PDA

View Full Version : Hillary's Badwill Tour of Iraq



Wally_in_Cincy
12-03-2003, 09:51 AM
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/12283.htm

by Dick Morris

December 2, 2003 -- SEN. Hillary Rodham Clinton has just returned from a badwill tour of Iraq, seeking to use the fašade of saluting the troops and sharing their Thanksgiving to undermine the political support for their mission.
Using Iraq as a pulpit, <font color="red">she attacked Bush for having been "obsessed with Saddam Hussein for more than a decade." </font color> If only her husband had shared that obsession, Saddam would not have been permitted to rearm with oil revenues that President Clinton let him have and freed from inspectors that the Clinton administration let him kick out.

It is fine for a U.S. senator to go to Iraq to see for herself what the conditions are over there. It is even OK to get the taxpayers to foot the bill for the trip on military aircraft. She is, after all, a member of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate.

What is not OK is to attack the president while you are there or to use your visit as a platform to criticize the war effort and the Pentagon. There is plenty of opportunity for that after one is home, out of earshot of the troops who must fight this war.

The classy thing for Hillary to have done would have been to go to Iraq, say nothing but supportive things to the troops, make a point of avoiding criticism of Bush - and then unloose a salvo on arriving home.

Hillary doubtless went to Iraq because she figured Bush would be at home eating turkey and she enjoyed the idea of the contrast. But when the president upstaged her, she shouldn't have ventured out and used the visit to attack the war effort as she was visiting it.

<font color="red"> The senator told the troops that while "Americans are proud" of them, "many question the administration's policies." Being told that you might die in a war that is under attack by people back home must be a great stimulant to combat morale. </font color> How sensitive of her to have shared that particular message with men and women who must face death to execute these policies.


<font color="red">She also made sure to plant doubts among the troops about the ability of their commanders, saying that "the obstacles and problems are much greater than the administration usually admits to." </font color>

With Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for a friend, American soldiers don't need any more enemies.

The core of Sen. Clinton's argument, echoed by her pet poodle, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), is a call for more troops for Iraq. <font color="red">"The Pentagon tried to make do with as few troops as possible," Clinton said, "as light a footprint as they could get away with. Now we're playing Catch-up." </font color> Sen. Reed, who voted against the war resolution, now wants to send even more troops as well.
Democrats are determined to make the political cost of this war more onerous and burdensome on the Republican president. By harping on the need for more manpower, they build the pressure with each combat death. If the Democrats can sell the proposition that more troops are needed, they can force Bush to move toward conscription to fill the ranks.

Fortunately, Hillary's visit was drowned out by Bush's voyage to Baghdad. The liberal media tried to couple the two visits. The New York Times' headline was "Hail to the Chief; Hail to the Senator." But the visits are hardly comparable. Bush's was designed to raise morale, Hillary's to raise objections.

<font color="blue"> Bush sought to assure the troops of the united support of the people. Hillary wanted them to know that many people objected to what they are trying to do. </font color>
Bush's message was that we will persevere in the face of terrorism. Hillary's was that this war was due to one man's "obsession."
Sen. Clinton will do anything she can to attract attention and, where possible, divert it from the Democrats who are really running for president. But this trip, at this time, in this manner, in that place was wrong politically and morally.
--------------------------------

<font color="purple">Newt's mom was right /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color>

Cueless Joey
12-03-2003, 02:29 PM
Woah, what do we have here?
Hanoi Hillary?
Maybe she flew there to steal Sadam's silverware. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
What a brilliant move by Hillary. Not!!!
She should have flown to China and raise money there for her 2008 plans.

nAz
12-03-2003, 02:48 PM
Not for nothing but Dick Morris is a D!ck.
All the troop over there and around the world watch American News channels and they know what most American and politician think of this war.and she is on the money when she says that there are not nearly enougfh troops there to properly do the job.

I think the gov. will have to start the draft back up again, which will mean the end of Dubya in 2004.

Rod
12-03-2003, 03:19 PM
If Bill hadn't of screwed around so much maybe she wouldn't be such a bitch!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif But then again maybe she just really enjoys it, most bitches do!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Keith Talent
12-03-2003, 03:45 PM
Next Dem debacle will be Draft Hillary extravaganza in Boston next summer. Her trip was just a stage-setter ... but she's going to score points by running down the war effort while troops are in harm's way?

Maybe Dem top dogs are pulling a cynical move by encouraging this ... she'd just be offered up as a sacrifice next fall and that would be the end of her career. And party might avoid an embarassing landslide that's guaranteed if one of the leading losers they've got now ends up getting the nomination.

dg-in-centralpa
12-03-2003, 07:08 PM
I wonder if we will see any response from Q? Obviously he's a democrat by the way he trashes Bush. Now that Hillary is opening her mouth, I'd like to hear his views.

DG - wasn't fond of Gore or Bush but Bush is the lesser of two evils

Qtec
12-03-2003, 10:35 PM
I,m not a big fan of Hillary but the article quoted is very misleading.

[ QUOTE ]
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday promised that America will stand with Afghanistan as it tries to rebuild after a quarter-century of conflict, and warned Taliban rebels they "are fighting a losing battle." But she also said more troops are needed to fulfill the U.S.-led coalition's goals.

The New York Democrat and former first lady, visiting U.S. troops in Afghanistan with Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, said America is impressed by the course Afghan President Hamid Karzai is taking his country, and is determined to stand with him.
"I am very impressed by the resolve of the Afghan government, President Karzai in particular," Clinton said after meeting with Karzai at the presidential palace.

She spoke in a room at the palace still pocked by decades of conflict. Two windows behind Clinton had bullet holes in them.

Clinton said Washington is concerned about a recent spate of attacks, especially in the south and east of the country. Suspected Taliban and al Qaeda have launched a ferocious campaign against aid workers, Afghan government employees and soldiers.

More than a dozen aid workers have been killed this year, most recently a 29-year-old French woman working with the United Nations refugee agency who was gunned down earlier this month south of the capital. The killing has forced the U.N. and several aid agencies to pull international staffers out of large swaths of the country.

" The U.S. is resolved to stand as a strong partner and to ensure that the terrorists, whoever they are, wherever they come from, will be dealt with ," Clinton told reporters in Kabul. "The message should be: The Taliban terrorists are fighting a losing battle."

Later, after enjoying Thanksgiving dinner with U.S. troops at Bagram Air Base, just north of the capital, Clinton said in an interview with The Associated Press that more troops are needed to defeat Taliban militants and provide the security needed to rebuild the country.

Security "faces a constant challenge from the anti-coalition forces, and the murder of the French U.N. refugee worker is a perfect example of what the Taliban and al Qaeda forces intend to do, which is to drive out international aid groups ... and try to wear down our staying power," she said. "I believe we need more troops to be able to provide that security."

Clinton said others must decide whether those additional forces are drawn from the U.S. military, NATO or the armed forces of other countries.

The two senators have been critical of the Bush administration's handling of post-combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The senators were later traveling to Iraq.

Clinton also met with a small group of Afghan women as she continued to stress the need to include women in the nation-building process.

Reed, who was making his second visit to Afghanistan and Iraq, said he looked forward to hearing from the troops about how their missions were going.

Bagram Air Base is home to most of the 11,600 coalition forces in Afghanistan. An additional 5,500 international peacekeepers patrol the capital.

Some 35 Americans have died from hostile fire in Afghanistan since the October 2001 start of the Afghan war, according to the U.S. military.

Karzai's government has taken important steps toward adopting a new constitution and holding elections.

But Karzai and the coalition forces have been criticized for failing to rein in warlords, and for allowing cultivation of poppies -- the source of heroin -- to boom.

Also Thursday, Zalmay Khalilzad, an Afghan-American, arrived in Kabul to assume his position as the new U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan.


<hr /></blockquote>

See what I mean.

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
12-04-2003, 07:22 AM
So, just as you always do, you don't address the topic. You just change it. Brilliant.

I'm saying Hillary should not be saying that crap that she said to the troops in the field. It's disrespectful and potentially demoralizing. Doesn't surprise me though.

Like Joey said, Hanoi Jane redux, albeit to a much lesser degree. But she's a freakin' SENATOR for crying out loud.

Qtec
12-04-2003, 07:57 AM
I,m not denying what she said but to whom. According to this article, her criticisms were said in an interview, not whilst addressing the troops.

Q

eg8r
12-04-2003, 08:50 AM
If you believe Bill is at fault, then I believe you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

eg8r

eg8r
12-04-2003, 08:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Q:</font><hr> According to this article, her criticisms were said in an interview, not whilst addressing the troops.
<hr /></blockquote> What part of this paragraph are you stumped on... <blockquote><font class="small">Quote segment of article:</font><hr> <font color="blue">The senator told the troops </font color>that while "Americans are proud" of them, "many question the administration's policies." Being told that you might die in a war that is under attack by people back home must be a great stimulant to combat morale. How sensitive of her to have shared that particular message with men and women who must face death to execute these policies.


She also made sure to plant doubts among the troops about the ability of their commanders, saying that "the obstacles and problems are much greater than the administration usually admits to."
<hr /></blockquote> The author states hillary said this to the troops.

Without going back and reading the article, I don't remember any mention of an interview.

This quote says it all in reference to the trip... [ QUOTE ]
Bush's was designed to raise morale, Hillary's to raise objections. <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r