| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| ‘The New War' |
| 2007-08-22 |
| As Democrats scramble in the wake of the realization that President Bush's surge is working in Iraq, Senator Clinton is suddenly talking about preparing to fight a new war. She's always been a master at hedging her bets, but her speech Monday to the Veterans of Foreign Wars where she admitted that the surge she opposed is "working," beats all. In the same breath she added, "We're just years too late in changing our tactics We can't ever let that happen again We can't be fighting the last war. We have to keep preparing to fight the new war." New Yorkers can take that to mean that, for all her flailing, she will press for passage of the retreat she has sought to legislate, the Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction of 2007. She co-authored the measure, which, her campaign Web site says, "will end the war before the next president takes the oath of office." Like every other Democrat running for president, Mrs. Clinton opposed the troop surge she now concedes is working. Some of her other legislative meddling would cap the number of troops in Iraq to pre-surge levels. So what exactly is going on here? It turns out that General Petraeus has been masterful in presenting the data of the military campaign to both Democrats and Republicans. He has made it clear that the president understands that his mission requires bipartisan tolerance, if not support from both parties. Another thing that is happening is that for the first time Iraqi sheikhs of both the Sunni and now Shi'ia stripe are joining arms with our GIs against Al Qaeda, the Iranian terror network, and the followers of Moqtada al Sadr known as Jaish al Mahdi. All of these entities have sought to destroy any hope for a stable Iraqi democracy from day one, but in the case of Iran and Mr. Sadr it took nearly three years to unleash the military against the Mullah terror masters in Iraq. The new strategy in Iraq also commits our soldiers to protecting civilians and openly patrolling with Iraqi security forces the neighborhoods we left to the terrorists in 2005 and 2006. This means that the daily revenge killings and the ethnic cleansing are stalling. Baghdad may not be safe -- yet -- but in many swaths normal life is returning and with it the prospect of political reconciliation. Neither Senator Clinton nor Senators Levin and Durbin and other Democratic party leaders are fools. They understand that the new strategy in Iraq presents the best chance we've had in a long time to leave Iraq better than we found it, which the Left needs to be forever reminded was a failed state in every sense of the word. Yet we have not won just yet. General Petraeus next month will say many things, but we hear one of his key points will be to say how fragile the progress in Iraq really is. Should Congress pull the plug on him now, we would be betraying the best allies we've ever had against Al Qaeda and Iran, pro-American Muslims. So what exactly then is this 'new war' that Mrs. Clinton says we ought to be preparing to fight? And how does she think we will win it if we just allow our current allies in Iraq to be slaughtered by the enemies we will have to fight elsewhere if they drive us from Iraq? And how are the Democrats going to lead in a new war after beating the drums so avidly for retreat in the current fight? The truth is Mrs. Clinton doesn't believe all the clap trap she's been spooling to her party's base. We hear that in private conversations with military brass, she pointedly says she will not run the war, if elected, as she promises to during the campaign -- which is one of the most astounding things we've heard of late. Once the primaries are done and the general election approaches and as we rack up more success in Iraq, Mrs. Clinton's handlers will bend over backwards to emphasize these hawkish qualifications she placed in the speeches when she was trying to woo those Americans who believe the president and his top advisers are war criminals. At some point, Mrs. Clinton will have to take on the left wing of her party. And that is going to be some donnybrook. It's conceivable that it will turn out to be the new war about which the senator is suddenly talking. She will certainly need to win it if she is going to abandon her commitment to retreat and seek to lead our troops to victory in Iraq and beyond. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #10 She would sell her country and her mother for power. In a New York Minute™ and both for a plug nickel. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-08-22 22:12 |
| #9 "Changing our tactics..." ala TOWNHALL/WEEKLY STANDARD > "THE DAY PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON SURRENDERS AMERICA"??? Artiiikle - IOW, let the future USSA = anti-US OWG "Negotiate" Amer's problems away, espec on when is America Amerika. Let the OWG-NWO decide when to save Amerikans from Americans. * "Sell out her mother and country for power" > wel-l-l, thats what God = Law of Unintended Consequences, Probabilities, Asteroids,......... .................@etal is good for. GOD IS DEAD article > World will find out starting on a certain 12/8th known to Madonna-Headbangers Ball fans, Nostradamus, and Guam Taotamonas from the 1960's/70's, etal. First off though, a specific fiery object has to fly over WESTPAC but not strike the Region or Earth. *D *** nged MCDONALD'S DOUBLE-MEAT BIGMACS/MEGA-MACS! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-08-22 18:59 |
| #8 "She would sell her country and her mother for power." The big question is would she sell Bill for power? |
| Posted by: kelly 2007-08-22 18:26 |
| #7 I second that, OldSpook. Most of Washington needs to be gutted and rebuilt. For the sake of our shrinking culture we must keep the word alive on the net and radio until we can get enough real Americans on TV to steer America to better days through honest leaders. I remain optomistic on America. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-08-22 15:33 |
| #6 " Iraqi sheikhs of both the Sunni and now Shi'ia stripe are joining arms with our GIs" Part of the DIA were pushing for this a couple YEARS ago, but the bright boys at State and CIA were having none of it. The CIA needs to be cleaned out and rebuilt. Same with state. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-08-22 13:50 |
| #5 Hillary, Ha, the more I think about her, the more I realize she is an insignificant birdbrain with hollow MSM support and little else. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-08-22 11:23 |
| #4 As long as the New War involves destroying Carthage once and for all. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-08-22 09:58 |
| #3 She is a true politician. She would sell her country and her mother for power. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-08-22 09:36 |
| #2 get rid of that Celine Dion crap - I have a new suggestion for Hildabeast's campaign theme: "Shameless" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-08-22 09:30 |
| #1 ...speechless... |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-08-22 08:26 |