test and witness the Senator’s self-proclaimed mettle. Although Clinton sought to demonstrate her forcefulness and caste herself as presidential timbre, she exhibited much more cowardice than conviction when it comes to Iraq.
Pressed repeatedly to explain her vote for war in Iraq, the Senator could have defended her vote with the truth, which was that all available intelligence agreed Iraq possessed WMD and was funding terrorists. Clinton instead trotted out the tired, “If I had known then what I know now . . .” Monday morning quarterback excuse. When truth was on her side, she eschewed it for a partisan attack on the President instead, choosing to ride her Congressional colleagues’ coattails by claiming that President Bush “misled Congress.” Hillary showed her disregard for truth by blaming President Bush, when she and Senator Kerry and nearly all others in Congress accepted as fact the National Intelligence Estimates on Iraq that they, Prime Minister Blair, and the President acted upon in good faith.
While trying to convince potential voters that she had the courage, strength, and background to stand up to “evil and bad men,” Hillary instead communicated a cowardly lament that she, if elected president, may be forced to face difficulties in the Middle East. Hillary is so entrenched in anti-Bush rhetoric that she now refuses to take credit for actually standing up to an “evil man” through her vote to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. When asked to clarify to whom she referred with the phrase “evil and bad men, “ Clinton mentioned Bin Laden but not Hussein, a man who gassed Kurds, waged war on Iran, and tortured and killed thousands of Iraqis. She laudably stood up to him but is now so ashamed of it she blames Bush for tricking her into supporting the war. That Hillary, whom many insist is the shrewdest woman in politics, could be duped by a President endlessly ridiculed by Democrats for being ignorant, stupid, and anti-intellectual, is laughably ironic.
In her Iowa remarks, Clinton disingenuously stated that President Bush intended to leave the Iraq War for his successor to resolve: "I am going to level with you, the president has said this is going to be left to his successor," Clinton said. "I think it is the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it." Compare that with what the President actually stated to USA Today: "The War on Terror will be a problem for the next president. Presidents after me will be confronting ... an enemy that would like to strike the United States again.”
The War on Terror and terrorist attacks clearly will continue through many future presidencies, but the President did NOT state that he intended to leave the Iraq War for his successor to conclude. Perhaps she would prefer that President Bush solved the Iranian, Palestinian, and Syrian situations as well prior to leaving office so she can focus exclusively on issues more dear to her than national security, such as socialized medicine. That Clinton would resent being forced to deal with difficult international and national security issues speaks volumes about her alleged competence and toughness.
Was Truman out on the stump while FDR was on this deathbed telling reporters, “FDR told me this war is going to be mine to solve as his successor, and I think that is irresponsible and deeply resent it! He better end this war before he passes away!”? No, Truman took the reins when handed them, and demonstrated a determination to end the war through overwhelming victory. When that succeeded (yes, victory is the best exit strategy), he presided over an amazingly compassionate rebuilding and protection of the former enemy nations, in essence what we are trying to achieve in Iraq on a smaller scale.
Truman was praised for implementing the Marshall Plan after the elimination of Hitler, which protected a new government in Germany from being overrun by the Soviet Union and others looking for postwar spoils until it could stand on its own. President Bush seeks to do the same in Iraq after the removal of a dictator, and the obvious reality is the Iraqi government is not yet ready to sustain and defend itself. Should a time limit be imposed, a drop dead date by which if they are still not capable we should abandon them to whatever fate may bring (it will bring an Iranian invasion)? Fortunately Truman and succeeding administrations were not as shortsighted as the current stable of Democratic presidential aspirants. A viable democracy in the Middle East is no less worthy a goal than rebuilding Germany or Japan, and our commitment to help Iraq until it is self-sustaining or officially rejects American intervention should not depend on any politically motivated timetable.
If Senator Clinton wants to be viewed as legitimately qualified on national security and military matters, she should demonstrate a willingness to take on difficult challenges, not run from them. She should not beg and plead publicly for President Bush to hurry and resolve the Iraq War so she will not be required to resolve it if elected. A true executive would relish the opportunity to step in where others have (in her view) failed, and if necessary, lead in a new direction or finish the work of the preceding executive. In many respects, this is why former governors are generally better prepared and suited for the presidency than Senators or Congressmen. For Senator Clinton to openly shun the responsibilities of executive leadership and plead for issues to be resolved before she might face them personally signals an appalling lack of courage, optimism, charisma, and leadership.
Technorati Tags: Iowa Marshall Plan National Intelligence Estimates Executive Leadership Intelligence Failures Bush Administration National Security Iraq War Global War On Terror Hillary Clinton
Pressed repeatedly to explain her vote for war in Iraq, the Senator could have defended her vote with the truth, which was that all available intelligence agreed Iraq possessed WMD and was funding terrorists. Clinton instead trotted out the tired, “If I had known then what I know now . . .” Monday morning quarterback excuse. When truth was on her side, she eschewed it for a partisan attack on the President instead, choosing to ride her Congressional colleagues’ coattails by claiming that President Bush “misled Congress.” Hillary showed her disregard for truth by blaming President Bush, when she and Senator Kerry and nearly all others in Congress accepted as fact the National Intelligence Estimates on Iraq that they, Prime Minister Blair, and the President acted upon in good faith.
While trying to convince potential voters that she had the courage, strength, and background to stand up to “evil and bad men,” Hillary instead communicated a cowardly lament that she, if elected president, may be forced to face difficulties in the Middle East. Hillary is so entrenched in anti-Bush rhetoric that she now refuses to take credit for actually standing up to an “evil man” through her vote to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. When asked to clarify to whom she referred with the phrase “evil and bad men, “ Clinton mentioned Bin Laden but not Hussein, a man who gassed Kurds, waged war on Iran, and tortured and killed thousands of Iraqis. She laudably stood up to him but is now so ashamed of it she blames Bush for tricking her into supporting the war. That Hillary, whom many insist is the shrewdest woman in politics, could be duped by a President endlessly ridiculed by Democrats for being ignorant, stupid, and anti-intellectual, is laughably ironic.
In her Iowa remarks, Clinton disingenuously stated that President Bush intended to leave the Iraq War for his successor to resolve: "I am going to level with you, the president has said this is going to be left to his successor," Clinton said. "I think it is the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it." Compare that with what the President actually stated to USA Today: "The War on Terror will be a problem for the next president. Presidents after me will be confronting ... an enemy that would like to strike the United States again.”
The War on Terror and terrorist attacks clearly will continue through many future presidencies, but the President did NOT state that he intended to leave the Iraq War for his successor to conclude. Perhaps she would prefer that President Bush solved the Iranian, Palestinian, and Syrian situations as well prior to leaving office so she can focus exclusively on issues more dear to her than national security, such as socialized medicine. That Clinton would resent being forced to deal with difficult international and national security issues speaks volumes about her alleged competence and toughness.
Was Truman out on the stump while FDR was on this deathbed telling reporters, “FDR told me this war is going to be mine to solve as his successor, and I think that is irresponsible and deeply resent it! He better end this war before he passes away!”? No, Truman took the reins when handed them, and demonstrated a determination to end the war through overwhelming victory. When that succeeded (yes, victory is the best exit strategy), he presided over an amazingly compassionate rebuilding and protection of the former enemy nations, in essence what we are trying to achieve in Iraq on a smaller scale.
Truman was praised for implementing the Marshall Plan after the elimination of Hitler, which protected a new government in Germany from being overrun by the Soviet Union and others looking for postwar spoils until it could stand on its own. President Bush seeks to do the same in Iraq after the removal of a dictator, and the obvious reality is the Iraqi government is not yet ready to sustain and defend itself. Should a time limit be imposed, a drop dead date by which if they are still not capable we should abandon them to whatever fate may bring (it will bring an Iranian invasion)? Fortunately Truman and succeeding administrations were not as shortsighted as the current stable of Democratic presidential aspirants. A viable democracy in the Middle East is no less worthy a goal than rebuilding Germany or Japan, and our commitment to help Iraq until it is self-sustaining or officially rejects American intervention should not depend on any politically motivated timetable.
If Senator Clinton wants to be viewed as legitimately qualified on national security and military matters, she should demonstrate a willingness to take on difficult challenges, not run from them. She should not beg and plead publicly for President Bush to hurry and resolve the Iraq War so she will not be required to resolve it if elected. A true executive would relish the opportunity to step in where others have (in her view) failed, and if necessary, lead in a new direction or finish the work of the preceding executive. In many respects, this is why former governors are generally better prepared and suited for the presidency than Senators or Congressmen. For Senator Clinton to openly shun the responsibilities of executive leadership and plead for issues to be resolved before she might face them personally signals an appalling lack of courage, optimism, charisma, and leadership.
Technorati Tags: Iowa Marshall Plan National Intelligence Estimates Executive Leadership Intelligence Failures Bush Administration National Security Iraq War Global War On Terror Hillary Clinton
No comments:
Post a Comment