Jan 29 2007

Clinton Blunders Badly

Published by at 9:41 am under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions

Hillary Clinton blundered badly today, and the BDS obsessed press blindly announced to the world the blunder, in an naive expectation that Clinton was ‘speaking truth to power’ no doubt.

HILLARY CLINTON, at the beginning of her campaign for the presidency, has called on George Bush to get US forces out of Iraq by the time he leaves the White House.

Senator Clinton said it was the “height of irresponsibility” for the US President to say Iraq would remain a major issue for the next president, and she demanded that he “extricate our country” from Iraq before he left office in January 2009.

This looks and smells of cowardice. A woman has enough trouble convincing voters she has the backbone to face our problems without going spineless and demanding George Bush make life easier for her before she will step up. Condi Rice would not have made such a blunder. She knows the stakes involved, the choice of winning in Iraq now or having to do it later as part of a World War eminating from the Middle East (if we lose Iraq). And Clinton’s hands are as dirty in this as anyone’s since she voted for the Iraq war. Her claim that 20-20 hindsight would have changed her views is stupid. Who wouldn’t think differently with hindsight? Bush would have. But what this tells us is she is not only afraid of inheriting problems, she is easily cowed. Hindsight is wonderful, but it is not an excuse to turn our backs on those we led into this ‘adventure’ and run for the hills. When you go in you go in to complete the mission – nothing less.

So Hillary is afraid of the bug chair and wants Bush to make it all fluffy and comfortable for her before she would ascend to lead us Pathetic.

24 responses so far

24 Responses to “Clinton Blunders Badly”

  1. kathie says:

    Clinton and Co. left the country in great shape for Bush, she wants it back like they left it. You see Bush caused all this turmoil, they have convinced themselves of it. As if 911 was a one off event. God help us.


  2. Karig says:

    Yeah, I saw the headline this morning. It was something like “Clinton Wants Troops Out of Iraq by ’09” and all I could think of was, “Wow, that’s very convenient timing.” She might just as well have said, “Do NOT leave this mess for me to clean up after I take office!”

  3. Carol J says:

    Two points:

    “If we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give the President the authority,” she said.

    1) Bullcrud!! You were trying to look tough to get votes!


    “And I think it is the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it that he is saying the next president would have to deal with Iraq.

    2) The very same thing can be said of Bill Clinton! You FAILED in the war on terrorism for eight years and then have the nerve to criticize someone who is REALLY doing something about the mess you left him! I just re-watched the Path to 9/11 and I can tell you that the Clinton’s take irresponsibility to the state of a cult! Campaign contributions for pardons, national security secrets, sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom, and (now I find out) waivers for burials in National Cemeteries including Arlington for campaign cash?…where is your shame??? Never mind. Forgot you haven’t got any.

  4. Carol_Herman says:

    Oh, if you haven’t been to Little Green Footballs, he’s put up a poll. Following Hillary’s “answer” to how she “handles evil men.” I also learned a new word: CLENIS. (It puts Bill’s name to penis, in condensed form.) And, you had a choice. You could vote for the “evil” hillary was representing as being “clenis,” or terrorist. When I left my vote the score was 86% of the respondents were sure they saw hillary referring to her hubby’s “evil.” Whatever works, I guess.

    Also, that pink outfit did not make her look like Marilyn Monroe. It also didn’t work as a great disguise for her hips.

    Will women win with this character taking up space in a presidential race? You’re kidding me, RIIIGHT?

    Wow. What a weekend for da’ wommen. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose taken to sleeping through Oral arguments, on stage complaining she misses “O’Connor’s” sensitivity. When most people are thrilled Sandra left the table, taking her forks with her.l

    And, of course, out of retirement. None other than Jane Fonda. No longer Barbarella, she. And, all those hollywood weirdos, let loose to spray paint our Capitol’s steps. (The Capitol Steps, should go and seek a name change!)

    While, the crowd didn’t even looked “mixed” … In other words? With George Soros’ money, you can bus in “extras” … and they act like they’re in a movie for a rehash of the 1960’s.

    Then? We’re all asked if “this is working?” Hello. Subscriptions have vanished for print media. Nearly across the board. And, the major nutworks have lost viewers. (While the SuperBowl will attract ads, even though each one sells for $2.5-million apiece.) Most people? Their eyes glaze over when you discuss economics. But it’s out there. You can’t disguise it, any more than you can disguise hillary’s hips. So when you don’t see pigs flying, you can blame it on her rotund behind.

  5. Soothsayer says:

    Cognitive dissonance in the Bush Administration:

    Former U.S. envoy to the United Nations John Bolton said in an interview published in France that the United States has no strategic interest in a united Iraq. Bolton, who resigned last month from his temporary appointment as U.N. ambassador, also told the French daily Le Monde:

    U.S. President George W. Bush’s administration acted too slowly to hand power over to Iraqis after toppling Saddam Hussein in 2003. “We did a disservice to Iraqis by depriving them of political leaders,” Bolton was quoted as saying, adding that the Coalition Provisional Authority that initially ran Iraq allowed terrorists to regroup. Bolton suggested the United States shouldn’t necessarily keep Iraq from splitting up. The Bush administration and the Iraqi government have said they don’t want Iraq divided.

    Meanwhile, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, predicted today that no more than 20 senators would voice support for the president’s troop increase in Iraq when the Senate debates resolutions opposing that plan. 20 out of 100 is all the support George can muster.

    Look out ’08! I smell a landslide.

  6. ivehadit says:

    Conress is a useless group. What did they do to protect us over the past 50 years?

    Think Frank Church, think Torricelli, think think think.

    And once, again, the democrats are trying to shred our country-why?
    Personal political power grab- pure and simple.

  7. ivehadit says:

    Paraphrasing George W. Bush on NPR(according to CNN radio) : If Iran interferes in Iraq, we will respond…firmly.

    He is a man to be taken at his word. And he knows that Iran is trying to draw us in…We also have our “people” in Iran at this very moment.

  8. The Macker says:

    Hillary Clinton is a base demagogue and, true to form, is portraying the War as a Bush adventure that can coincide with his term of office. Base motives are all she knows.

    Bolton may be correct that we were too long in preparing for elections. I guess that’s 20/20 hindsight?

    What part of the words “strategic interest” don’t you understand?

    Why would you cite the US Senate as any kind of authority on foreign policy. It is held in lower repute than the President in your “opinion” polls.

    Left wing triumphalism is premature and childish, given that the “new plan” for Iraq is just being implemented.

  9. MerlinOS2 says:


    The congress is not the people.

    They are an over evaluated bunch of slush fund points of triviality.

    We exist despite them. That shows our resilience an capability of surviving.

  10. Soothsayer says:

    I take it by the “new plan for Iraq” you mean Mr. Bush’s famous “surge”? Let me share then with you:

    Serious problem in the Surge Plan

    The Bush surge plan is now being attacked by Iraq hawks, like Sen. John McCain, concerned that the split command structure for the operation violates basic military doctrine. The plan calls for U.S. soldiers to be embedded with Iraqi forces, who will take the lead. While the U.S. troops would report to American officers, their Iraqi counterparts would report to Iraqi officers. The potentially disastrous result: two separate and independent command structures within the same military operation.

    I know of no successful military operation where you have dual command

    McCain told Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last Tuesday.

    Petraeus, heralded by the Bush White House as the man who would make the surge work, signaled his agreement, telling McCain

    Sir, I share your concern.

    The American Enterprise Institute’s Frederick Kagan expressed his fears about putting the Iraqis in charge and establishing two separate chains of command.

    This is a major issue,” he said. In any military operation, dual chains of command are a problem. I think the administration has made a mistake.

  11. MerlinOS2 says:

    When I look at the declared runners for the next presidential race I can only come to one conclusion on both sides of the equation, Darwin was wrong.

  12. Terrye says:


    You moron, McCAin is not attacking the surge, just the opposite.

    And btw, considering the fact that Demcrats like Reyes and Reid can support more troops one month and then turn on a dime the next….I think that maybe they should get together and come up with an honest to God strategy other than the usual whining and reflexive bitching before they criticize Bush.

    Hillary Clinton voted for this war, and the moment undermining the mission became politically advantageous she and her party began to do just that. Obviously they want to lose.

  13. Terrye says:

    And as far as the Senate is concerned, they are not the Commander in Chief. If they want the job they should run for the office.

    BTW, only about 15% of the American people want to just pull out of Iraq and in spite of that fact many Democrats seem bound and determined to support that. So maybe they ought to rethink that whole landslide thing.

    But hey, maybe they will get lucky and there will be a really nasty attack and lots of people will get killed and they can use the misery for political gain.

  14. The Macker says:

    “Darwin was wrong.” – LOL

    Just pointing to a difficulty doesn’t mean the plan won’t work. NATO has similar issues. McCain is a patriot but hardly a military strategist. As a committee member he certainly has the right to seek information. And I don’t believe he said the plan couldn’t work.

    Defeatists can find a million reasons why a plan won’t work.

    “surge” doesn’t adequately describe the plan, but is a convenient buzz word adopted by the hostile media and “enemy within” to portray Bush as just throwing more troops in a “losing effort.”

  15. ivehadit says:

    It’s already working…even though most of the “surge” hasn’t arrived, so to speak.

    Sometimes Maliki has to hit rock bottom before he can see the top…George has given him the “opportunity”…

  16. Weight of Glory says:


    Can you think of any example of mistakes being made, by both military and civilian leadership, in regards to military opperations, that has resulted in loss of life and resources, while still being a part of an overall sucessful mission/engagement due to the will power of this nation?

    I think what bothers me the most about certain people who enter this debate about the War is not that they point out the inevitable mistakes that will be made when large nations actually DO things, but that the pointing out of mistakes is actually looked at as a legitimate argument against the War. Pointing out mistakes is not a proposition. They are the result of actualizing previous propositions. This is the current state of the Left (whether that is where you are politically, I have know way of knowing), they point out mistakes without offering conclusions or alternate propositions as to solutions. Again pointing out the existence of mistakes, (and quoting others’ recognition of mistakes, is not an argument, and can not be argued against. One can only agrue whether the mistake exists, not whether or not the ideas, which lead to the mistaken actions, were bad ideas. So, do try, when quoting sources, to draw clear conclusions that yeild propositions, which can in turn be debated.

  17. Weight of Glory says:

    Dang! I split one of my infinitives at the end! ‘Tis my bane.

  18. MerlinOS2 says:

    Soothsayer I left you an apology a few threads back.

    It doesn’t mean you are right, it only means in that instance I was wrong.

  19. Soothsayer says:


    I appreciated the apology – it was gracious – and I realize you don’t think I’m right. However, when the “surge” fails totally, adn the situation in Iraq becomes only bleaker, thanks to the incompetence of George Walker Bush, perhaps you will have the class to admit it.

    The addition of 21,000 troops is a public relations ploy that is not going to0 accomplish anything but placing more US troops in danger.

  20. Weight of Glory says:

    “However, when the “surge” fails totally, adn the situation in Iraq becomes only bleaker…”

    We push harder, signal a desire to stay even longer, continue to adapt to the situation, overwhelm our enemies to the point of their exhaustion and frustration, and wear them down. We show them and all our enemies that in the midst of failed policies and planning mistakes, we will still win. It seems as though the only war you would be willing to see through to the end is the one in which mistakes have been avoided totally. I guess what I would like to hear from you, Soothsayer, is: in the face of failure, what then. If this “surge” fails, (a conclusion, by the way, that is impossible for you to know with the certitude you expressed by saying ‘when the surge fails…’), and when the recognition of mistakes is made, what in you will come out?