Cheney responded by reminding about Clinton's past comments...
So what did Slick actually say? From 1998....
Specifically, here's what he said we learned in the 20th Century...
..we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary, action...and on what we must know for the 21st Century:
..in the next century the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat that Iraq poses now; a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug trafficers or organized criminals, who travel the world among us, unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today Saddam and all those who follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and the clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program...Sounded a little like Cheney, eh? In a nutshell those comments were predictive of what might happen with a weak lead-from-behind president like the one we have now. We all see the results.
But yeah, in the political arena (and certainly the Kardashian arena) Cheney's viewpoint will not prevail, even if he's right. Bill Clinton is the last person who should be lecturing anyone about acting on Iraq. Good Lord, will anyone in the media develop a memory? Do bloggers have to do everything for them?
MORE 6/27/14
Is the Hillary!2016 strategy coming into view? She has three glaring problems to put away before sailing to victory.
One, her (and her husband's) Iraq stance. Bill was relatively silent about Bush going into Iraq in 2003. He largely pulled a Bush43 by remaining silent on the sidelines while his wife was out warning about the menace of Saddam and voted affirmatively on the use of force. Hillary's hawkish stance falls perfectly in line with her husband's speeches, such as the one presented in this post. In 2008 she remained largely silent on the Iraq question, never apologizing, while Obama racked up points with his 'dumb war' rhetoric. The problem now is how to distance her from that history. A lot depends on what Iraq becomes over the next few years and who her opponent might be.
A matchup with Jeb Bush would bring a lot of that history into play, except Jeb will not want to play it. Knowing the Bush's they will not politicize 43's decisions or get into a pissing match about them. That of course would be fine for Hillary, who'd rather talk about domestic issues and other foreign policy actions. However, if Hillary comes up against someone like Rand Paul she'll face the same pressure given her by Obama. Hillary has reportedly already apologized for her vote in the new book nobody is buying, so the strategy may be to get this out in the open and put away now so she can move on to 2016. But it's doubtful a Rand Paul would let her forget it. So under that scenario she'll probably go full tilt lie and start trashing Bush about the intelligence and so forth, which Paul won't necessarily want to defend.
The second thing is Benghazi. We're already seeing the strategy here--blame Obama.
The third item is her competency as Secretary of State, which can also be answered by number two.
There are other issues, but one thing she'll have going for her is the economy, IF it remains in malaise. She will argue that she'll take on the policies of her husband, including his ability to negotiate with the Newt Gingriches of the GOP. She's already hawkish enough to give the impression she'll not hesitate to kick-ass on terrorists.
No comments:
Post a Comment