Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Hillary Clinton Recognizes Reality; Edwards And Kerry Do Not

Sen. Hillary Clinton is not the weak appeaser that John Edwards and Sen. John Kerry are. Rather than a wholesale retreat from the world wide responsibilities of the U.S., she is willing to see things as they are. This makes her a far more credible presidential candidate than Edwards or Kerry.

Clinton, on the Today program this morning, mentioned she had been to Ground Zero in New York, and, added notably, "There are people out there who are trying to kill us."

On the day that Clinton spoke out, adhering to her centrist position on foreign policy, word came of new terror threats against the United States from Ayman Zawahiri, the number two man in al-Queda. There were sectarian killings in Iraq and a bombing in Afghanistan. In Lebanon, Hezbollah thugs representing Iran and Syria intensified their attempt to bring down the Western-backed government, paralyzing Beirut. There were 2 deaths and 100 injuries in the coup attempt led by Hassan Nazrallah.

In short, on several fronts, the day President Bush is due to deliver the State of the Union address, there was new proof that the U.S. and the West have enemies who won't go away. Unlike Edwards and Kerry, Clinton is not trying to fool the American people into believing otherwise. She has a different strategy for fighting the war than Mr. Bush, but she is not for bugging out.

No one knows what may happen next in the conflict in which American forces are engaged. But Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, testified to Congress this morning that the situation in Iraq is "dire," and he strongly supported the sending of additional U.S. troops to Baghdad.

Judging from the comments posted by readers in recent weeks on the New York Times web site and letters to other newspapers like the Tribune-owned Los Angeles Times, there are millions of Americans who would rather stick their heads in the sand like ostriches and not notice the threats that exist. Many of these people have the strange idea that President Bush is more to blame for the tensions in the world than Osama bin Laden.

I don't want these people to be proven wrong when a mushroom cloud soars over Los Angeles or another American city or an atomic power plant melts down as a result of sabotage.

Yet, today, we see the L.A. Times, edited by an imported incompetent, James O'Shea, continuing to ignore the news. Both yesterday and today, the Times kept off Page One, the terrible toll from sectarian and other violence in Iraq. Yesterday, the deaths of 27 American soldiers in Iraq, the third worst toll of the war for such a period, was not on Page One. Today, the killings of 88 people in sectarian violence in Baghdad, wasn't there either. Instead, there is a ridiculously false story that there is little Iranian interference in the Iraq war.

By contrast, the New York Times keeps its eye on what is happening. The 88 sectarian killings are its off-lead this morning, and the New York Times gave lead coverage to the arrest in Iraq last week of Iranian agents while that too was comparatively buried in the L.A. Times.

Our soldiers in Iraq are being hit daily by rocket propelled grenades and roadside bombs manufactured in Iran, and yet the L.A. Times has a Page One headline this morning, "Scant evidence found of Iran-Iraq arms link." Shame on the two reporters whose bylines headed this article, Alexandra Zavis and Greg Miller.

Hillary Clinton, thank goodness, is not so blind.



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home