This Is Not a Game, People!

Hillary: I didn't vote for 'pre-emptive war'

By JOHN DISTASO
Senior Political Reporter

Friday, February 9^th, 2007

Manchester – New York Sen. Hillary Clinton today insisted her 2002 vote for a resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq was “not a vote for a pre-emptive war,” but was instead a show of support for further United Nations-directed weapons inspections.

The Democratic presidential front-runner has been criticized by hard-line anti-war groups for making that vote more than four years ago and for not apologizing now, as fellow candidate John Edwards has done.

“I will let others speak for themselves,” she said in a telephone interview from Washington.

…

Clinton said Bush and his administration “have performed a great disservice to our men and women in uniform, to our country, to our vital national security interests in the region and to the ongoing struggle against Islamic extremists.”

Clinton spoke with UnionLeader.com and the New Hampshire Union Leader on the eve of her first campaign visit to the first-in-the-nation primary state this weekend.

She said she does not “at this time” support a cut in funding for American troops in Iraq. She backs instead a cut in funding for Iraqi troops.

“We have got to get their attention,” she said of the Iraqi leadership. She said they “do not fulfill their promises and make “worthless” assurances. (Read More)

Meanwhile…

Obama declares candidacy for US presidency in 2008

dpa German Press Agency
Published: Saturday February 10, 2007

Washington- US Democratic Senator Barack Obama Saturday announced officially his candidacy for the US presidential election in 2008. Announcing his presidential bid to rapturous crowds on his home turf of Springfield, Illinois, Obama, 45, a fast-rising African- American, pledged to free the US "from the tyranny of war".

"America, it's time to bring our troops home," he said. (Read More)

Hillary Clinton is playing word games with the lives of both Iraqis and American soldiers. She believes that she can play both sides. That she can continue intellectually dishonest prattle of how she would deal with an insignificant Iraqi government differently; while also believing that with a wink, the activist left will trust her in her efforts to triangulate.

Obama may be a latecomer to John Murtha’s party; however he is currently the only mainstream candidate who has advanced legislation calling for a withdrawal. He also holds distinction as being in the minority of candidates who did not vote for the resolution to give Bush authorization, as well as voicing clear disapproval of the impending invasion. Clinton attempts to insinuate that she was never enthusiastically supporting invading Iraq, but unfortunately for her, the modern world has things like video cameras, tape recorders, and reporters with notebooks:

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”

Hillary Clinton, United States Senate, October 10^th, 2002

The importance of our current context requires that Clinton admit that not only was the Iraq policy flawed, but that her support of it was a mistake. Without a clear disavowal of her previous position, she cannot be trusted to not make similar errors in the future. Indeed, even as the Iraq war rages, another unnecessary confrontation looms in the horizon.

Hillary Clinton calls Iran a threat to U.S., Israel

The Associated Press

Published: February 1, 2007

NEW YORK: Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

…

Clinton, the front-runner for her party's presidential nomination, called for dialogue with foes of the United States, saying Iran "uses its influence and its revenues in the region to support terrorist elements."

"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she said. (Read More)

The reason why Hillary Clinton is dangerous is because she views and utilizes war as a political tool. Everyday as the Iraq war degrades, and the mice jump off the sinking ship; her triangulations and wordplay only go further to ensuring her defeat in either the primary or general election.

Some issues require tests of personal integrity over political expediency; and Clinton consistently fails every one. The Iraq War is not just unpopular; it represents a world view and ideology that Americans have grown to understand is wrong. Clinton’s dogged persistence in supporting it is both immoral, and a miscalculation. As was so eminently clear in November, we are entering into a new age of American liberalism, and this Thatcher clone is unfit to carry our banner.