Sunday, August 26, 2007

Just what exactly is "the new war", Senator Clinton?

Front paged at Booman Tribune and ePluribus Media. Recommended at Daily Kos

Note: This will probably piss off the ardent Hillary supporters, and it should. However, it should because of the hard right turn on neoconservative foreign policy issues and the threat of more vague war as well as the cover she is providing for the continuation of a failed and deadly policy by this administration. Let’s hope that there is some objectivity here as opposed to the “knee jerk freeper like sexist” strawman name calling that I have endured in the past for criticism of her words and policies.

I have thought Senator Clinton has done a pretty good job in the Senate. I say this as a New Yorker who saw some of the things she has done over the past six years for the state. I have also long thought that she would not make a good leader as far as President of the United States. There are a number of reasons why, some personal, some policy, some perception and some because of who she associates with. That is not to detract from her being a very capable Senator, but in this time in history, I feel we need a strong leader that “gets it”, especially with respect to this country’s priorities and our foreign policy role around the world.

Comments like this one that she made the other day about “things working in Iraq but only years too late in changing our tactics” and “we can’t be fighting the last war, we have to be preparing to fight the new war” are two of the most recent and most egregious examples of why Senator Clinton doesn’t “get it” on so many levels and is increasingly showing why she is not nearly the best candidate to lead this country through the next few, very difficult and trying years.

So, Senator – what exactly did you mean by “the new war”? I think We the People have a right to know just what war you have in store for this nation if you are to be trusted as our leader? Does the “new war” call for meddling and sticking your nose into another country’s political process and call for the removal of that leader, as you have recently (and so wrongfully done) about al-Maliki? If you are so interested in removing a country’s leader – especially one that has repeatedly failed to do right by that country, why not start right here in the US? Or is that not “politically feasible” for you?

Does the “new war” include praising a failed and fatally flawed non-mission of “whack-a-mole” in Iraq (especially since any reduction in violence in Anbar is wholly unrelated to the escalation), while ignoring the harsh reality of massive deaths to Iraqis, increased bombings, lack of any security, no political hope of reconciliation anytime soon or the findings of our own National Intelligence Estimate which was released right around the same time you made those asinine comments about “progress”?

Does the “new war” involve bombing Iran over reasons that have been proven unfounded, out and out false or specious at best? Does it involve ignoring reality and any hopes for peace in the Middle East? Does it continue the neoconservative doctrine of world dominance to the detriment of this nation’s infrastructure and economy?

Does the “new war” involve a war on the lack of fair and affordable health insurance for tens of millions of Americans? If so, then why are you waiting to “unveil” your plan, whereas a true leader would be out in front on this most important issue?

To me, each statement that is made about “progress” in Iraq – ESPECIALLY when it talks more about the failed mission that most of America wants over than it does about the heroic effort that our overextended and overworked (not to mention underpaid and underequipped) troops are putting in – with absolutely no idea as to what they are supposed to be doing is a failed statement.

There can be no progress that would bring the situation in Iraq any closer to a feasible resolution. There can be no progress when the main reason for a decrease in violence in certain areas is due to ethnic cleansing and segregation. That is not progress. That is more evidence of failure.

Calling for the replacement of al-Maliki is not “progress”. It is nothing more than asking for more time for the occupation, killing and attacks to continue. I’ll say it plainer for you: it is not al-Maliki. Nobody can fix this situation. To replace him would merely reset the clock for more death and theft waste of taxpayer dollars.

Sorry, Senator – you just don’t get the big picture. And being first lady for eight years is no more “experience” than working in the state legislature. It is merely a different perspective. And clearly, that perspective still hasn’t led you to say the things to articulate a vision that this country sorely needs.

We should be protecting ourselves. As your husband said, “strength AND wisdom”. That means preparing for NO war. Not a “new war”.

Those words are dangerous. Those words are counterproductive. Those words call for more of the same. You might as well say “meet the new war, same as the old war”.

And we don’t need, nor can we afford more of the same.


Anonymous said...


You have consistently indicated that you must vote for the Democrats as they are the lesser of two evils, yet now you complian about Senator Clinton in an almost gingerly way so as to avoid being labelled a sexist.

Hillary Clinton has accomplished nothing in the US Senate and her most noteworthy vote was the one where she voted to go to War in Iraq not because she believed it was the correct thing to do, but because it was the politically expedient.

As the most likely nominiee for your less evil party, I would suggest you get used to more political expedience from someone who was instrumental in one of the most corrupt and incompetent Presidencies.

Ultimately, the raging Left can not be taken seriously. If you had any principles whatsoever, you would avoid this fraud like the plague. She is really no different from Bush, except that she will probably prove to be even more incompetent. As you recall, one of her biggest accomplishments during the Clinton era was her failed attempt to nationalize our health care system which ultimately helped propelled Newt Gingrich to Speaker of the House.

The problem with Hillary is not that she is a woman or a feminist, it is that she represents the best that Democrats have to offer. A morally and intellectually bankrupt philosophy that has destroyed the social fabric of this country.


Anonymous said...

republicans and democrats are equally full of crap. it will be hard for me to vote for a candidate from either party. since there's no viable third party candidate, i'll probably just stay home, get drunk, and feel sorry for us all.


Ethereal Merc said...

The following are news highlights that need to be heard in open forum where the sounds of pointless chattering about useless political debats and agends will not deafen the alarms of the serious and real problems at hand:

FBI's Unknown Eavesdropping Network:

"Building off the design mandates of CALEA, the FBI has constructed a point-and-click surveillance system that creates instant wiretaps on almost any communications device. A thousand pages of restricted documents released under the Freedom of Information Act were required to determine the veracity of this clandestine project, Wired News reports. Called the Digital Collection System Network, it connects FBI wiretapping rooms to switches controlled by traditional land-line operators, internet-telephony providers and cellular companies. It is intricately woven into the nation's telecom infrastructure. From the article: 'FBI wiretapping rooms in field offices and undercover locations around the country are connected through a private, encrypted backbone that is separated from the internet. Sprint runs it on the government's behalf. The network allows an FBI agent in New York, for example, to remotely set up a wiretap on a cell phone based in Sacramento, California, and immediately learn the phone's location, then begin receiving conversations, text messages and voicemail pass codes in New York. With a few keystrokes, the agent can route the recordings to language specialists for translation.'"

More about this phenomenal contradtion to our Independence can be found here:

Congress to eye feds' spy satellite scheme:
Posted by Anne Broache

When politicians return to Washington from their August recess next week, one of their first orders of business will be lobbing questions at Bush administration officials over recently disclosed plans to open up powerful spy satellites to the likes of American border-security agents and police.
On September 6, the U.S. House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee plans to hold a morning hearing entitled "Turning Spy Satellites on the Homeland: the Privacy and Civil Liberties Implications of the National Applications Office," according to a press release issued by the panel. Scheduled to appear for questioning are the Department of Homeland Security's Chief Intelligence Officer Charles Allen, Chief Privacy Officer Hugo Teufel, and Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer Dan Sutherland.
The event is apparently a direct response to a Wall Street Journal report about two weeks ago, which revealed that the sprawling federal agency had signed off on expanded use of the so-called "eyes in the sky." By October, Homeland Security is poised to establish a new subset called the National Applications Office, which would oversee expanding access to the surveillance images.

Data about domestic incidents is already fused and sorted 24/7 at Homeland Security 'nerve centers' like this one. (Credit: U.S. Department of Homeland Security)
The military has been using the Cold War-era surveillance gadgets overseas for years in an effort to spot terrorist hideouts, to track contraband movement and to plot routes for U.S. soldiers, the WSJ reported. Domestic agencies like the U.S. Geological Survey have also had access to the high-resolution images for mapping and environmental studies.
But the use of the monitoring technique for domestic law enforcement purposes appears to be on murkier legal grounds. That's why the plan has attracted concern from some congressional Democrats, including Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), the chairman of a congressional telecommunications and Internet panel, and Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the Homeland Security Committee's chairman (click here for a PDF of Thompson's August 22 letter).
Homeland Security officials, for their part, say they have already briefed the various congressional intelligence committees about their plans and have even secured a budget for their activities, according to the WSJ. That may make it more difficult for politicians the House Homeland Security panel to get answers in an open forum next week, as the Bush Administration officials may claim they're not at liberty to discuss classified details.
It's likely no coincidence that the hearing is set to occur during Congress's first week back in session after a month-long recess. Congressional Democrats are clearly seeking to rebuild some credibility among privacy and civil liberties advocates after caving at the last minute to the president's demands to enact what critics argue are unacceptably sweeping changes--albeit temporary ones--to federal electronic snooping law. (Since then, both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have implicitly threatened to let that law die unless the administration cooperates with Congress's demands for more details on its surveillance programs.)

What is nice about this story is that congress is finally looking in a spy system that has been around since the 90's, if not earlier...

Undeniable Liberal said...

Rock on, clammy!!
The anonymous poster above doesn't realize that Hillary really is Republican lite, and an entrenched Washington insider.
More of the same, indeed. Oh, Hillary does NOT represent the best that the Dems offer, only the "liberal media" seems to think so.