On Second Thought...Again
Back in December I blogged on how
President-in-Waiting Hillary talked about how she would not have voted for the
2002 Iraq resolution "...if
we knew then what we know now...", and how hindsight is a great tool
for political revisionists.
Well apparently Hill continues to use that claim in order to try and insulate herself against internecine attacks from her own left flank. Instapundit links to an ABC news blog item about Clinton getting the once over by probable moveon.org minion...
So we see Clinton falling back on the convenient hindsight defense yet again. Of course anyone, even the President, could say the same thing. Except for the fact that it is whiny, non-presidential way to avoid taking any responsibility. But as we know the Dems are good at that. Such a display by any Presidential candidate should concern the American people who will be choosing the next leader of this country.
However, it is not Hillary's refried excuses that give me pause, it is the line after it. "Clinton also said she believed she was giving the President the authority to send U.N. inspectors to Iraq..."
First off, I will assume that she is smart enough to realize that the 2002 resolution was an "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ", and not an "AUTHORIZATION TO SEND U.N. INSPECTORS TO IRAQ". She did know what she was voting for right? Right? It is hard to tell from the reporter's inference, but lets hope she wasn't saying "I thought I was only voting to send in inspectors" If that is the case, then she is a blithering idiot.
Second, What good would giving the President authorization to send U.N. inspectors do anyhow. last time I checked, the U.S. of A. didn't control the deployment on U.N. personnel. Perhaps Hill could read up on that. Or maybe she could get briefed on it....
Third, as Hillary may have forgotten, the U.N. inspectors did in fact go in. It was the Iraqi's boorish and reprobate response to those inspections that helped President Bush decide, pursuant to the AUMF resolution, that "...reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq...."
Hillary voted for the war for all the right reasons (mainly continuing the stand that her husband's administration took for 8 years), but now has herself in a fine pickle. She could have stood up and took responsibility for an honest vote with unforseen results, which would demonstrate real Churchilian leadership qualities. But instead she has chosen the waffle, vacillate, and flop around depending on her audience.
It seemed early on that she would have taken that Churchillian high-road, to make herself strong on defense issues. But the emergence of Obama has made that aforementioned left-flank weaker than a New Orleans levee. So she appears to be doing anything she can to shore it up.
UPDATE: As usual, Ed over at Captain's Quarters has some astute and better written thoughts on this subject ...
Well apparently Hill continues to use that claim in order to try and insulate herself against internecine attacks from her own left flank. Instapundit links to an ABC news blog item about Clinton getting the once over by probable moveon.org minion...
"ABCNews' Eloise Harper reports: After fielding many questions ranging from mental health care to veteran affairs at a Town Hall Meeting in Hampton, NH, Senator Hillary Clinton received a heated question about Iraq. A woman who had traveled from New York asked Sen. Clinton if she had read the report given to her in 2002 on intelligence and the Iraq war.
Clinton said she had been briefed on the report, and the woman screamed back, "Did you read it?!" Notably uncomfortable, the Senator repeated that she had been briefed. This exchange went back and forth about three times.
The woman sat down and Clinton explained, "If I had known then what I know now, I never would have voted to give this President the authority." Clinton also said she believed she was giving the President the authority to send U.N. inspectors to Iraq.
When Clinton finished the answer, the woman continued to scream but was drowned out by applause for the Senator. The woman was escorted out of the building."
So we see Clinton falling back on the convenient hindsight defense yet again. Of course anyone, even the President, could say the same thing. Except for the fact that it is whiny, non-presidential way to avoid taking any responsibility. But as we know the Dems are good at that. Such a display by any Presidential candidate should concern the American people who will be choosing the next leader of this country.
However, it is not Hillary's refried excuses that give me pause, it is the line after it. "Clinton also said she believed she was giving the President the authority to send U.N. inspectors to Iraq..."
First off, I will assume that she is smart enough to realize that the 2002 resolution was an "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ", and not an "AUTHORIZATION TO SEND U.N. INSPECTORS TO IRAQ". She did know what she was voting for right? Right? It is hard to tell from the reporter's inference, but lets hope she wasn't saying "I thought I was only voting to send in inspectors" If that is the case, then she is a blithering idiot.
Second, What good would giving the President authorization to send U.N. inspectors do anyhow. last time I checked, the U.S. of A. didn't control the deployment on U.N. personnel. Perhaps Hill could read up on that. Or maybe she could get briefed on it....
Third, as Hillary may have forgotten, the U.N. inspectors did in fact go in. It was the Iraqi's boorish and reprobate response to those inspections that helped President Bush decide, pursuant to the AUMF resolution, that "...reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq...."
Hillary voted for the war for all the right reasons (mainly continuing the stand that her husband's administration took for 8 years), but now has herself in a fine pickle. She could have stood up and took responsibility for an honest vote with unforseen results, which would demonstrate real Churchilian leadership qualities. But instead she has chosen the waffle, vacillate, and flop around depending on her audience.
It seemed early on that she would have taken that Churchillian high-road, to make herself strong on defense issues. But the emergence of Obama has made that aforementioned left-flank weaker than a New Orleans levee. So she appears to be doing anything she can to shore it up.
UPDATE: As usual, Ed over at Captain's Quarters has some astute and better written thoughts on this subject ...
Posted: Sun - April 15, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Quick Links
Email me: majorchaz at mac dot com
BTW - I am no longer deployed to Qatar. I am safe and sound back in the U.S. For now....
New On The Shelf
Currently Reading
BLOGROLL
Military Links
Department of Defense
United States Air Force
Defense Tech Blog
CENTCOM
Red Sox Links
Boston Dirt Dogs
Fire Brand of the AL
Over The Monster
Boston Globe Sox Stories
Boston Sports Guy
Sox Podcasts
Corn, Gordon, & Flanagan
The Original Red Sox Podcast
Beer Links
Beer RSS
The Beer Advocate
Beertown
Basic Brewing
Craft Beer Radio
Big Foamy Head
Beer Goons
The Good Beer Blog
The Beer Mapping Project
A Roughneck's Take On Beer
Thom's Beer Blog
AF Reading List
Our Military Heritage
Our Air Force Heritage
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Site Meter Web Counter
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 15, 2007 11:57 AM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 15, 2007 11:57 AM