-By Chuck Busch
Hillary may not be so smart after all or else she is betting that the rest of us are stupid. Her long anticipated announcement as a serious presidential contender was followed quickly by this revealing bombast against President George Bush and Commander in Chief in the war with Islamofacism. “I think it’s the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it – this was his decision to go to war, he went with an ill-conceived plan, an incompetently executed strategy, and we should expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office.”
She also admitted to being fooled into voting for the war before she voted against it. “So he took the authority that I and others gave him and he misused it…And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give this president that authority.”
She “really resents it!” What she really is unhappy about is the prospect that if she ever achieves the object of her ego-mania, she will inherit a preemptive militaristic foreign policy against terrorist domination of the Middle East.
No doubt she had envisioned for herself another cakewalk administration modeled after the one she had partnered in with her husband where the threat of a brutal warring dictator in Iraq was ignored. For his two terms in office, now remembered as the “holiday from history”, our draft-dodging playboy president office steadfastly and repeatedly chose not to protect this country against terrorist attacks but rather to project the façade of a “peace and prosperity” administration.
It is almost laughable that Hillary, in a manner typical of her inverted thinking would characterize President Bush as being irresponsible if he did not solve every problem in the world before leaving his administration just so she can ignore the advance of Islamofacism like her husband did. What is the “height of irresponsibility” is her now confessed unwillingness to accept the challenges of being the leader of the free world whatever they may be and the responsibility for the vote she made to go to war three years ago.
This is extreme irony. Certainly Bill Clinton did not leave the Oval Office swept and clean of any lingering complications when “W” arrived. A hostile Iraq was still a problem in 2000 and Osama bin Laden was still free to threaten the US. Nearly every crisis this country is facing today had its roots during or was perpetuated throughout the Clinton years in office including the circumstances leading up to 911. To his credit, President Bush has never complained or cast blame for the burdens that have been laid upon him and has accepted responsibility for mistakes.
It is most interesting that Hillary imprudently insists President Bush “extricate the country before he leaves office.” Her Democrat colleagues no doubt cringed at this very public disclosure of what everyone in the appeasement camp was already thinking, but didn’t want to say openly. Now that Hillary has “tipped the hand” of the Democrat strategy, the party leaders will be forced to stop pretending to want to accomplish the mission before withdrawing US troops. Why do you think Democrat leaders have been so intent on a pullout timetable anywhere from one year to the immediate? They wanted the “mess” to be cleaned up by 2008 when they take power, but were too careful to say so lest they be accused of partisanship or pacifism. Hillary has no such inhibition and has brashly stated her intentions.
A week later, Hillary reiterated this demand in an even more strident remark where she declared, “If we in Congress don’t end this war before January 2009, I will.” Besides the obvious fact that the terrorists have no interest in cooperating with her wishes, Senator Clinton’s desperation is on full display. She wants to “end” the war whether we succeed in the mission or not with no regard to cost or consequences. Hillary has made the decision to gamble her presidential stakes on the recurrent liberal anti-war position and has publicly committed herself to withdrawal from Iraq. Whereas before she stated, “Failure is not an option,” it is now absolutely necessary for her presidential aspirations.
Perhaps her hesitancy to join the race sooner was due to uncertainty about the strength of the anti-war sentiment in Congress and with the public. Now she is attempting to insure that it is there by dragging the rest of the party in that direction. With her bold statement of ending the war, she was not actually challenging the president, but issuing an order to her own party. She is exerting her control over Democrat policy-makers and has set the anti-war bar higher for the rest of the presidential candidates in the hope that they will join her in derailing the Iraq war. Her success as a presidential candidate is now predicated on moving the entire Democrat apparatus and a compliant liberal media toward a defeat of US Iraq policy in support of her. Does she hold that strong a hand with the party or is this some ego-driven audacious bluff?
Leaving is losing. Will political maneuvering trump military operations? Will surrender beat security? Hillary’s blind obsession with acquiring political power leaves little consideration of the how this divisiveness will impact our allies and our enemies. Has she ever explained why she wants to be president other than claiming to possess 20-20 hindsight? What is her plan to combat global jihad? Retreat at the first sign of difficulty? Ruthless power-hungry ambition is not a suitable qualification for the most powerful position in the world. And disunity in a time of war will jeopardize the mission and the lives of our troops on the front lines. Things can only get uglier as we approach the 2008 primaries.
The wild card in this deadly game of political poker is whether the American people will be agreeable to another US foreign policy failure orchestrated by a Democrat majority. Hillary might have overplayed her hand with the disclosure of her solid anti-war stance. The country could not withstand a female version of Bill Clinton in the White House. She has demonstrated once again her complete lack of qualification and character for high office. Hillary’s haughtiness will not substitute for statesmanship.
Truly responsible resolute members of Congress should call Hillary’s bluff and oppose such unrestrained reckless lust for power. They should not permit politics to disrupt careful deliberation on the best direction (which does not involve reverse) for success in Iraq and security for the country. More importantly, such clamor from the nation’s capital will hopefully rouse the American people from their midterm election season stupor to reject such blatant partisan discord while our troops are in the field.
____________
Chuck Busch may be contacted via email him atBuscCharles@aol.com