Hillary’s War Problem
Tom Bevan:
Read the whole thing.
Hillary certainly has her problems, but I wonder if any Democrat capable of winning the Democrat nomination for President will be taken seriously on the war. On one hand we have people like Howard Dean and John Murtha telling us that we cannot win in Iraq and that we should pull our troops out as soon as possible. On the other hand we have practically every Democrat member of the House, led by House Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi, voting against immediate pull-out. But then Pelosi turns around and starts backing Murtha on immediate pull-out.
If we can win why don't they unite behind the President and go for it? They should stop talking about troop withdrawal and work with the Bush administration toward obtaining the objectives in Iraq that will let us bring our troops home.
If we can't win, why did all the Democrats in the House vote against immediate withdrawal? Why risk even one more troop's life in a cause that is hopeless?
Defining the Democrat position on Iraq is next to impossible. The reason is because winning or losing in Iraq truly doesn't matter to them. Their objective here, as I've said many times before, is not sound U.S. foreign policy. Their objective is beating the Bush administration and getting their people elected back into power.
What a remarkable spot Hillary Clinton finds herself in at the moment. On one hand, her power and stature have never been greater. Clinton continues to cruise toward reelection in New York with a 62% job approval and a $14 million war chest against Republican opposition that can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Her near-certain victory in November insures Clinton will remain the prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic party presidential nomination in 2008.
On the other hand, signs of discontent with Clinton’s stance on Iraq continue to grow. Antiwar activists have now taken to harassing her wherever she goes. Legendary Newsday columnist Jimmy Breslin recently lambasted Clinton for her views on the war, saying she now “holds the new North American record for fakery.” In recent days Hillary has picked up not one but two antiwar primary challengers for next year’s Senate race, and though neither will threaten her reelection, both will hope to embarrass her on the war at every possible opportunity.
Read the whole thing.
Hillary certainly has her problems, but I wonder if any Democrat capable of winning the Democrat nomination for President will be taken seriously on the war. On one hand we have people like Howard Dean and John Murtha telling us that we cannot win in Iraq and that we should pull our troops out as soon as possible. On the other hand we have practically every Democrat member of the House, led by House Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi, voting against immediate pull-out. But then Pelosi turns around and starts backing Murtha on immediate pull-out.
If we can win why don't they unite behind the President and go for it? They should stop talking about troop withdrawal and work with the Bush administration toward obtaining the objectives in Iraq that will let us bring our troops home.
If we can't win, why did all the Democrats in the House vote against immediate withdrawal? Why risk even one more troop's life in a cause that is hopeless?
Defining the Democrat position on Iraq is next to impossible. The reason is because winning or losing in Iraq truly doesn't matter to them. Their objective here, as I've said many times before, is not sound U.S. foreign policy. Their objective is beating the Bush administration and getting their people elected back into power.
Carnival of Politics
richNJ
Rob
realitybasedbob
keith_glory2
robert108
