Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Senator Clinton not in favor of protecting the US from another 9/11

Senator Hillary Clinton attempts to placate the Anti-Victory, far Left by sending them an email that she didn't post in the "statements" section of her own website. With the poliferation of information channels on the Internet, who does she think she is fooling? After Googling a bit I did find it here. Reading through the statement, she makes sure to hit all the hot-button excuses as to why the war isn't associated with the democrats that voted to authorize the use of force:
Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority to use force against Iraq. And if Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed, given the lack of a long-term plan, paltry international support, the proven absence of weapons of mass destruction, and the reallocation of troops and resources that might have been used in Afghanistan to eliminate Bin Laden and al Qaida, and fully uproot the Taliban.

[added bolding --editor] Wow, that is some fancy foot work! Notice the lack of definition in who is doing the asking"Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority". Really? That's an assertion that doesn't really stand up. I think that GWB would have asked. In fact, we don't have to wonder. He did ask.

She follows with if "Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed". Notice that she did not say that she would have voted differently: Congress might have not agreed. Notice that she does not say that she stands behind her vote, if fact she leaves the impression that she would have voted "nay". But she doesn't really say either way. Having it both ways!

She goes on to hit some more sour, Lefty notes:
...the President and his Administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war.
while at the same time describing herself as " firmly in support of our troops".

And in summary Senator Clinton couldn't resist taking this shot:
That means rejecting the Administration's doctrine of preemptive war and their preference to going it alone rather than building real international support.
Didn't Saddam invade Kuwait? Didn't he violate the agreements that ended hostilities? Isn't the UK, Poland, Japan, Spain, Italy, etc, etc real international support?

I'm surprised that she would come out against preemptive war. President Bill Clinton had no problem launching preemptive war (by her definition of preemptive) on Iraq in 1998. If another 9/11 were being planned in Somalia (or pick any other State) and we had the chance to prevent it by invading/bombing/taking preemptive action would Senator Clinton reject the doctrine of preemptive war?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. "lefty" does not equal "anti-victory" - that's an alienating and divisive charge.
2. It is possible to simultaneously disagree with the war and still support the troops and still be anti-terrorist. There are different ideas about how to go about fighting terrorism and just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them wrong, bad, stupid, or anti-victory.

4:43 PM  
Blogger Fred K said...

Terminology can be clarifying at times. Congressman Murtha called for an "immediate withdraw". Now you may not equate that to "anti-victory" but then you and I would disagree on that point. I think that "anti-victory" is quite an illuminating way to describe those ideas. I don't think I called anyone stupid or bad. I certainly tried to make the point that those ideas are WRONG.

I use the terms "far Left" and "Lefty" in this context to identify those who share the opinions of Howard Dean, Congressman Murtha, etc. I'm sure those opinions are not universal amoung every "Lefty". Nevertheless the concept of the "Left" provides a useful marker to argue against.

As to your second point, I agree with you. is a great group blog of dems and repubs hashing out issues around the war on islamofascists. I earnestly hope that there is a significant fraction of the "Left" that realizes the dire threat of islamofacism and is willing to take action against it (even if they oppose our current policy). I am closely watching Sen. Clinton because I see her as possibly being one of few high profile Dems that might step up to this plate.

But...frankly, I listen to the Dems base and I don't think that the mass of them are convinced that we are in a war. And not believing that we are in a war they are logically not supportive of war-like actions. So it doesn't surprize me that "anti-victory" doesn't resonate with your average "lefty" as they don't accept the premise that we are at war.

I suppose its possible the dems may come around. If you google "Clinton iraq 1998" you'll see one example.

7:19 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Click and Donate to Support this Blog

This is a joke, but I hear stuff like this everyday