Hillary Clinton and Iraq: Why This is Important

An excellent article!

I have one thing to take up with the author and that is his use of Karl Rove here to make a point:

"Instead of explaining her position, the Clintons distorted Senator Obama’s in a Karl Rove like maneuver of attacking an opponent’s strength by misrepresenting his record."

I don't really think the point should be amplified by a "Karl Rove like maneuver" when it was actually just the Clintons being the Clintons again!

Looks like some of the dems, like the author of this article, are just now figuring that out...

Nice article. We get it you are an Obama supporter. Unfortunately you are wrong. Jihadists have been around for years and if you research you will realize that the pinnacle of their hate coincides with the liberal movement. From the 60's to the 70's, 80's, up to today. Yes they hate us and want to kill us that is a gimme. But do you think its because we love our neighbor as our selves? Why do they call us infidels? Is it because we dont abort babies or cheat on our spouses? Arent we infidels? Our own president was.

As for less safe. Do you think Obamas agenda is rock solid max security homeland safe? Who do you think Bin Laden fears more Obama or Bush? They want Obama or Hilary to win. It would make the profession of terrorizing much more easier. With Obama we'll have "socialized" terrorism. Got to help the less fortunate terrorist. We'll take from the hard working succesful terrorist and redistribute to the the ones that cant afford that explosive vest. Last time I checked we havent had a terrorist attack since 9/11. We might be less safe in Liberal Land.

As for Saddam an enemy of Al Qaida? We declared a hostile regime was one that supported terrorism, not just Al Qaida. Get your facts straight. Is giving families of suicide bombers money incentives not supporting terrorists? Without question, Iraq was a nation that provided "safe haven" for terrorists with "global reach". Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyan terrorists that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland, Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan who is now believed to be leading Al-Qaeda's forces in Iraq. Quite frankly, any war on terrorism that didn't tackle that nest of vipers would have been a war in name only, a bumper sticker per say. You know like global warming when theres record cold, snow in Buenos Aires and growing glaciers.

What about the Iraq Liberation act of 1998? And if I'm not mistaken, it was a Democrat in office who declared that;

"The great threat confronting the United States and its allies was a lethal and "unholy axis" of international terrorists and outlaw states. "They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." There was, Clinton declared, "no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us."

As for Obama. He sounds great but has done absolutely nothing. A Kennedy visage with Carter potential. But the liberal media is trying their best to make him out to be a Kennedy. They are even trying to make Hilary into Thatcher and of course the evil Bush empire. Propaganda that would have made the Soviet Union so proud. Pravda gots nothing on the New York Times.

I could write for days but only had 3 1/2 minutes.

Xris M,

For what it is worth, I agree with much of what you have said here.

It is also a great illustration of how "talking" with those on the left can be quite frustrating. My approach was a current "soundbite".

Yours was the often neglected big-picture and HISTORICAL contex way. To "feel good", those on the left often FORGET the past (f they ever knew it) when making their "points" that only serve both todays short term attention spans and political goals.

Recall the next world-wide ice age only a couple of decades ago? Now it's global warming...

Everybody, left and right wants a clean and tidy world. But global warming is pure politics to many on the left as a vehicle to get/maintain power through emotion.

I completely agree--the "if I knew then what I know now" defense is competely disingenuous. I suspect she knew what was in the National Intelligence Report (presumably she has staff whose job it is to check these things out and inform her) but she just thought that it would put her too far to the left in the public's perception at that time. Immediate expediency trumped principle and intelligent thinking about where it would put our nation in the future.

Congratulations on a reasoned and well stated position. Comparing the voting records of Clinton and Obama with respect to the war in Iraq is both relevant and intelligent. The majority of Americans no longer support this war and the high current and future costs in economic, diplomatic, physical and mental health terms to our own population and the people of Iraq.

If our elected officials, including Senator Clinton, were better students of history, they would make wiser domestic as well as foreign policy. And if the Democratic presidential contestants really cared about improving the disastrous state of affairs to which we have arrived after 7 years of another Bush, they would remember history's rule: division precedes conquest. Senator Clinton's track record during this campaign has negated whatever experience advantage she claims over Senator Obama. She should return to the Senate and play a leading role in redirecting the future of her country.

glloooommmmbbbaaaaa

Post a comment