Sunday, January 20, 2008
Who will best carry on the war?
According to David Brooks, the Bushies think Hillary will sustain their legacy better than any other Democrat and some of the Republicans. "She is serious on the war, serious on foreign policy." A bug, or a feature?
11 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun Jan 20, 04:31:00 PM:
I'd say it's a sad state of affairs.
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Jan 20, 05:02:00 PM:
Sorry, TH, I don't believe the hype about Hillary. She will put together a left-wing, feminist adminstration. Think Janet Reno. Think Madeleine Albright.
I've had friends in the Malibu, Beverly Hills, and New York feminist crowd for more than 30 years. I donated $10,000 to help pass the (unsuccessful) Equal Rights Amendment in the late 1970s. On a personal level I like some of the gang. But I sure as hell don't want them running the country.
Hillary is not Margaret Thatcher.
By , at
Sun Jan 20, 05:50:00 PM:
The Taliban recently overran two forts in Pakistan. I keep thinking who I would want to be US President if they capture one the the atomic weapons in Pakistan. Or if the Iranians provide Hezbollah with a weapon or even with some of the reactor fuel that the Russians are so thoughtfully providing.
"Only for peaceful purposes . . ." I don't think I will like their "peace".
Dave
By Christopher Chambers, at
Sun Jan 20, 06:19:00 PM:
The cupidity the right holds for her is creepy (indeed you, TH, have shown a very strange affinity for this lady that weirds me out only slightly less than what Pat Buchanan and Bill Kristol have been saying).
Indeed, you'd get the idea if you just came down from a year in the space station that some of your ilk would prefer her over McCain!
Certainly the Big (fill in the blank: Oil, Wall Street, Pharma, Insurance, Military-Industrial Complex, China Lovers, Hedge Fund a-holes, etc etc) prefer her over Obama and every Republican but Rudy and Romney.
By , at
Sun Jan 20, 06:52:00 PM:
slightly off topic:
The best analysisis of what we are facing in the middle east and the Iranian threat even without the nukes:
http://www.raghidadergham.com/4rdcolumn.html
By Unknown, at
Sun Jan 20, 10:24:00 PM:
I think the impression that Hillary! will somehow carry on the country's commitments that the Bush administration began is mistaken. Looking back over Bill Clinton's efforts in foreign policy, there was no "there" there. Our military actions were limited to the few occasions when 1) We had zero chance of American casualties (almost 100% air power), 2) There was a large public relations issue at stake (ie defeating genocide / ethnic cleansing / mass starvation), and 3) There had to be zero benefit to the USA so we could claim to be doing it for altruistic purposes, instead of cheap oil / base rights.
Hillary!'s foreign policy advisors are Bill's retreads (or worse). IMHO, the Clintons will only use force when it's easy and politically correct. And we all know how well politically correct defends this country.
By , at
Sun Jan 20, 11:30:00 PM:
Big media is also wetting their pants about John McCain. The old guy in the mix whose claim to fame is that he parlayed his status as son of a politician and POW into a life in politics. How an AZ senator would go soft on illegals escapes me.
I can't say I've interviewed any folks who're voting Republican and asked about how they feel about Hillary, but damn! I believe they'd vote for just about anyone running than her. We know what the Clintons stand for, and it ain't defense of this nation.
By Pax Federatica, at
Mon Jan 21, 02:09:00 AM:
I have my doubts as to whether the Bush administration really means what it's saying here. Consider this: How would the Dem base respond to a primary candidate with the endorsement by the very folks whom the base despises most of all? For all we know this could be a backhanded attempt to boost Obama in the primaries, while showing they can still play the Dems like a fiddle. "All your base are belong to us" indeed.
By Eric, at
Mon Jan 21, 09:59:00 AM:
Makes sense to me. Besides the Bushes, the Clintons are the only family with a intimate presidential memory of the escalating War on Terror. While we may fault how President Clinton dealt with Iraq and the aggressive global Islamist terrorist movement, he is the only person besides the current President Bush who can fully appreciate the situation just from the fact he had to deal with it seriously for the entire 8 year of his Presidency.
You know how many partisan Republicans like to at least partially imply that President Clinton's legacy led to 9/11? (I don't buy it because I highly doubt that a Republican president would have responded substantively differently than Clinton under the circumstances.) Well, there's a slighter parallel for the 1st attempt to collapse the WTC at the start of Clinton's presidency in 1993 which can be attributed to the legacy of the first Bush administration - and the Reagan administration - in the same way.
Don't forget that Bush's case for war and regime change in Iraq wasn't new. It was only slightly advanced from the case for war and regime change presented by President Clinton in 1998. Hillary Clinton, with Bill Clinton in tow, is the one candidate who would come into the White House without any illusions about the stakes in Iraq and history of our intervention there.
By , at
Mon Jan 21, 11:20:00 AM:
"the only family with a intimate presidential memory"
Doesn't that make anyone else uncomfortable? This is not a monarchy. This is not Lebanon. We shouldn't be voting for *anybody* based on family lineage.
Democrats derided the idea that people voted for President Bush because his father was elected President 8 years prior. How is it any better to vote for Hillary Clinton because her husband was elected President 16 years ago?
By Eric, at
Mon Jan 21, 12:05:00 PM:
dawnfire82,
"Democrats derided the idea that people voted for President Bush because his father was elected President 8 years prior. How is it any better to vote for Hillary Clinton because her husband was elected President 16 years ago?"
From that perspective, it's not. However, there is cache in the notion that Bush's foreign policy, with developmental due given to dynamic events, has been less a departure from Clinton's foreign policy than it has been the successor of Clinton's foreign policy, which itself was more successor to and less departure from the first Bush's foreign policy. Voting the former First Lady into the White House would seem to continue that unbroken line.
