Hillary's Duplicity

[Reality]

Hillary has commented that she believes GW's intention of having an interim government in place in Iraq by July 04' is designed to resolve the situation prior to the Nov. election. She has further stated that this timeframe is too soon to establish such a government, and that we should take more time in doing so.

So, Hillary and the Democrats say out of one side of thr collective mouths that we should remain in Iraq no longer than necessary, then out of the other side of thr mouths that we should stay there longer, that Iraq is not ready to be left on its own. This is partisan politics at its worst.

Obviously, GW wants Iraq somewhat stabilized prior to the election, and the Dems want Iraq to remain unstabilized until after the election. So....the real question is, which scenario is better for America? I'm going with getting our troops home sooner, rather than later. If it turns out this was a mistake, then GW will pay the price politically in Nov. anyway. In the meantime, the Dems should be working with President Bush to ensure that our troops are withdrawn ASAP. This is NOT the time to be playing politics to gain an edge in the presidential election.

[Allie62]

Wow - you should go into the Spin Doctor biz!!! Talk about twisting words and meanings....

The mess in Iraq is made, whether we agree with it or not. Iraq needs to be stable before we pull out, hopefully sooner than later. I don't think that the Dems or the Reps feel any differently on this. No one wants it to last any longer than it should. I think you need to stop reading too much into what you think you hear versus what is actually bng said!!!

[Reality]

I agree that Iraq is a mess right now-hopefully that will change as soon as an interim government is in place, and the sooner the better. But...You really don't understand the dynamics of politics, do you? If the Dems can prevent this from happening until after the 04' election, then that will be a major campaign issue that can be exploited. So politically it is in the Dems best interest to put off an interim government. Conversely, if GW can turn over control of Iraq before the election, that will wgh in his favor. ther way, it will be a campaign issue. All I'm saying is that Hillary, instead of saying that it's not feasible to do it sooner, should be working toward achieving that goal (if that is in fact her goal).

[Allie62]

First of all, please don't be so patronizing - of course I understand the dynamics of politics. But, a couple of points. #1 - I am not a consipracy theorist. #2 - Prolonging the interim government is in NO ONE'S best interest. Unlike in 1980, when the release of the Iranian hostages was delayed just a little while longer so that Reagan could get into office and boot out Jimmy Carter who actually commandeered the release negotiations! And who took credit, tho the world really knew the truth?

Our soldiers need to be home, not in the line of fire of the people whom they just "liberated". That is the firm belief of the Republicans and of the Democrats. Today, I said good-bye to a 38 year old co-worker in my Massachusetts office who is leaving his wife of 15 years and his 8 year old son and 6 year old daughter and shipping off to Iraq with the Army Reserves in the next couple of weeks - great way to spend the holidays. He should not have to go at all.

You seem to think that you can lump all Dems in one group, and all Reps in another. You seem to think that if Hillary, one Senator from one state in our union of 50 states, says boo, that she speaks for every Dem in the US. Are you so convinced (or afraid) that she's that all-powerful, that all-knowing? Not all Dems worship Hillary OR her husband. But those of us who really believe in the Democratic party and its ideologies will continue with those beliefs, no matter who has represented us in the past. I have found that the majority of people who decry partisan politics are the Reps, when they're not hearing what they want to hear.

Of course the war and its aftermath is going to be a campaign issue whether the interim rule is in place in Iraq or not, and it's going to hurt Bush the most. And the Dems aren't going to have to work too hard to encourage that to happen. Earlier this year, so many people were all gung-ho to attack, to get Saddam Hussn, and to support our president, but after no WMD were found, and Saddam (AND Osama) escaped, and it became known that Halliburton was among the corporations to be awarded no-win contracts for the rebuilding, and too many of our soldiers were murdered, that trust has waned. In a big way. The misguided arrogance of the actions of the US is biting us ALL in the a$$, and the blame is landing squarely on Bush's shoulders, as it should. And even if every remaining soldier is back home before November of '04, it'll be too late. Too many will never come home, and America - not the Dems, not the Reps, but AMERICA will never forget.

[Reality]

Well said, Allie and I agree with some of your points except laying all the blame of the Iraq mess at the feet of GW. The fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton and the Dems began much of the rhetoric about WMD and the danger of Saddam and Osama before GW took office. However, you will never convince me that Hillary does not have ulterior motives when it comes to the presidency of our country, or that she would not do anything to see the defeat of GW.

[Allie62]

Quote:The fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton and the Dems began much of the rhetoric about WMD and the danger of Saddam and Osama before GW took office.

That may be true, HOWEVER (and this is HUGE), Clinton or his administration did not act on the information, because there was not enough solid evidence to support a pre-emptory attack. On 9/27/2002, CNN reported on Bush's address to the Senate making his case for the implementation of the Dept of Homeland Security. A brief excerpt: "And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussn, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."

Five months and twenty days later, on 3/19/2003, without solid evidence of an imminent threat to the US or our interests, we rushed in and began bombing Iraq, under the guise of the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom", but I personally think (as evidenced by Bush's own off-the-cuff remark above) that revenge for Saddam's actions in the first Gulf War was a major factor. Since then, 440 Americans have been killed, 2472 Americans have been wounded, and over ten thousand Iraqis, including at l 1500 civilian women and children have been killed, even though the war was "over" on 5/1/03. Now the Iraqis that we freed are killing our troops - an insurgence of Iraqi rebels has reorganized, and today our troops are in mortal danger.

I do blame that on Bush.

As far as Hillary goes, she'll never be president. She may have ulterior motives, but it won't get her into the White House. It may help get Bush out, but that's bound to happen anyway. I wouldn't worry about her too much. Edited by: Allie62 at: 12/2/03 10:06 pm

[midgetbones]

"but after no WMD were found, and Saddam (AND Osama) escaped"

No WMD's- not yet, it is a big country and he had plenty of time to hide his unaccounted for WMD's.
And the part about Saddam and Osama escaping? Are you serious? So where did you gain the intel to make this comment?

"Clinton or his administration did not act on the information, because there was not enough solid evidence to support a pre-emptory attack"

That or he just looked the other way when evidence was supported. He is known to "look the other way" on military and inteligence matters to save his own ass. I'm sure as hell glad I do not have to serve in the military under his command.
________
Medigap advice (http://www.insurance-forums.org/medigap/)

[Allie62]

Okay, I'll attempt to explain why I said what I did:

Quote:"but after no WMD were found, and Saddam (AND Osama) escaped"

No WMD's- not yet, it is a big country and he had plenty of time to hide his unaccounted for WMD's.
And the part about Saddam and Osama escaping? Are you serious? So where did you gain the intel to make this comment?


Not YET. No WMDs YET. How much longer do we have to hear this before the ones who claim they are there finally admit "oops, maybe we were wrong..."? And it doesn't take a lot of intelligence to know that nther Saddam or Osama are in US custody, even though they've been our main targets from the beginning. I am 100% positive that intelligence has an IDEA where they are, but Saddam's forces are growing stronger and more organized every day and every few weeks or so we're hearing of new tapes of Osama rallying his troops. If they are free to continue to harm and plan to harm "the enemy", and vow a Jihad (Jihad=WWIII), in my eyes, THEY'VE ESCAPED.

Quote:That or he just looked the other way when evidence was supported. He is known to "look the other way" on military and inteligence matters to save his own ass. I'm sure as hell glad I do not have to serve in the military under his command.

Sorry, midgetbones, you should do a little research. Clinton gave more priority to terrorism than any president before him. Do you need some examples? 38 days into his administration, the WTC was bombed the first time. Currently 3 of Osama's men are in prison, quickly arrested and convicted for the crime. He didn't go chasing them with bombs, he ARRESTED them. In 1998 when terrorists attacked our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton bombed originating targets in Sudan and Afghanistan. Clinton stockpiled 40million doses of the smallpox vaccine. You should know about the thwarted terrorist plots that were discovered during the Clinton administration that never came to fruition, like the assassination of the Pope, or the plan to destroy 12 US jetliners at the same time, or attacks on UN Headquarters, the Israeli embassy in DC, airports in LA & Boston, the Holland and Lincoln tunnels...I could go on. These are the ones we know about, I'd be willing to bet that there are MANY more that are in sealed files somewhere.

After the attack of the USS Cole, Clinton put Richard Clarke, the first national antiterrorism coordinator in charge of coming up with a detailed plan to bring down Al Qaeda. Clarke presented that plan to US national security members in 12/00. They were going to target individual AQ cells and arrest members, then go after the financial funnels (like fake charities) and freeze assets, give financial assistance to countries who were under siege from these cells, and step up to systematically eliminate training camps in Afghanistan. All this would serve to break down the protective walls around Osama, and we could finally get to him.

Less than a month after that, Bush took office, and this plan, which likely could have prevented 9/11 from happening (though we will never know), was cast aside. NO priority was put on terrorism at that point - instead Bush concentrated on things like giving taxpayers "refunds" that dug the country into an even deeper deficit, and going on vacations down at the ranch, etc, etc. And 9/11 happened.

Now, WHO was looking the other way?

Edited to add: By the way, midgetbones - I just saw in another post that you served overseas in the USMC. I want to thank you deeply for that. I DO mean it sincerely. There's an opinion out there that if we don't support the war, we don't support our troops. Speaking only for myself, that couldn't be further from the truth. My ex-husband and my baby brother are both retired Army, I have dozens of friends who are USN, and one of my best friends in the world is retired USMC. An honorable and noble career, and I thank you for putting yourself out there. Edited by: Allie62 at: 12/4/03 6:36 pm