Friday, March 07, 2008


Waking up to Hillary Clinton winning Texas and Ohio last Wednesday wasn't the greatest way to start my day. Roughly akin to the effects of a slightly bad hangover.

Okay, it's not that Barak isn't any less fraudulent than Ms. Clinton on certain key issues, like fixing health care or his promise to end the war.

Quick--what's the current euphemism for leaving in place the mammoth Green Zone, the airbase, the colossal embassy project, upwards of sixty-thousand troops and an equal or even greater number of private contractors, including Blackwater? Bet you thought the proper term for that was "occupation," didn't you? Well, you'd be wrong. No, apparently, we Democrats don't care for that term anymore. Barak likes to call it a "phased withdrawal;" Hillary prefers "orderly withdrawal."

But "withdrawal" from what? From Iraq? Dream on. We will be there indefinitely. Count on it. From the addiction to war, then? Not likely. About the only way to accomplish that is to lock the candidates (not just McCain, but Clinton and Obama) in a room where they can't get their hands on the money or the weapons or our troops' lives; yep, it's cold turkey or nothing.

Still, I'm inclined to think that between the two, Barak is our best hope for positive change. He brings none of the old baggage that Hillary brings, one of which is, well. . .Bill.

I think Barak will be more successful at uniting all the disparate factions of the party as well as the Congress. Hillary simply doesn't have that skill.

Moreover, Barak's resume as it stands at this point in his young life is still relatively unsullied by a lot of aberrant, stinky behavior. On that, at least, Hillary is right--her resume by comparison is much more complete.


Speaking of which, there's something about Clinton's campaign that's got me kind of stumped. It's her support by so many women calling themselves "feminists," beginning with the endorsement by the National Organization For Women (N.O.W.), who on their website, offer the same tired excuse for her voting to authorize the war that Hillary her own self keeps throwing out, the one that goes, "If I'd only known then what I know now," blah, blah, blah.

I wonder how Dennis Kucinich knew, and Russ Feingold, Robert Byrd, Paul Wellstone, Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, and Barbara Lee, and. . .Oh, yes, Barak Obama--who spoke out against it while he was still a Senator in Illinois.

In fact, in the months leading up to her vote, Hillary was briefed by former arms inspectors, strategic analysts and others who told her that Bush's claims of WMD in Iraq were hogwash. So her insistence that she lacked sufficient intelligence and therefore voted in ignorance is simply not supported by the facts. And what does it say about a candidate for President who, by her own admission, doesn't know all the facts before she throws down the gauntlet for war?


But forget the intelligence or alleged lack thereof. I'd just like to know what gives us the right to go mucking around in other people's caves? Jesus, man, we got nukes by the tens of thousands buried in caves right here in our own country. Something tells me this obscene collection of "End Times" hardware poses a slightly greater threat to world peace than the minuscule stockpile of some pissant dictator.

By the way, has anyone noticed where all the threats to use nuclear weapons have been coming from lately? Has it been Iraq? Certainly not. What about Iran? Nope. North Korea? Honk. Try again.

Hint: check out Bush's "Nuclear Posture Preview" that targets China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria for a potential first strike. And how about John McCain singing "Bomb bomb bomb Iran"? Oh yes, and then we have Mrs. Clinton saying that where Iran is concerned, she thinks nukes ought to be "on the table."

Now that's one helluva "feminist" position, if I ever saw one.


The real question is when did it become acceptable to invade other countries when they not only haven't attacked us, but never posed a threat to us? The vote to authorize the war in Iraq assumed that, from now on, preemptively invading countries will be considered a perfectly reasonable thing for us to do--anytime we decide it's reasonable.

And this is the real meaning of Hillary's vote and the votes of all those who authorized this illegal war. Her vote showed a total disregard for the U.N. Charter, and for long established principles of international law; and it should call into question her fitness for the job of President.

And it's just one reason I find her a strange choice for women calling
themselves "feminists." N.O.W.--an organization that I highly respect, and to whom I've actually given money--ought to know better.


Shall I go into her tenure as a corporation lawyer on the board of WalMart? She doesn't like to talk about it, much, but it's been thoroughly hashed out, if anyone cares to read the record. The board she sat on was rabidly anti-union. The Walton family got rich off the backs of slave laborers. Their long list of abuses includes widespread discrimination against women. Somehow, I had the idea that might be of some concern to feminists. Well, what do I know? I'm just a guy.

How about the safety and well-being of children? Isn't that also rather high on the list of feminist concerns? I always thought so.

Yet, Hillary looked the other way while her husband kept tightening the screws on the sanctions in Iraq, the result of which was some 5,000 children dying per month. Despite the horrors the sanctions caused among the civilian population, both the U.S. and U.K. governments continued to block efforts to get them lifted. In ten years, roughly a million people died, including many elderly who perished from malnutrition and the sick, from lack of medicine.

When Madeleine Albright was asked on 60 Minutes if she thought half a million children dying as a result of the sanctions was worth it, she famously replied that it was. Now, there's a good feminist for you.

And it's widely believed that some of the old baggage that Hillary is likely to bring with her as President will be--Madeleine Albright.


By now, we're all familiar with the famous Hillary ad that shows a little girl asleep and seems to imply that Barak Obama could be responsible for the deaths of millions of American children asleep at that hour. Apparently, Hillary's vast experience, compared with Obama's, better qualifies her to answer phones in the middle of the night.

Marc Cooper, writing in the Huffington Post, reminds us of the "calculated indifference of the Clinton Administration" during the Rwandan genocide, when some 800,000 people were being systematically slaughtered.

The phone, Cooper writes, was ringing off the hook at the White House, but nobody answered it.

"I don't know where Hillary was then, but her husband and his entire experienced foreign policy team, from the brass in the Pentagon to the congenitally feckless Secretary of State Warren Christopher--just let it ring."

This is all well documented in Samantha Power's Pulitzer prize winning book, A Problem From Hell.


Lately, Hillary has taken to saying that not only is she better qualified than Barak Obama to be Commander-In-Chief, but so is the Republican candidate, John McCain!

Well, this is almost more than I can stomach. You know, I just can't seem to recall another instance of a candidate of one party recommending the nominee of the other party, for President. Now, that's a new one right there, boy.

So Hillary thinks McCain would make a better president than someone else running in our own party. Specifically, he would make a better Commander-In-Chief. Well, okay, let's look at that a minute.

First of all, McCain's entire foreign policy position is basically the same as the current resident of the White House, George W. Bush. McCain's entire war policy position is identical to Bush's. Quick show of hands. How many think George W. Bush has made an outstanding Commander-In-Chief? Well, gee, I don't see too many hands out there, other than pure nitwits.

McCain says the "surge" is working. McCain says we could be in Iraq for a hundred years. Well, Jeez, that's something, isn't it.

Now, John McCain is cozying up to Pastor John Hagee, and he has this man's enthusiastic support for President. Pastor Hagee heads the Cornerstone Mega-church in San Antonio, Texas, with around 19,000 members.

Hagee thinks Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment of the entire city of New Orleans for gay sin. He calls the Catholic religion "a great whore" and links the Church to Hitler and the Nazi movement.

Hagee is the founder of Christians United For Israel. They believe Islam and all those who live by the Koran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews. The gentle pastor also thinks God will send a blood bath to America for its support of a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine.

He also thinks it would be a good idea to just go ahead and launch a preemptive attack on Iran and help bring on Armageddon.

McCain says he's proud of Rev. Hagee and the pastor's positions on Israel.

And other than herself, John McCain is Hillary Clinton's recommendation for the position of Commander-In-Chief of our country.


Gloria Steinem, perhaps the most famous feminist in America, who supports Clinton for President, says of her favorite candidate that she "actually enjoys conflict." I think Gloria may be onto something, there.

"I am so grateful," Steinem continues, "that (Hillary) hasn't been trained to kill anybody. And she probably didn't even play war games as a kid."

Perhaps Ms. Steinem has forgotten the words of Charles Edward Montague, of which I'm certain the two Clintons are familiar: "War hath no fury like a noncombatant."

Open your eyes, Gloria: Hillary and Bill have been playing at war games with quite fatal consequences for at least twenty years that I know of. She parroted the Bush Administration's lies about WMD in Iraq in 2002, and did the same last year with Iran, even though reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the latest National Intelligence Estimate both said there was no truth in the claim.

In March, 2008, referring to Iraq, Hillary Clinton, the feminists' candidate for President of the United States, told an audience in Austin, Texas, "We have given them the gift of freedom, the greatest gift you can give someone. Now, it is really up to them to determine whether they will take that gift."

To date, our "gift" to the Iraqis has claimed close to 2.1 million lives.


Post a Comment