Poll after poll indicate that the American People want out of Iraq by an overwhelming margin. Clearly, that was the message sent by the American people in November's elections. Moreover, it's clear that our presence in Iraq furthers neither our interests nor those of the Iraqi people. Iraq is the issue that kills the Republican Party.
So why is Sen. Clinton attacking those Democrats who favor withdrawal from Iraq with Republican talking points?
Right now, and things most likely will change, there are three major contenders for the Democratic nomination: Obama, Clinton and Edwards.
One had the wisdom and foresight to oppose the war from day one, one has the sense and courage to admit his initial support of the war was a mistake and one not only hasn't admitted she made a mistake, but is questioning the judgment of the other two candidates on this issue.
To make things worse, she is using the Rovian tactic of suggesting that those who were against the war or who favor rapid disengagement or even just oppose escalation are soft on terrorism. Even though its clear that attacking Iraq and staying in Iraq weakens our ability to fight terrorism and has in fact been a bonanza for Al Queda.
Is that the kind of leadership our country needs?
Does the fact that Senator Clinton supported one of our nation's worst blunders and has apparently not yet learned from her mistake, reflect positively on her ability to make wise decisions if she were elected to the Presidency of the United States?
Does the Democratic Party want to abandon the issue that won it the last election?
1 comment:
Highly wordy for you, Steve, evoking a response.
Democrats decided to either elect a woman or commit Hairy-Kerry (forgive me, lol), or elect an African-American and have determined that Bush-abhorrance is at a level that would tolerate even the most maddening untested, unlegitimized candidate. Oy VAY!!
Ok, breathe.
Now, what is remaining is to make sense of what Hillary is doing. I can tell you, as a woman of some strength of character, that claiming I was wrong would be out of the question. What she was wrong about was trusting the information provided and the sources of information (possibly equally damaging).
As a "data excavator", I can say that I never, ever use only one source.
Post a Comment