Letters to the Editor
Ricardo Malocchio
Published Letters: 151 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Her record is even worse than that memo indicates.
[Read the article: Obama camp targets Clinton experience claims]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We can all concede that HRC received every bit as much foreign policy experience as First Lady as did Laura Bush. Which is to say little more than window-dressing and cheerleading. The bigger problem for HRC - and a problem that none of her supporters have addressed - is her record as Senator.
And here we find ourselves at the nexus of the reason why Clinton should be anathema to Democrats in precisely the way Lieberman is. She is an enabler of the GOP war machine.
Let's all recall 2002, when Clinton and the vast majority of Democrats bowed to the Bush administration's war-mongering. Without so much as a whimper, Hillary cast her vote for the resolution "authorizing force in Iraq". And she did so without even bothering to read the National Intelligence Estimate. Recall that this is the very same NIE that Senator Bob Graham, D-FL, claimed changed his mind about any purported necessity to invade Iraq.
We've all seen her attempt to justify her vote. She claims she thought her vote "authorizing force in Iraq" was really to bring the inspectors back in. Seems quite a stretch to me, but let's give her the benefit of the doubt. She was fooled once, but not again... right?
Wrong. When the GOP trotted out the bill to certify the Iranian guard as a terrorist organization during last Fall's session, did Clinton see through this obvious ploy to authorize force in Iran? We all know our rules of engagement: any nation that harbors terrorists is subject to pre-emptive attack. So, Clinton votes to give Bush his justification for war, and if it weren't for good people in our intelligence community leaking the new NIE the following week, how far along would we be now? We are simply lucky that Clinton's actions enabling the GOP war machine didn't pan out. Simply lucky.
We can't allow this person to be commander-in-chief. She is either stupid, completely unprincipled, or a closeted war-monger in the Bush/McCain mold. Actions, not words... remember? And her actions have been indefensible.
-
This disastrous course was set by HRC...
[Read the article: Obama camp targets Clinton experience claims]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...and she'll pursue it to the end. She decided that her nomination is more important than the party winning in the Fall, even going so far as to clearly state that McCain is the better candidate on the most important issue facing the American public. And after the Hillarybots spent a week emasculating Obama for failing to fight back, what did you expect? Her insupportable claims and indefensible actions must now be exposed. She has drug the party down to her level... the level of dirt. It is the only playing field upon which she can win, utilizing the only tactics she can muster. It is everything we feared. And expected.
So, let's go now to HRC-saving-Bosnia meme... from the Wash Post Sleuth blog's interview of that other great foreign policy master, Sinbad (the comedian, not the sailor):
"Harrowing? Not that Sinbad recalls. He just remembers it being a USO tour to buck up the troops amid a much worse situation than he had imagined between the Bosnians and Serbs.
In an interview with the Sleuth Monday, he said the "scariest" part of the trip was wondering where he'd eat next. "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'"
Clinton, during a late December campaign appearance in Iowa, described a hair-raising corkscrew landing in war-torn Bosnia, a trip she took with her then-teenage daughter, Chelsea. "They said there might be sniper fire," Clinton said.
Threat of bullets? Sinbad doesn't remember that, either.
"I never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril, or 'Oh, God, I hope I'm going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank.'"
In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady."
Say what? As Sinbad put it: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"
Not to mention "our daughter".
-
@wayannas10
[Read the article: Obama camp targets Clinton experience claims]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...I could almost let the Iraq authorization of force vote go. I could almost understand that she let herself be swept away by the emotions of the times and (I'm presuming here) the clamoring of her constituency for war. Like I said... almost.
But it's not like she didn't get a redo. This time on Iran. And she failed that, too.
Of course, I'm speaking of the bill to certify the Iranian guard as a terrorist organization during last Fall's session. We all know our rules of engagement under the Bush Doctrine: any nation that harbors terrorists is subject to pre-emptive attack. We all understood exactly what that vote was for. So, did Clinton see through this obvious ploy to authorize force in Iran?
No. She voted to give Bush his justification for war, and if it weren't for whistleblowers in our intelligence community leaking the new NIE the following week, how far along would we be now on our march to war against Iran?
How many mulligans does she get?