Today's Sunday Globe has an article, Tough talk drives Clinton effort, and from the opening sentence, you can see where this one is going.
Facing liberal bloggers last weekend, Hillary Clinton reminded the crowd that she experienced firsthand the sickening smell and taste in the air at the World Trade Center site after Sept. 11, 2001.
That's right. Hillary Clinton, like Rudolph Giuliani, knows what 9/11 smells like. And it smells like... codpiece.
At Tuesday night's debate sponsored by the AFL-CIO, she sounded like the elder statesman, painting Obama as rash for raising the possibility of unilateral action against terrorists in Pakistan, without saying what she herself would do. "You can think big," she said. "But remember you shouldn't always say everything you think if you're running for president, because it has consequences across the world."
Funny how Hillary Clinton doesn't have a problem with telegraphing messages to Iran.
If last December's elections lead to a successful Iraqi government, that should allow us to start drawing down our troops during this year while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safe areas with greater intelligence and quick-strike capabilities. This will help us stabilize that new Iraqi government. It will send a message to Iran that they do not have a free hand in Iraq despite their considerable influence and personal and religious connections there.
But even better than the threat of permanent military bases is the threat of turning Iran into a glass parking lot.
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.
Nevermind that Iran is 10 years away from building nuclear weapons.
A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.
Hillary Clinton is continuing the Bush Administration model of projecting force in Iraq and Iran while showing deference to tyrannical regimes in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, you know where all the 9/11 hijackers came from? Do we really want more of this same old geopolitical bullshit?
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.
In her own words,
If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from
No apology, eh? She sounds resolute.
Yet Clinton is doing surprisingly well among antiwar Democrats, leading Senator Barack Obama 51 percent to 29 percent among those who want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq -- which isn't even her position -- according to a Washington Post/ABC poll last month.
Partly, that is because she is seen as the most electable Democrat and because she has managed so far to repudiate the war without apologizing for her vote to authorize it.
Most electable Democrat. Hmm... where have I heard that before?
Thankfully, Andrew Bacevich, who actually knows something about this subject and has actually felt a tremendous sacrifice in the name of the Iraq War, is given a say on Clinton's credentials,
Bacevich, who spoke out against the Iraq war long before his soldier son was killed by a bomb there in May, said that knowledge and preparation are distinct from wisdom and judgment. Clinton's 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war -- heavily criticized by her opponents and liberal bloggers -- "is a small but damning piece of evidence" about her wisdom, he said.