Hooo boy. via MSNBC per the Washington Post.
So much is wrong with this i almost don't know where to begin. Let's start with a summary statement:
Liz Cheney gives Sen. Hillary Clinton a courtesy clap for being a woman and running for President, and then attacks her for not having "spine" for the Iraq debacle.
from MSNBC story:
"Anyone who has watched her remarkable trajectory can have no doubt that she'll do whatever it takes to win the presidency. I wish she felt the same way about the war," Liz Cheney, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, said in an opinion article in The Washington Post.
Yes. Indeed. She'll do whatever it takes to win the presidency, instead of running on the high moral ground her father and W. ran on in 2000 and 2004. And apparently Sen. Clinton's views finally coming into line with that of the majority of the public and the majority of her constituents represents doing whatever it takes. God forbid she actually listened to the voters that elected her. In a weird way it implies that if it weren't for her attempt at the presidency that Hillary might be all for this flawed, widely criticized meaningless troop increase. Which, honestly, i highly doubt.
The next part of the MSNBC article, and Liz Cheney's op-ed piece is the best to me:
"I suppose Hillary Clinton's announcement was a sign of progress. In 2007, a woman can run for president and show the same level of courage and conviction about this war of her male colleagues have," Cheney wrote. "Steel in the spine? Not so much."
Yes, Hillary's announcement was definitely a sign of progress for women everywhere. That she can run for President, my how far women have come. How very noble of you to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton is a woman forming an exploratory committee to run for President of the United States of America. Except this was a sign of progress in 1999 when Elizabeth Dole ran for President (remember that?) She actually waited until after the Iowa Caucuses to withdraw, so, maybe google before you start typing?
And the last part quoted in the MSNBC article:
"In fairness, Clinton, with her proposal for arbitrary caps on troop levels and hemming and hawing about her vote for the war resolution, has company on both sides of the aisle," Cheney wrote.
"Let's be clear: If we restrict the ability of our troops to fight and win this war, we help the terrorists," she wrote.
No, let's be PERFECTLY clear: the number is NOT arbitrary. It's not a number pulled out of thin air. The number represents the current troop levels on the ground. And there's a reason there's questions about the latest escalation in on both sides of the aisle. Because the strategy is flawed. They're trying to prevent more people from being blown up needlessly.
They are NOT restricting the ability of our troops to fight and win this war. The military targets have been accomplished for years. Right now we are policing a civil war. In order to "win" the war in the terms that Liz Cheney is talking about, according to most experts and generals, you would need FAR MORE TROOPS than Bush is proposing to send. And in this political climate, with all of the poll numbers so low, that will not happen.
We are NOT helping the terrorists win. By all accounts we're dealing with "sectarian violence" in Iraq. Nobody associates the war in Iraq with the war on terror no matter how many times you say it. The "war on terror" is like the "war on drugs" and so on. There is no battlefront, all you can do is hope to stem the tide.
I can't believe i'm actually writing in defense of Hillary Clinton. Out of all of our presidential candidates I like her the least. She's been too hawkish on the war and too DLC friendly for my taste.
No comments:
Post a Comment