Is Hillary a Throwback to FDR/JFK?
At least this week, Senator Hillary Clinton seems to be the only Democrat that has a spine and realizes the long term consequences of the Democrats’ cut-and-run strategy.
…another top Senate Democrat, Hillary Clinton, insisted that it would not be a “smart strategy” to create a timeline to leave Iraq.
Clinton on Tuesday made a plea for party unity, urging Democrats to coalesce around their opposition to the Bush administration, rather than being fractured over Iraq and other internal party disagreements.
She, of course, was booed at that gathering of “progressive Democrats.” The Democrats that are cheered now by their wacko base are those that think the War On Terror should be fought through the expected policy of American Retreat: Vietnam 1975, Iran 1979, Lebanon 1981, Somalia 1993. It is kind of scary to think that Hillary is the only sensible sounding Democrat on Iraq and the larger War on Terror. Senator Kerry still believes that the WOT is a “police action” after all.
Perhaps the Democrats vying to win over America to their brand of cowardice should read Michael Barone’s spot-on column from earlier this week. (Democrats Are Winning… Except At The Polls)
It comes down to this: A substantial part of the Democratic Party, some of its politicians and many of its loudest supporters do not want America to succeed in Iraq. So vitriolic and all-consuming is their hatred for George W. Bush that they skip right over the worthy goals we have been, with some considerable success, seeking there — a democratic government, with guaranteed liberties for all, a vibrant free economy, respect for women — and call this a war for oil, or for Halliburton.
Successes are discounted, setbacks are trumpeted, the level of American casualties is treated as if it were comparable to those in Vietnam or World War II. Allegations of American misdeeds are repeated over and over; the work of reconstruction and aid of American military personnel and civilians is ignored.
In all this they have been aided and abetted by large elements of the press. The struggle in Iraq has been portrayed as a story of endless and increasing violence. Stories of success and heroism tend to go unreported. Reporters in Iraq deserve respect for their courage — this has been an unusually deadly war for journalists, largely because they have been targeted by the terrorists. But unfortunately they and the Bush administration have not done a good job of letting us know that last pertinent fact.
We are in an asymmetrical struggle with vicious enemies who slaughter civilians and bystanders and journalists without any regard for the laws of war. But too often we and our enemies are portrayed as moral equivalents. One or two instances of American misconduct are found equal in the balance to a consistent and premeditated campaign of barbarism.
All of this does not go unnoticed by America’s voters.
American do not like to lose. And they especially do not like their own elected officials portraying this country as a loser nation and on the wrong side of history. Jimmy Carter learned that lesson well in 1980. September 10th Democrats will continue to learn that lesson at the ballot box in the War on Terror Era. I think Hillary may be the only Democrat too smart for that fate.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
32 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
lebanon and somalia were mistakes? Do you have something against americans soldiers?
Comment by lester — June 15, 2006 @ 1:13 pm - June 15, 2006
But – has Hillary condemned Murtha’s disgraceful pre-judging of the Haditha matter?
Has Hillary demanded that her fellow Democrats come back to reality?
I’d bet FDR / JFK would…
Comment by Calarato — June 15, 2006 @ 1:19 pm - June 15, 2006
hillary and lieberman should quit. anyone who supports this immoral war should go fight it or shut up.
Comment by lester — June 15, 2006 @ 1:44 pm - June 15, 2006
Lester proves again that one must READ and COMPREHEND posts written here before lashing out with bitter and angry Talking Points Of The Left.
Lester…. Somalia and Lebanon were American military retreats. Those IN the military (something that I\’m sure is foreign to you) will tell you that.
Read the following piece: The Last Helicopter
Note I said READ it…. that also means COMPREHEND.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — June 15, 2006 @ 1:53 pm - June 15, 2006
You know the Democrats have gone off the rails when Hillary is the ‘hawk’ among the doves. Just goes to show what Presidential ambitions can do to a girl’s worldview when you’re chasing NASCAR voters.
Vera fully expects Hillary to start taking a hard line on any number of issues, thereby earning her the contempt and disdain of Academia, the UN, the MSM and anyone who uses the word ‘nuanced’ in mixed company.
But alas, it’s all for show. Like a wedding bride trying to hide an ill-timed pregnancy, it’s impossible to be a ‘little bit pregnant’ or a ‘little bit conservative’. Not that the right wouldn’t welcome a true conversion – they would – but it’s the left that will scream, “whore!” as she attempts to parade down the aisle in virgin white.
Senator Kerry, the perpetual ‘always a bridesmaid, never a bride’ will use the far left to expose her hypocrisy, thereby making it easier for the right to expose her true views, assuming she actually believes in anything she actually espouses.
That’s the problem with liars; you never know when they’re lying.
Comment by Vera Charles — June 15, 2006 @ 1:54 pm - June 15, 2006
Anyone who thinks we should pull out of Iraq is doomed to political failure.
I don’t know what Hillary understands about the situation in Iraq but I’m confident that she understands that if she could win the Democratic nomination on an anti-war platform that she could never win the election that followed.
Lebanon and Somalia were mistakes… because we turned tail and the world learned that we can be expected to retreat at the deaths of a mere handful of our soldiers.
Reputations have consequences. Our reputation was that public opinion made effective military action utterly impossible. We could be counted on to fold. Bin Laden talked about this and made his plans taking it into consideration.
Comment by Synova — June 15, 2006 @ 1:55 pm - June 15, 2006
Bruce, I highly compliment you for praising a Democrat when praise is due. As I have commented at this blog several times on this subject, many of those posting comments err in bashing Democrats when they really should be aiming their ire at “left wingers” whether they’re Democrat, Green or independent.
I’m a Republicans who’s voted Republican in eleven straight presidential elections but I certainly don’t think all Democrats are evil or anti-American and very possibly will vote for a Democrat in 2008 if the GOP fails to nominate Rudy Giuliani.
Comment by Trace Phelps — June 15, 2006 @ 1:59 pm - June 15, 2006
St. Hillarybeast 2008! …and 2012!
This is an example of why she will be a formidable candidate in 2008. And Bill’s still at the top of his game as a political op. and few understand the Art of Campaigning better. (Even though he could “govern” worth a damn…) Combine their talents with a sensible Energy Policy…not an idealistic Liberal-Democratic one, nor an anti-Big Oil…but a pragmatic policy that sounds reasonable and practical to the average Red and Blue State voter; and they’ll win big. I’m becoming convinced that Thomas Friedman is right that for the first-time Americans are truly ready to go “Green”, and receptive to a change in our energy habits and sources; and the political party that gets there first will hold the high ground…if not in 2008, then in 2012.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — June 15, 2006 @ 2:18 pm - June 15, 2006
#7 – I, for one, intentionally use “lefty” or “left-liberal” in preference to “liberal”, for your stated reasons among others.
The fact remains, however, that today’s Democrats don’t support the troops. That’s valid as a very broad generalization, as I shall explain.
The minimum, baseline level of “supporting the troops” is easy; one need only refrain passively from the following:
1) Don’t gleefully heap mud on the troops’ good name.
2) Don’t sit by idly while others do it.
3) Knowing that our enemies have been trained to lie, don’t pre-judge Haditha-type stories before the military has done its own investigation.
4) Don’t join so-called “peace” demonstrations which only encourage the terrorists and increase our combat deaths.
I haven’t tracked every statement or activity of Hillary’s, so I don’t know if she has violated all of those. But at a minimum, all Democrat leaders including Hillary – and likely a numerical majority of rank-and-file Democrats as well – routinely violate number (2).
Unless you can point me to the statements of Hillary or Lieberman where they have come out and condemned Murtha?
Comment by Calarato — June 15, 2006 @ 2:20 pm - June 15, 2006
#3: “hillary and lieberman should quit.”
Well, Lieberman is in serious danger of losing the Democratic primary in CT. He may actually run as an independent. Hillary is making the mistake of tying herself to an unpopular war. She won’t be the nominee in 2008. I agree with Markos: we will work with the existing Beltway Dem crowd as we build a far better farm team for the future. It’s already working – we have Tester in Montana, Webb in Virginia and Lamont in CT. The former two have a good chance of winning against their GOP incumbents. The latter will at least scare Lieberman into removing his nose from Bush’s ass occasionally.
Comment by Ian S — June 15, 2006 @ 2:22 pm - June 15, 2006
#7: “if the GOP fails to nominate Rudy Giuliani.”
Rudy will crash and burn when his opponents mail out the pics of him doing drag to primary voters around the south. I can see the question on the mailer now: “Do you really want a President doing drag in the White House to impress his mistress?”
Comment by Ian S — June 15, 2006 @ 2:30 pm - June 15, 2006
Too bad cuz we know Rudy’s good under pressure ( 9/11 )
Bruce- I don’ see how saving our soldiers lives instead of sacrafising them for a battle we had no vital interests in is a mistake. Beirut was Israels deal. Somalia was supposed to be a humanitarian effort.
How were they “mistakes”? Going in the first place was the mistake if anything.
Do you htink pulling out of vietnam in 1966 would have been a mistake. you sound like a circa 03 neo con. a movement that is dead, thankfully.
Comment by lester — June 15, 2006 @ 2:36 pm - June 15, 2006
I don’t know what lester is smoking but Ian… you illustrate something important. Unless there is a rather large “reality” contingent of the Democratic party, Hillary, like Leiberman, has little chance of winning primaries and the nomination for 2008.
By “reality” I mean people who have a realistic grasp on who has the best chance to win the middle. Yes, there is a middle. It consists of people who are mostly moderate on social and economic issues… people who could go either way, Dem or Rep… you know, swing voters. Most of them, even if they believe going into Iraq was a terrible mistake would not want to see us pull out before the job is done.
Hillary knows this. If she could win the presidency with a Murthaesque “retreat and redeploy” do you think she wouldn’t do it?
People, most of them I think, vote in the primaries for who they think can win, not just who they like the best. I think that Giuliani has a strong chance. Imagining what some voter block of morality alarmists will do isn’t particularly useful. Not even a dress can make Giuliani seem effeminate.
I may come down to which side of our political drama demonstrates that its got a sense of humor.
Comment by Synova — June 15, 2006 @ 5:32 pm - June 15, 2006
I should mention that I’ve been reading comments on Balloon Juice recently and not only do the lefties there not have a sense of humor, they find the mere existance of humor offensive and inappropriate.
No doubt they are unrespresentative.
Comment by Synova — June 15, 2006 @ 5:35 pm - June 15, 2006
Lester — If YOU think Beirut was “Isreal’s deal”.. then you truly don’t understand how our enemies in the Middle East see the world.
Comment by GayPatriot — June 15, 2006 @ 6:16 pm - June 15, 2006
Ian S, please don’t mention Jim Webb in the same paragraph with Markos. Jim, a decorated Vietnam veteran and former Secretary of the Navy for President Reagan, opposed the war in Iraq (which seems to be a litmus test for some right-wingers posting comments at this blog) but he’s pro-American and a patriot. No one can question that. I’m not sure I can say the same thing about Markos.
Comment by Trace Phelps — June 16, 2006 @ 12:56 am - June 16, 2006
Trace, referring back to #9, I would be interested to know if Jim Webb violates any of those conditions. I would initially expect he does NOT. So maybe then you’ve found ONE Democrat who supports the troops.
Comment by Calarato — June 16, 2006 @ 1:09 am - June 16, 2006
(Then again, I don’t know Jim Webb’s statements on Murtha’s conduct – pro, con, or none at all.)
Comment by Calarato — June 16, 2006 @ 1:11 am - June 16, 2006
#16: “Ian S, please don’t mention Jim Webb in the same paragraph with Markos.”
Why NOT mention Webb and Markos in the same paragraph? Markos strongly supported Webb against the establishment favorite. And they both served their country honorably in the military and are both former Republicans. What, Faux News didn’t tell you that?!!
Comment by Ian S — June 16, 2006 @ 1:30 am - June 16, 2006
From the post
American do not like to lose.
I hate to tell you, but this sounds grizzly. It seems to make war sound like a football game. The problem is that people don’t–or at most only rarely–die in football games.
Referring to Beirut and Somalia referenced above, American marines died in Beirut in 1983 because they were sent into a civil war without a defined mission, other than to be there, and were caught in the cross-fire. From proceedings of a RAND Corp. conference Lebanon: 1982-1984
Americans also died in Somalia (particularly in the last of the three American operations in Mogadishu) because they were trying to do nation-building apparently in a nation that also was undergoing civil war. From Cato Bush Misreads History and, in considerably more detail, from Wiki (although some of the details might be disputed) Battle of Mogadishu
Nobody likes to lose. But most people don’t want to prematurely die without at least some good reason. And what was the good reason for Americans to go out and die in Iraq?
Comment by raj — June 16, 2006 @ 8:44 am - June 16, 2006
Oh, let me see. Markos probably would have been a bit young to serve in Vietnam, since he was born in 1971. On the other hand,
he is a veteran (a US veteran, that is), which is more than can be said of Republican ChickenHawks. The New Hampshere Gazette’s ChickenHawk Database can be found here and a convenient summary table can be found here.
I won’t hold my breath anticipating that you might look at the ChickenHawk Database, though.
Comment by raj — June 16, 2006 @ 9:16 am - June 16, 2006
#21 should have been preceeded by
#16 Trace Phelps — June 16, 2006 @ 12:56 am – June 16, 2006
Ian S, please don’t mention Jim Webb in the same paragraph with Markos. Jim, a decorated Vietnam veteran and former Secretary of the Navy for President Reagan, opposed the war in Iraq (which seems to be a litmus test for some right-wingers posting comments at this blog) but he’s pro-American and a patriot. No one can question that. I’m not sure I can say the same thing about Markos.
Comment by raj — June 16, 2006 @ 9:17 am - June 16, 2006
raj- good stuff on beirut and somalia
Comment by lester — June 16, 2006 @ 2:20 pm - June 16, 2006
“And what was the good reason for Americans to go out and die in Iraq?”
That, right there, ladies and gentleman, tells you everything you need to know about what a nut raj is.
The answer is so obvious, and has been repeated to him so many times already in so many months that he’s been around here, that only his being a complete nut can explain his insistent pretense of not knowing. End of story.
Comment by Calarato — June 16, 2006 @ 2:54 pm - June 16, 2006
#24 Calarato — June 16, 2006 @ 2:54 pm – June 16, 2006
This is a joke, right? Just because someone can rationalize one’s actions doesn’t mean that those actions are reasonable. Man is, after all, a rationalizing animal, not a rational one.
I’ve seen a lot of rationalizations for sending Americans to die in Iraq, here and elsewhere, but none of them were reasonable. Actually, most of the rationalizations made no sense whatsoever.
Comment by raj — June 16, 2006 @ 3:39 pm - June 16, 2006
the reason was Bush, cheney, and rumsfeld were so depressed about allowing 9/11 to happen under their watch that they wanted a vacation. Neil Bush told George about the amazing hotels in Dubai, so amazing, in fact, he actually split with his wife over the phone from one. So the three stooges figured they could turn Iraq into a colony,sort of like pre-Castro Cuba for them and their friends to party and gamble and have enough business interests so they can score free mocha lattes wherever they went. even in the “rif” (countryside)
Comment by lester — June 16, 2006 @ 5:55 pm - June 16, 2006
Raj, the definition of “reasonable” can’t be “okay, you’ve convinced me.”
When it is, there ends up being no room for people to hold contrary opinions and ideas.
What happens is that because there is only one *reasonable* position to hold, any other position must be defined as being based in un-reason… and we end up with “it’s all about oil or war profiteering, etc., No one can be *wrong* any longer, they can only be deluded or, as often as not, malicious.
Now, I happen to think that *probably* invading Iraq was necessary. Since we can’t ever know what would have happened if other choices were made it’s not possible to know if people are right that things are worse this way or if they’d have been worse had we not entered Iraq.
I think that most people, even if they think invading Iraq was a bad decision, agree that we need to do our best to support the new government until order can be maintained.
I *tend* to be of the “we should mind our own business” persuasion and as such I don’t see any reason to prefer other methods of coercing nations. The coersion bothers me no matter what form it takes and this outlook is why I don’t agree with the idea that war is always counterproductive because people die and things get broken. Sanctions, as an example, can build up incredible amounts of misery and ill-will.
My feeling is that, in generalized terms, “sending Americans to die” has the virtue of making it *less* likely that we capriciously spread misery around the world because it seems to me that imposing sanctions is considered *so* lofty that the consequences aren’t often considered. At the very least, putting our people on the ground and at risk means that we have to consider the issue important enough to risk American lives… and if it’s *not* important enough to do that we probably ought to leave well enough alone.
In general terms.
Iraq seems worth it to me because 1) Afghanistan wouldn’t have been enough, and 2) It really is necessary to drag the mid-east, kicking and screaming, into this century.
Probably they’d have gotten here eventually and maybe there are ways to encourage that that don’t include guns, but I’m not sure we had that long to wait. Technology means that a few people can hurt us *very* badly.
Some might argue that any armed conflict just makes it take longer… I think this claim requires more than an assertion. The last three years haven’t been pleasant but the progress toward self rule and real elections in Iraq couldn’t possibly have been faster, not in any scenario. We need to do everything we can, at this point, to encourage the reality of equality under the law in that country. Three years to go from rule by terror to rule by law is a bit much to expect of anyone. But without that push, would it have happened sooner if we’d just let Saddam be? Well, maybe if we abandon them it will go back to the old time frame. I hope not.
Now, I may be wrong about everything, but mine is not an *unreasonable* outlook to have.
Comment by Synova — June 16, 2006 @ 10:03 pm - June 16, 2006
Synova, I don’t think you have caught on to the game. You’ve attempted, once again, to try to explain to raj why it was well necessary for the Coalition to provide enforcement for the U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq. You didn’t give all the good reasons, but you touched on one (“to go from rule by terror to rule by law “). But it won’t make the slightest difference to him. A person can disagree with the stated reasons all they want, as far as I am concerned; or believe we should have accomplished them under some magical imaginary alternative, which I’ll debate with them. But raj is in different territory altogether; he has already and willfully forgotten what you’ve said, or the stated reasons as such. You’ll see. His game is, “Control the debate by being (or playing at being) the most mentally defective or insane person in the room.”
Comment by Calarato — June 17, 2006 @ 7:14 am - June 17, 2006
Comment by Synova — June 17, 2006 @ 5:27 pm - June 17, 2006
Giuliani doesn’t have a chance. He’s a gun-grabber and he’s pro-abortion.
Comment by rightwingprof — June 18, 2006 @ 3:08 pm - June 18, 2006
In addition, Guiliani is a northeast liberal (although he was also a grandstander as a prosecutor), an he’s not adverse to liking fags–at least fags with money. He wouldn’t have a chance in the Republican primaries.
On his up-side is that he didn’t have much of a problem with his police department bashing Negroes–that might play well in the Southern primaries.
Comment by raj — June 19, 2006 @ 10:29 am - June 19, 2006
raj baby, you gotta get out more… you are losing it with all that bile –didn’t anyone teach you in gross anatomy that a sustained buildup of bile will result in pathological abnormalities?
Gosh, the GayLeft has never looked so impotent, so ineffective, so marginalized. Such bile; you’re actually challenging Gramps these days for inflamatory bile.
And all that because Bush’s number are trending up, the Senate/House midterm election successes predicated by MoveOnOrg are evaporating, and the WOT is succeeding in protecting Americans.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 19, 2006 @ 12:55 pm - June 19, 2006