Darling Hillary (HEAVY Sarcasm "Syrup" Here!)
DEMOCRATS & IRAQ: HERE'S HILLARY
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in The New York Post on May 13, 2007.
For those who are too obtuse to understand Sen. Hillary Clinton's simple and clear position on Iraq , the following is an attempt to summarize it:
WARNING! DO NOT ATTEMPT TO READ THIS IF YOU ARE TAKING ANYTHING MORE POWERFUL THAN BABY ASPIRIN! IT COULD HAVE TERRIBLE SIDE EFFECTS OF HYSTERICAL LAUGHTER ERUPTIONS, FORCING YOUR FAMILY TO LOCK YOU IN YOUR ROOM UNTIL YOU CAN SETTLE DOWN AND BEHAVE!
MOST DEFINITELY DO NOT TRY TO DRINK ANYTHING OR YOU'RE LIABLE TO RELIVE THOSE AWFUL JR. HIGH DAYS OF LIQUIDS EXPLODING FROM YOUR NOSE WHILE TRYING NOT TO LAUGH!
* She voted in the Senate for H.J. Res. 114, the "Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq," in October 2002. But now she wants to repeal it. Why? Because, according to Hillary, President Bush misinterpreted the "Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq" resolution to mean that the use of military force against Iraq had been authorized by Congress. (I believe this was also used as John Kerry's arguement for his vote for it before he was against it as well)
* At the time of her vote, she stated that her vote for the troop authorization bill was made "with conviction . . . as being in the best interests of the country." Uh-huh--and I see pigs flying any day now, as well as that snow cone stand satan set up on the 7th level of hell...
* But once the war became unpopular, Hillary claimed that she hadn't really voted to send troops to Iraq when she voted for the resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq .
No, according to Sen. Clinton, all the "Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq" really did was to toughen the support we were already giving to United Nations inspectors who were looking for weapons of mass destruction. Although the text of the resolution never mentions a single word about strengthening the U.N. inspectors, Hillary believed that was the purpose of the bill. Would you want this woman representing YOU in court?
* She won't apologize for voting for the use of military force resolution because she knew that it did not authorize the use of military force. That's always been clear to her. It was Bush's mistake, not hers. He misled her. But, if she had known then that he would have interpreted the bill to authorize sending troops, she would have voted against it. Maybe Slick Willie took his prevaricating patterns from her--she is at this point the only licensed attorney in the family, Slick Willie having been disbarred. Define "is".
* So now she wants to rescind the authorization to go to war that she voted for in 2002 (although she certainly did not intend to vote for sending troops) - so that President Bush can't send any more troops to Iraq .
* But she will still vote to appropriate funds to pay for the war, even though it would be illegal for Bush to spend money for a purpose that Congress hasn't authorized. So I guess she's saying while it's illegal for Bush to do so, it's NOT illegal for her to do so? And her sound reasoning would be?
* She's repeatedly said that she would not support a definite timetable for withdrawal from Iraq , but then she introduced a bill to begin withdrawal of the troops 90 days from the day her bill passes. (Given her legislative record, that could be 90 days from the Twelfth of Never.) And she voted for the Democratic troop-withdrawal bill. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKK....
* As president, she would definitely end the war, she says . . . but she wouldn't pull out all the troops. Instead, she'd leave U.S. servicemen and -women troops there for the following missions: air, logistical and intelligence support for the Iraqis; training of the Iraqi forces; guarding the hundreds of miles of border with Iran to prevent infiltration, and chasing al Qaeda operatives in Iraq. The only thing they wouldn't do is fight an "urban civil war." And, that's different from what they're doing now HOW???
* Despite the extensive mandate of the residual mission, she would not commit large numbers of troops. She won't say how many. Of course not--there might be a record of it somewhere. It appears she doesn't realize there are records NOW in the NEW MEDIA!
* And all of the troops she sends in will have full body armor. Who is going to pay for it? Which of her beloved government programs is she going to rob for it? How much more will she raise taxes for it? ENQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW!
Got it?
I wrote about other contradictions of hers here that broke down a clip from Rush's show. Check it out if you REALLY want your head to spin! Sphere: Related Content
|