Hillary Clinton And George W. Bush, I'll Take Bush
On this Memorial Day, when the sacrifices of American troops, from the Concord Bridge to the present war in Iraq, are being honored, the Wall Street Journal has an excellent editorial on the meaning of Sen. Hillary Clinton's vote last week in the Senate against funding the Iraq war.
"The vote," the Journal writes, "marks the end of Mrs. Clinton's post-9/11 positioning as a national security hawk. Her 2002 speech supporting war in Iraq was among the most forceful in the Senate, and for a while she admirably stuck with that conviction. But as the antiwar furies have built in her party, she has bent with them and now says and does whatever it takes to deny Mr. Obama or John Edwards any running room to her left. Perhaps this will win her the Democratic nomination, but it will complicate her Presidency if she ever does make it to the Oval Office. The Iranians, among others, will have seen that she can be turned when the going gets tough.
"Which brings us back to the current President. Whatever his mistakes as a war leader, Mr. Bush at least hasn't betrayed our allies or troops in the field for the sake of reviving his poll numbers. He was also right to defend the war powers of the Presidency against Congressional micromanagement. His obligation now is to do whatever it takes to succeed in Iraq so that the men and women fighting this war will not sacrifice in vain."
I think this says it as succinctly as it can be said. And, by the way, this is not the first time Mrs. Clinton has folded her tents under pressure. When President Clinton put her in charge of developing a health plan, and the couple encountered the adverse advertising of the disgraceful insurance industry, they folded their tents then too.
It's just essential that this country holds fast in the War on Terror. Not doing so would give the terrorists encouragement to spread and intensify their campaign against us. I will always admire the President for refusing to yield to the pigeons in Congress and particularly the Democratic party.
The New York Times today too has a nice Memorial Day Op Ed page piece. The L.A. Times editorial pages ignore Memorial Day, which is a mistake not likely to be missed by many readers. The L.A. Times' best Memorial Day article is in the Calendar section by the ousted columnist, Al Martinez, remembering a Marine-mate lost in the Korean War in the bitter retreat from North Korea at the end of 1950. Martinez shows again just what is being lost in forcing him to take a buyout. His last column is scheduled June 1.
--
One of the unwisest things the Lebanese government ever did was to give assurances back in 1969 that the Palestinian refugee camps were outside its scope of power. That opened the way to every extreme faction seizing control over the Palestinians, one of the Earth's most undisciplined and gullible peoples, and opened Lebanon to one outrage after another.
It comes up again this week as Lebanon tries to confront the crazed terrorists of Al-Qaeda-lining Fatah Al-Islam, several hundred of whom are conveniently holed up in a Palestinian refugee camp outside Tripoli, Lebanon.
On the one hand, these terrorists say, "Remember the 1969 agreement, don't come into the camp against us." On the other, if the Lebanese Army comes in, the terrorists threaten to "burn down Beirut."
Most of the authentic refugees have now fled the camp. Now, is the time to go in and finish off this group, once and for all. There is really no expedient that works with terrorists other than to eliminate them. The Palestinians once again, in all their customary dishonor, are suggesting the Lebanese government temporize with the terrorists and just give them time to mediate. If the Palestinians can't live within Lebanon, in line with its standards, they ought to leave the country, and promptly, just as the slimy Yasser Arafat, finally pulled out.
"The vote," the Journal writes, "marks the end of Mrs. Clinton's post-9/11 positioning as a national security hawk. Her 2002 speech supporting war in Iraq was among the most forceful in the Senate, and for a while she admirably stuck with that conviction. But as the antiwar furies have built in her party, she has bent with them and now says and does whatever it takes to deny Mr. Obama or John Edwards any running room to her left. Perhaps this will win her the Democratic nomination, but it will complicate her Presidency if she ever does make it to the Oval Office. The Iranians, among others, will have seen that she can be turned when the going gets tough.
"Which brings us back to the current President. Whatever his mistakes as a war leader, Mr. Bush at least hasn't betrayed our allies or troops in the field for the sake of reviving his poll numbers. He was also right to defend the war powers of the Presidency against Congressional micromanagement. His obligation now is to do whatever it takes to succeed in Iraq so that the men and women fighting this war will not sacrifice in vain."
I think this says it as succinctly as it can be said. And, by the way, this is not the first time Mrs. Clinton has folded her tents under pressure. When President Clinton put her in charge of developing a health plan, and the couple encountered the adverse advertising of the disgraceful insurance industry, they folded their tents then too.
It's just essential that this country holds fast in the War on Terror. Not doing so would give the terrorists encouragement to spread and intensify their campaign against us. I will always admire the President for refusing to yield to the pigeons in Congress and particularly the Democratic party.
The New York Times today too has a nice Memorial Day Op Ed page piece. The L.A. Times editorial pages ignore Memorial Day, which is a mistake not likely to be missed by many readers. The L.A. Times' best Memorial Day article is in the Calendar section by the ousted columnist, Al Martinez, remembering a Marine-mate lost in the Korean War in the bitter retreat from North Korea at the end of 1950. Martinez shows again just what is being lost in forcing him to take a buyout. His last column is scheduled June 1.
--
One of the unwisest things the Lebanese government ever did was to give assurances back in 1969 that the Palestinian refugee camps were outside its scope of power. That opened the way to every extreme faction seizing control over the Palestinians, one of the Earth's most undisciplined and gullible peoples, and opened Lebanon to one outrage after another.
It comes up again this week as Lebanon tries to confront the crazed terrorists of Al-Qaeda-lining Fatah Al-Islam, several hundred of whom are conveniently holed up in a Palestinian refugee camp outside Tripoli, Lebanon.
On the one hand, these terrorists say, "Remember the 1969 agreement, don't come into the camp against us." On the other, if the Lebanese Army comes in, the terrorists threaten to "burn down Beirut."
Most of the authentic refugees have now fled the camp. Now, is the time to go in and finish off this group, once and for all. There is really no expedient that works with terrorists other than to eliminate them. The Palestinians once again, in all their customary dishonor, are suggesting the Lebanese government temporize with the terrorists and just give them time to mediate. If the Palestinians can't live within Lebanon, in line with its standards, they ought to leave the country, and promptly, just as the slimy Yasser Arafat, finally pulled out.
Labels: War Politics
posted by Ken Reich at 8:59 AM
4 Comments:
Once again, you have failed to state the obvious: That an arrogant seemingly brain dead president concocted a false permise to get America into a needless war against Iraq, a country that did not attack us on 9/ll. It's not at all surprisingly that the yahoos promoting the business interests at the Wall Street Journal would, like you, support this shallow man, who should be impeached for lies.
And while you're "taking" Bush, whose poll numbers have dropped into the toilet, you might also try explaining to people who have lost relatives in a pointless war why they should continue supporting a man who has never served in one or explained why Iraq was crucial to American interests. Most sentient adults know Bush made a terrible mistake by invading Iraq but lacks the courage and the fundamental decency to admit it.
So, you'll be suiting up, grabbing a gun and heading for Iraq right away, I hope.
Easy to sit on your duff and pontificate about war. You want it, you go!
"His obligation now is to do whatever it takes to succeed in Iraq so that the men and women fighting this war will not sacrifice in vain."
Yes.... just like they weren't "sacrificed in vain" in Vietnam.
Post a Comment
<< Home