Dr. Dolittle, call the DNC!
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-Carpetbaggia) reverses Democrat course.
The Bush administration has been insufficiently unilateral:
In an address Wednesday evening at Princeton University, Clinton, D-N.Y., said it was a mistake for the United States to have Britain, France and Germany head up nuclear talks with Iran over the past 2 1/2 years. Last week, Iran resumed nuclear research in a move Tehran claims is for energy, not weapons.
“I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and chose to outsource the negotiations,” Clinton said.
How can a Kerry voter be criticizing the idea of having our European allies on side? Wasn’t this (aside from serving in Vietnam) the Democrat platform in the 2004 presidential election? Haven’t we had unrelenting criticism of Bush for “going it alone” and “losing international credibility?” Didn’t John Kerry say the way to solve these problems was to involve the UN and our allies? Apparently, that’s only a wise plan until Bush does it. First, it’s good to have the French and Germans on board, and then it’s bad.
“Downplay the threats?” Now we’re supposed to act before a threat becomes imminent?
And what an insult to our allies – “outsourced.” The international community is certain to lose respect.
Bush’s mistake was saying to the EeYew, “Well, guys, you wanted to be involved and we’re a bit busy at the moment with Afghanistan and Iraq. How about you take care of the negotiations with Iran? That’s what they tell me you’re good at, and after all, it’s you guys who are in missile range and have huge unassimilated Muslim populations. If you need any backup, let me know. You can count on the United States in the Security Council”
Ms. Rodham also weighed in on women’s rights in the Middle East:
She applauded nations such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for making recent gains in women’s rights.
Good point, Hillary, women in Saudi Arabia can now vote in municipal elections if they can find a man to drive them to the polls and have their husband’s permission. Kuwaiti women are all too aware of the third through sixth letters in their country’s name. That’s worthy of including in your speech about Bush’s “failure” with Iran.
Ms. Clinton did not mention the women who have been voting in droves in national elections in the nascent democracies of Afghanistan or Iraq – where NOW is urging a boycott of the Constitution.
She is proposing troop withdrawal, however:
She called for the United States to reduce the number of American troops in Iraq, leaving a smaller strike force.
“This will help us stabilize their government and will send a message to Iran that they do not have a free hand despite their personal and religious connections,” she said.
I missed the bit where she said “withdraw the troops to Iran“. That would have the effect she predicts. Any other withdrawal from Iraq, a state bordering Iran, seems less likely to send that particular message.
If the Iraqi Shiites are beholden/aligned/sympathetic to Iran, then it seems we’d want to provide a counterweight and promote nationalism. If Iraqis are not so burdened, it seems like we’d want to provide support and promote nationalism. Or, we could “redeploy” to a nearby country and attract increased Islamist angst and car-bombings there.
Clinton said that the United States has an important role in stabilizing the Middle East, in part because America offers a brand of optimism that can make a difference.
Would this be the optimism of John Murtha, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy and others who’ve called our military “exhausted terrorists who can’t win”? Maybe she meant the GOP and Joe Lieberman offer a brand of optimism. If so, that’s what she should have said.
There was also this gem:
“History has weighed heavily on the Middle East. What we have tried to do over the last 30 years, starting with President Carter, moving through other presidents, including my husband, and now this president, is to send a uniquely American message: `It can get better. Just get over it.'”
Jimmy Carter?
Jimmy Carter, US architect of the fall of the Shah of Iran? The same Jimmy Carter who presided over 444 days of American Embassy staff held as hostages by Iranian Islamofascists? Jimmy Carter, the President who demonstrably “lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats?”
Jimmy Carter, unauthorized private citizen, who went to North Korea at the behest of the psychotic Kim Il Sung? Jimmy Carter, who once there “negotiated” nuclear development “restrictions” that made the US a laughingstock? Jimmy Carter, who did this while Hillary’s husband was President?
Jimmy Carter, of “bash the US” Nobel Prize fame?
Jimmy Carter, who, contrary to “it can get better”, told us “it is only going to get worse?”
Why would she demean the word “optimism” by mentioning his name?
Nonetheless, Hillary can perhaps take comfort that she is neither alone, nor even covering all the ultra-pragmatic triangulation territory. Victor Davis Hanson has a well written summary further defining the logical chicanery that surrounds the Battle of Iraq and the War on Radical Islam.
We were once slandered as hegemonic; but when we didn’t steal anything in Iraq, and instead spent billions in aid, suddenly we were called naive by the now realist Left.
The war was caricatured as all about grabbing oil. Then when the price skyrocketed, we were dubbed foolish for tampering with the fragile petroleum landscape, or with not charging Iraqi price-gouging exporters for our time and services…
Prewar forecasts warned a worried public that we might lose 3,000-5,000 soldiers just in removing Saddam. Three years later, we have removed him and sponsored a democracy to boot, and at far less than those feared numbers. But we react as if we had faced unexpected numbers of casualties. [Not to mention predictions of a million refugees and three hundred thousand civilian deaths.]
Despite the fact that al Qaedists were in Kurdistan, Al Zarqawi was in Saddam’s Baghdad, terrorists like Abu Abas and Abu Nidal were sheltered by Iraqis, and recent archives disclose that hundreds of Iraqi terrorists were annually housed and schooled by the Baathists, we are nevertheless assured that there was no tie between Saddam and terrorists. Those who suggest there were lines of support are caricatured as liars and Bush propagandists.
Hanson’s piece is worth reading in its entirety just to refresh your memory of how the Left adopts – then sheds – then adopts – any argument, however contradictory it may be with the previous idée du jour fixée, just so long as the necessity and conduct of the war on terror are made amenable to Democrat political aspirations.
Make no mistake, that’s exactly what New York‘s junior Senator is doing.