Roger L. Simon: Something "new" from Assad/ something "old" from Hillary

Alert the media, media. Syrian president Assad, just back from a visit to his Iranian sometimes buddies, said: "Through effort and co-ordination we have to enlighten public opinion about the ominous aims of the US and Zionists." Hmm... seems to me that's what they've been doing morning, noon and night for the last fifty years but... well, at least Bashar didn't have to hire a speechwriter for that one.

Meanwhile, Hillary wants us to start moving out of Iraq in 90 days. Do you think she really believes what she says? I don't. I think she's actually smarter than that and she is trapped in a sad game, caught between her own ambitions and the maneuverings of the Murtha Mafia. Not exactly a Profile in Courage.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

I sympathize with Hillary Clinton. She probably doesn't believe her silly anti-war stance now (there is ample evidence that she does not), but she's in the same bind that Rudy Giuliani is in. Both have to appease their bases for primary season and are becoming incoherent because of it.

If both Guiliani and Clinton win their respective nominations, both will probably look better (or at least more coherent, depending on your point of view) when it comes time to face each other and/or actually govern as president.

I am not going to criticize either of them right now because they will predictably change more to my liking later.

Clinton would be more courageous if she stood up to the anti-war left today, but she would have less of a chance to do so later when it will matter much more. She's picking her battles, and wisely I think.

Hillary's recent pull out conversion will force feed the widescale perception
that she will pander to whatever wing of her party will get her the nomination. Nothing "courageous" about this tack; tactical, cynical, pure Clinton. Harken back to Bobby Kennedy in Spring, 1968 and his anti war conversion on the heels of Gene McCarthy's triumph in New Hampshire. Times have changed and the actors are different.
American voters will see her reversal reenforcing the view that she is a political flip flopper. Which she is.

If Hillary can not stand up to the likes of Murtha and Sheehan then she does not have what it takes to be Commander in Chief. Obviously.

BTW, the Democrats are starting to look downright desperate to lose this war. Too bad they can not show that same ruthlessness and determination when it comes to standing up to their country's enemies.

Sometime between now and the Iowa primary, the situation in Iraq will be noticeably improved but still ambiguous enough for Hillary, Murtha, and whomever to complain about. There are no German or Japanese generals to sign surrender papers, so forget VE Day, VJ Day, so no VI Day. The Dems will be able to say the situation is still bad enough, let's pull out and we will be drawing down. There will be no parades.

This part of the WoT will not end as an event but as a process. The politicians will use the opportunity to morph their positions to fit the new circumstances. They will call it adaptability and claim they never really were for anything different.

It will be like the old Monty Python sketch:
"Your Majesty is like a stream of bat's piss!"
"What!?"
"It was one of Wilde's."
"Um.. I merely meant...that your Majesty shines out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark."

In demanding a withdrawal in 90 days Hillary is putting politics above the importance of winning the war. Prudence and the national interest dictate that she wait six months before declaring the surge a failure. And if the surge is successful it makes no sense to withdraw until the mission is completed.

If she tacks back to the right it will only because the surge is successful. At that point her support for the mission will be for nought. She wasn't there when it counted.

She, and Totten, seem not to realize an American defeat in Iraq is an al Qaeda victory. Those capable of seeing beyond tomorrow will not admit defeat unless the situation is absolutely intolerable and unwinnable.

I was sickened to read that. I don't think much of Hillary, but I respect her political instincts. If she is pushing something so outrageously defeatist then she must see a lot of support for it among either/both legislators and voters. Depressing as hell, even scary.

People might be tried of the war but there is not strong inclination among voters to just bail out oblivious to what is left behind. Hillary is just shooting off her mouth in the hopes she can back ground she lost to Saint Obama.

Terry Gain: She, and Totten, seem not to realize an American defeat in Iraq is an al Qaeda victory.

My point is that being anti-war in order to pick up the nomination will make it possible for her to be a more aggressive nominee later. If she's hawkish now she'll lose and we'll be stuck with Obama as the nominee instead.

I like Obama better than Clinton in many ways, but not on foreign policy. Giuliani is better than both on foreign policy.

Guiliani is incoherent on abortion for the same reason Clinton is tacking to the left, but it doesn't bother me. Our primary system demands both do exactly what they are doing. The way to win is tack toward the base before the primary and tack toward the center before the election. It's predictable and it means little when it happens.

Centrist politics aka Liberalism-lite, confuses people enabling the politicians elected to swing whichever way the wind blows.

Considering the fact that the Democrat Party is running more 'pro-life' candidates this would indicate that abortion isn't really the big issue afterall. The Dems did the same with the illegal immigration by running democrat candidates further to the right than for example JD Hayworth. Democrats won on Bushhate.

Guiliani's biggest problem isn't the issue of abortion it is whether he can be trusted with perserving second amendment rights.

Democrats are excellent politicians but as elected officals they are notorious con artists.

In light of the recent non-binding resolution carried out by Democrats in the Congress, for the life of me I cannot understand how any American could consider Democrats worthy of holding office.

Are the Centrist voters just going to sweep under the rug one of the most treasonous acts displayed by Americans since Benedict Arnold?

Either Centrists voters are independent or they are cowards but definately they are incoherent.

"My point is that being anti-war in order to pick up the nomination will make it possible for her to be a more aggressive nominee later. If she's hawkish now she'll lose and we'll be stuck with Obama as the nominee instead."-Michael Totten

Hawkish about what? The next big test is preventing Iran from developing nukes. If she doesn't have the skill or courage to lead her party to finish the mission in Iraq of what possible use is she going to be as President?

It's beyond my comprehension, Michael Totten, how anyone who claims to understand the importance of winning in Iraq would be taking positions-deadlines for withdrawal- that embolden the enemy.

And it's not even smart politics. If the surge fails there is plenty of time for her to propose another course. If the surge works Hillary's toast (and deservedly so) whether or not she's the Democrat nominee. If she were smart she would be supporrting the surge while telling everyone it would not even be necessary if she had been in charge the last four years.

She thinks the public is too stupid to remember her support for this war - right up to the point when the Iraqis really stepped up, as they are now doing.

So Michael Totten your support for Hillary is incoherent but nice job on Juan Cole in your latest post on your blog.

This maneuvering is so ephemeral, so tactical. All but meaningless but ... Hillary gained some mileage with the centrist middle by standing her ground on "no apology" refusing to buckle under
to the cries of the left. Now, she apparently reacts to the Obama shift. The Murtha move on surge appropriations will affect this campaign for her wooing of the left and the ultimate reaction of the mainstream voter and give patent lie to the Pelosi claim that "I support the troops." There is a lot happening; this Administration will not go quietly into the night of 2008 without staking out a position to recast the shifting face of American political landscape.

Let Hillary shift and dance and trot; by the election, she will be so caught up in her various positions she may well find herself twisting in the image of the ultimate flip flopper: Lieutenant John Kerry "reporting for duty."

I’ve learned never to underestimate the craftiness of Hillary and Bill. That 90-day withdrawal/phased redeployment (the two terms are more and more used interchangeably) statement of hers may have something to do with a “secret” 11-point plan for success in Iraq posted on this Web site http://patdollard.com/2007/02/18/11-point-plan-for-victory-in-iraq/ (via Instapundit): “This is the 11 point plan that the men in charge of U.S. Victory in Iraq have submitted to The White House, The Pentagon and the State Department, and which will serve as the blueprint for victory in Iraq. It has been brought to me and confirmed by sources both inside and outside of the Military.”

1. U.S. troops are to be gradually pulled back from all Iraqi cities and towns and sent to seal the borders with Iran and Syria. The real insurgency is not indigenous to Iraq, but being pumped in through Iran and Syria.

If this plan is for real -- and Hillary knows about it -- does that sound close enough to a withdrawal/phased redeployment to make her look pretty darn good to most Americans? Other than the Kos crowd, of course.

..does that sound close enough to a withdrawal/phased redeployment to make her look pretty darn good to most Americans?

No. It will only imprress those who don't understand that what happens in U.S. politics and MSM generated public opinion affects the insurgency.

Sasha, all of us would look good if we had the virtually unquestioming support of the major media.

Then the 34th ID's 120 day extension will expire and the numbers of troops deployed will begin to drop.

In Baghdad we have Clearing Forces, Embedded Joint Security Forces(holding forces), Quick Reaction Forces and Mitt's.

One would think that once the Clearing has been done, and the "Holding Forces" are in place, one wouldn't need the "Clearing Forces" anymore.

A thorough "Spring Cleaning" is a lot of work, but maintaining the house after it has been thoroughly cleaned is no where near as difficult.

As much as I dislike the Hildebeast, and her pal Mouth Murtha, I doubt they are very far off the mark of what will happen.

As much as I like and respect Soldier's Dad there is a world of difference between demanding the commencement of withdrawal in 90 days -regardless of the situation on the ground -and being able to begin withdrawal in 90 days because the surge is working.

And, given that she opposes the surge and is demanding unconditional withdrawal, the astute voter will not let her get away with saying she was right all along.

Soldier's Dad, you know a lot more about this than I do, but, don't you think 90 days is somewhat optimistic?

Terry Gain: It's beyond my comprehension, Michael Totten, how anyone who claims to understand the importance of winning in Iraq would be taking positions-deadlines for withdrawal- that embolden the enemy.

I don't support withdrawal at all and never said I did. I also don't agree with Hillary Clinton.

So Michael Totten your support for Hillary is incoherent but nice job on Juan Cole in your latest post on your blog.

I don't "support" Hillary Clinton, I sympathize with her predicament and think she should pick her battles very carefully or the netroots will destroy her. I don't like the situation. It just is.

Thank you for the clarification. I re-read your initial post and noted you used the word silly to describe Hillary's anti-war stance.

I don't understand, however, why you would sympathize with someone who is emboldening the enemy or (as you think)saying things she doesn't really believe on the most important issue of the day.

You are obviously more generous than me. I'll reserve my sympathy for those fighting the enemy with this kind of support.

This thread and the next one about McCain and abortion highlight, for me, the worst aspect of current politics.

Using Hillary as an example, given her shifting and conflicting statements on the WoT how do you have any confidence that you know what she really believes and would do in office?

Principles matter, THAT's what I vote on. Why? Because you never know what the challenges of the future will be, so, you have to vote for someone who you believe will react well (according to your definition) to the unforseen.

I voted for GWB in 2000 because his character and displayed principles led me to believe he would be the better choice if the doo doo hit the fan.

I didn't forsee 9/11, but I'm damn glad we didn't have Al Gore in the White House.

To me she, as well as many others, comes across as an amoral, power hungry pol who can not be counted on to react in any way other that the way which improves her personal power and position.

Hillary is very much like John Kerry. She will say and do whatever she thinks will work. There are no core values except promotion of her ambitions.

February 18, 2007: Something "new" from Assad/ something "old" from Hillary

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post