Hillary Clinton on Meet the Press
Look, I hate talking about this stuff as a general rule, but I feel compelled. Clinton’s performance on Meet the Press has incensed me so much that I risk being late to see some friends I’d very much like to see. Here I am in my pajamas, fuming at the keyboard.
So was your judgment lacking, Senator Clinton? No, because President Bush lied to me about how aggressively and seriously he’d pursue a diplomatic solution. But then, almost by definition, you were misled. Judgment is, in no small part, about being able to tell when people are lying to you, isn’t it? Perhaps Senator Clinton believes that no one will ever again try to mislead her. I’m reminded of President Bush’s brilliant “fool me once” remark: Fool me twice! You can’t … you can’t fool me twice! This seems to be Clinton’s basic understanding of how the world should work, which suggests a level of ingenuousness far beyond that of the junior senator from Illinois.
But really, the lengthy exchange over whether Clinton’s vote for the authorization of military force was in fact a vote to authorize military force — a vote made in the context of the Levin amendment, which Clinton opposed — is just icing on the cake. Oh, one more thing. Clinton laments that she was unable to pass an authorization with a “time limit.” So apparently we can invade countries provided we do it within an approved “time limit,” and then the commander-in-chief must put the pieces back in the box, hoping that no one is too enraged. Shrewd.
But yes, it’s the icing on the cake because the most infuriating moment came when Russert asked a question regarding the surge: What happens if Petraeus asks to retain roughly the current number of troops through the end of the year? Clinton said that would be unacceptable. Is it because we can’t trust Petraeus? She didn’t say that, though that would at least be coherent. No, it’s because Iraqis are only acting now because of our presidential election — they know the “blank check” won’t last for long. But what does that have to do with authorizing the troops General Petraeus will, under the hypothetical, claim that we need? I mean, if there’s no more “blank check” and the writing is on the wall, why do we need to see the coalition’s ability to protect Iraqi civilians against insurgent attacks collapse before the inauguration? This seems like a strange principle to be standing on. Again, this is all premised on the notion that General Petraeus is not lying. Clinton could, of course, claim that Petraeus is in fact General Betray-us, and that many members of the elite ranks of the US military are bent on a permanent occupation — a claim thay many opponents of the war are quite happy to make.
So what gives? If we’re cutting our losses, why cut our losses now rather than the many times Senator Clinton has been faced with the choice in the past? Could it have something to do with the race for the Democratic nomination? Well, of course it does. Remarkably enough, Clinton is now attacking Obama for being “political.” The conceit is mind-bending.
Sorry, friends. I’ll try to restrain myself in the future.
I may not like Hillary but Obama is very scary. There is a saying about history-when it is forgotten, it repeats itself. Obama will divide this country like nothing has since the last election of a IL president. I have been a Democrat all my life but they all are clowns this year. Sorry, where I come from we don’t run, we don’t say sure blow up our people, kill kids, women, whoever you want-we’ll talk to you about it. Where I come from we fight for our rights. As the mother of a soldier, I don’t want my child to come home in defeat like vets of Viet Nam did-I hate to but I agree with McCain that was the most shameful period in history. I may be a Democrat but I am also a law abiding citizen-pardon me the key word is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION-they need to be thrown out-period, end of discussion-we are a nation of laws, at some point my family immigrated to America-but they did so legally. I am sick of paying to support their millions of children. I may be a Democrat but first I am a Christian-pardon me homosexuality is called an abomination in the Bible-it is against God-marriage is a man & a woman…period end of story. I may be a Democrat but I believe that I am responsible for what I make of my life, I would be shamed to say oh it is up to my state to take care of me..I am too stupid, too lazy, too whatever to make it on my own. I give money to the homeless but feel that every able bodied person should work-& don’t whine you can’t find a job-there is always a job somewhere-you might not like it or it might be not what you want to do-but you can do it.
I admit this time I am crossing party lines to vote for Fred Thompson-he seems to be the only one with common sense. No I do not agree with him on abortion or some other issues, but I do want my borders secure, illegal immigrants out of my country-will welcome them legally-I want “normal” marriage, I want people to get back to being self-reliant Americans not state supported fools.
— Victoria · Jan 13, 05:58 PM · #
Is it because we can’t trust Petraeus?
I think it would be fair to say that you can’t trust his judgment, especially on Iraqi political matters (as opposed to short term military and security matters), which has nothing to do with accusations of betrayal or an inability to trust Petraeus’s motivations.
Also: the situation in Iraq—the only thing Petraeus is responsible for—is not the only relevant factor to our deployments there. Having troops there inspires terrorists elsewhere, saps the strength of our military, and forces us to pay a huge opportunity cost in Afghanistan/Pakistan. There are many, many reasons to withdraw from Iraq that have nothing to do with Iraq’s security situation.
I mean, if there’s no more “blank check” and the writing is on the wall, why do we need to see the coalition’s ability to protect Iraqi civilians against insurgent attacks collapse before the inauguration?
You answer your own question here:
If we’re cutting our losses, why cut our losses now rather than the many times Senator Clinton has been faced with the choice in the past? Could it have something to do with the race for the Democratic nomination?
We have not credibly signaled our willingness to walk away from the table here—I’m sure many American officials are right now reassuring Iraqis that current threats to leave are just domestic political posturing. None of the likely Democratic nominees have promised to withdraw all forces by the end of their term. The check is still written in pencil until troops actually start withdrawing. The factions are still refusing to compromise, still refusing to find a more sustainable political position because they’re banking on America still staying there to bail them out.
— Consumatopia · Jan 13, 06:59 PM · #
I’m pretty sure that half of the bets on the presidential election on Intrade come from Iraqis.
— Justin · Jan 13, 07:19 PM · #
Don’t apoligize, it’s very delicious to see you get worked up for once.
— PEG · Jan 13, 08:12 PM · #
…I can’t believe I typed “apoligize.”
— PEG · Jan 13, 08:13 PM · #
Consumtopia — peruse a map of Afghanistan. The only supply line is through Pakistan. That effectively caps our troops there to be in the words of Michael Yon “a Special Forces Hunting Lodge.” Unless anyone has appetite for another Chosin Reservoir. Pakistan has a nuclear shield. Which also protects bin Laden. But then, Clinton considered taking action in the mid 1990’s too “risky.” We can do nothing but have Special Forces hunt around in the margins. Nothing in Pakistan either, unless we want war with a nuclear power.
Iraq is one place America can win. Since supply can come in through the sea.
Indeed nearly everything you say can be argued against: having troops there proves we can be relied upon as an ally, won’t run away from truck bombs (Beirut 1983) or public relations fiascos (Mogadishu 1993). Defeat in Iraq provokes more attacks as regimes fear strength and despise weakness.
Moreover, we have allies in Iraq who can provide “early warning” in human terms. We are sorely lacking in human intel. That mostly comes from military engagement with tribes in Anbar etc. It doesn’t just “happen” … we have in Iraq a priceless human intel capacity for ourselves that we throw away at our peril.
Both Hillary and Obama fail because they cater to the idiot-brigade of the Democratic Party, who think all problems can be solved by walking around talking fast like the West Wing. Obama fails more because Hillary understands in the General Election people won’t want to throw away victory, hard fought and now mostly won, at great cost. That the world is a dangerous place, and we ought to have something in between a few missile strikes that kill scorpions and nuclear war.
— Jim Rockford · Jan 14, 06:31 AM · #