HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Jan. 29, 2007 That word would be “Coward”. The article on today’s radar is: “Sen. Clinton to Bush: 'Extricate' U.S. From Iraq Before Leaving Office, Sunday, January 28, 2007 (AP) which begins: “Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday that President Bush has made a mess of Iraq and it is his responsibility to "extricate" the United States from the situation before he leaves office. It would be "the height of irresponsibility" to pass the war along to the next commander in chief, she said.” And not a more idiotic and patently cowardly sound bite could have been emitted from the blond nut-bag who thinks she is going to be the next Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces she is striving so hard to see defeated on the field of battle! Another cowardly quotation: “"This was his decision to go to war with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy," the Democratic senator from New York said her in initial presidential campaign swing through Iowa .”We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office" in January 2009, the former first lady said.” The “ill-conceived plan” was approved by a 60 nation coalition, the American Congress and the United Nations. It took a total of 4 months from the date of United Nations’ resolution 1441 until the first shots were fired in anger at a dictator who ignored 16 previous resolutions over a span of 12 previous years. Members of the United States Congress on both sides of the isle and the former American President gave speech after repetitious speech concerning the dangers posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs. The “incompetently executed strategy” subdued the Iraqi Army and ousted Hussein from power in a few short days with little loss of American life. Who is this “WE” that “EXPECT” President Bush “to extricate our country from this [war] before he leaves office”? I expected the former democrat president to take control of a group of terrorists that bombed two American embassies in Africa, attempted to sink a U.S. Naval vessel in Aden and attacked the World Trade Center in 1993 with a massive truck bomb. I expected the threat of Osama bin Laden to be nullified any one of the three times that Islamic fool’s head was offered to Clinton on a Sudanese platter. More from the AP article: “ Clinton held a town hall-style forum attended by about 300 activists…Pressed to defend her vote to authorize force in Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, Clinton responded by stepping up her criticism of Bush.”I am going to level with you, the president has said this is going to be left to his successor," Clinton said. "I think it is the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it." This was apparently a response to comments by President Bush in a recent interview: “Bush describes Iraq as the central front in the global fight against terrorism that began after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”The war on terror will be a problem for the next president. Presidents after me will be confronting ... an enemy that would like to strike the United States again," he recently told USA Today.” Why would Hillary “resent” the fact that radical Islamism has been shown for the true enemy of America it is? Radical Islamism has been warring against America for more than 30 years over the span of several presidencies. Hillary Clinton expects to be the next president by some sort of default. She “resents” that she is a coward who doesn’t know how to control a military. She “resents” that her husband was a draft dodger who cut the military fully in half during his administration out of spite for his inability to allow gays to serve openly and a need to balance a budget without cutting social programs. She “resents” the point that should she be elected the next president of the United States it would become her major responsibility to keep America safe in the conduct of war rather than be able to concentrate on her pet socialist agenda, nationalized health care. The meeting was attended by “300 activists”. That is explanation for the “stepped up criticism” of the President. You only score brownie points with activists by calling President Bush names. The one question with more meat than fluff was shrugged off by Clinton as a joke. Quoting: “One questioner asked Clinton if her track record showed she could stand up to "evil men" around the world.” To which Clinton replied: "The question is, we face a lot of dangers in the world and, in the gentleman's words, we face a lot of evil men and what in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men," Clinton said. She paused to gaze while the audience interrupted with about 30 seconds of laughter and applause.” In other words she not only didn’t answer the question but later tried to shift the answer to the question back on to the current president: “Meeting later with reporters, she was pressed repeatedly to explain what she meant. She insisted it was a simple joke. She told reporters that evil men included Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden, who remains at large. "Isn't it about time we get serious about that?" she said.” The time to “get serious” about bin Laden was when first confronted with the threat. Clinton never got serious and Hillary never pestered Bill about getting serious. They let him off with a couple of strong rebukes that bin Laden laughed at while being emboldened to hatch the 9/11 attack against the American homeland. More from the article: “During the town hall meeting, she tried to make clear that she thinks she would be a chief executive with enough fortitude to confront any danger facing the country.”I believe that a lot in my background and a lot in my public life shows the character and toughness that is required to be president," Clinton said…” “Character and toughness” in allowing another woman to conduct a 12 year affair with her husband, in failing to protect or defend the women that were attacked by her husband, in hiding the Rose Law Firm records from investigation and scrutiny, in reading the confidential FBI files of political opponents. Yes, there is “a lot in [her] background and a lot in [her] public life” showing “character and toughness”, but it is more in keeping with being a bar-room-brawler than the Commander-In-Chief of the world’s senior super-power. More from the AP: “At virtually all her stops in [ Iowa ], she ran into questions about her Iraq vote. She says Bush misled Congress and she now wants a cap on the number of troops, as well as beginning a "phased redeployment" of troops from Iraq .” Assuming Clinton even knows what a “phased redeployment” involves, to cap troop strength is to admit nothing more can be done. It is to give up on the President’s latest plan before even allowing any chance of success. It is to quit action against an inferior force. It is to be the “paper tiger”. The White House responded in that it was: “…disappointing that Clinton was responding to Bush's new war strategy "with a partisan attack that sends the wrong message to our troops, our enemies and the Iraqi people who are working to make this plan succeed." "The height of irresponsibility," spokesman Rob Saliterman said, "would be to cap our troop numbers at an arbitrary figure and to cut off their funding." But this does not matter to the woman who would be king. She wants no part of defending America against radicalism in any form other than perhaps Branch Davidians. She doesn’t mind sending any “wrong message” as long as it generates votes in her favor. She had her husband pardon Puerto Rican terrorists to cement her election into New York politics. Nothing is beyond the law when it comes to obtaining the ultimate American seat of political power. More from the AP: “Clinton defended the role that Congress has played, saying newly empowered Democrats are beginning to build pressure on Bush to act, but the public needs to be patient. "We are at the beginning of a process," Clinton said. "It's a frustrating process, our system is sometimes frustrating." The Congress is calling longer and harder for retreat and defeat of American forces in Iraq . They are “frustrated” because President Bush would rather see victory than another black eye for America ’s military efforts. The nation is at war, but the liberal side of Congress, of which Clinton is a major mouthpiece, wants no part of war, victory, or a strong military deterrent against radical Islamism. Finally from the article: In making the case for her candidacy, Clinton cites her years as first lady, when Bill Clinton was president for two terms, and two winning campaigns for the Senate. "I believe that my qualification and my life experience equip me to hit the ground running in January of 2009," Clinton said. "I have a unique perspective having been in the White House for eight years and understanding the challenge that comes from trying to govern our great country." She wants to “hit the ground running” probably away from American responsibilities to Iraq , should she inherit those. She cites “her years as first lady” as some sort of qualification for the highest political office probably due to the reception of her plagiarized tome “It Takes A Village”. Her “unique perspective” is mainly that of a woman who refused to allow the sexual escapades of her husband to overshadow her single-minded obsession to become America ’s first madam president. She did face challenges in the White House. She fired all the White House Travel Office personnel and replaced them with unqualified friends of her husband. She had difficulty finding hiding places for law firm records and FBI files. She fought countless battles against the testimonies of women attacked and fondled by her errant hubby. She had things so tough during her fund-raising days as first lady that she believes we should forego the vote and declare her president by judicial fiat. She can’t take the hard questions. She has no issues and no plans. She could never be an effective Commander In Chief of a military she despises. She is a coward riding simply on a name with no true political record of distinction. ------------ About the Author: Michael John McCrae has contributed over 700 articles to Useless-Knowledge.com. Email: macswordV@hotmail.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
