Hillary Looked Foolish While Questioning Rumsfeld
I admit it, I like Donald Rumsfeld. I like his gruff take no prisoners style of answering Senate blowhards. When he testified before the Armed Services Committee yesterday, the Defense Secretary was wading into a minefield. Democrats were eager for a bloody fight believing they were fighting the evil Bush administration by extension. Rumsfeld had wanted to testify before a closed session, but Democrats acutely aware of their liberal base, decided to politicize the session, holding the meeting in the morning and before television cameras in order to have their faces plastered on the news during primetime.
One of the worst offenders at this political game was none other than the presumed Democratic front runner for president than Hillary Clinton.
Like a prizefighter, Clinton smiled and shook hands with Rumsfeld before attacking his policies. “You did not go into Iraq with enough troops,” said Clinton, ticking off her grievances. “You disbanded the entire Iraqi army … You underestimated the nature and strength of the insurgency, the sectarian violence and the spread of Iranian influence.”
Clinton, who voted for the October 2002 resolution authorizing the Iraq invasion, has been under fire by some Democrats for her pro-war stance. She has recently softened her support of the war and burnished her party credentials by attacking Rumsfeld and President George W. Bush.
” . . . You are presiding over a failed policy,” she said. “Given your track record, Secretary Rumsfeld, why should we believe your assurances now?”
Consider that much of the failed policy in Iraq and Afghanistan was the result of inactions of both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton when there was a definite lack of leadership in their ‘co-Presidency.’ Consider than in 1996, Sudan offered Osama bin Laden to the US, but Bill was more interested in blues dresses than protecting America.
Rumsfeld’s responded on all counts flatly refuting all of Hillary’s allegations.
The defense secretary seemed briefly stunned by the intensity of her attack, exclaiming, “My goodness,” before launching into a point-by-point defense. (emphasis added by TRS)
He rejected some of her specific criticisms as simply wrong and said the war against terror will be a drawn-out process.
“Are there setbacks? Yes,” said Rumsfeld. “Is this problem going to get solved in the near term? I think it’s going to take some time.”
I loved his response. Without saying so to her face, Rumsfeld basically told the pompous freshman Senator from New York that she did not have a clue what she was talking about. Point by point he dissected her comments, making Hillary look like a buffoon.
What Clinton is trying to do is to rally her base who has abandoned her because of her vote for the war against Iraq. Her prepared speech beforehand was pure politics. Like her poor excuse for a husband, Hillary could care less what happens to this country, just as long as she has power.
She knows as well as anyone that the Bush administration did not disband the Iraqi military, they disbanded themselves. How could anyone have anticipated the Iranian influence? But the way Hillary said it; it was like even if we had anticipated Iran’s interference, the US military have done something about it. What could anyone have done other than threaten them? As if that kind of solution has worked in the past. What answer would have been acceptable to the cut-and-run Democrats? The short answer, nothing. The Democrats are not happy unless the US is weak and defenseless.
The Democrats have not seen a war they did not want to run from. Some wars are worth fighting, especially those like the GWOT which are vital to the defense of the US.
As an example, look how far the Democrats have fallen, they can not even rally around one of their own fighting for his political life in Connecticut simply because this Senator, Joe Lieberman, voted for and continues to support the war in Iraq. Are these the same Democrats who voted for war against Germany and Japan? Are these the same Democrats who voted to protect South Korea? No, those Democrats are long gone and almost forgotten. In their place, a new breed of Democrat has been born, one bent on apologizing to the world for all of its problems as if we caused them, one willing to turn the control of this country to the UN, one which believes no wars are worth fighting. The pro-USA Democrats are gone. In their place are people willing to sell their souls and the security of the United States for power. Just as we saw with Hillary Clinton, in the end, it is politics which really matter.
Posts
Discussion Area - Leave a Comment