The only "Margaret" that She Who Must Not Be Named could ever emulate is Margaret Hamilton, seen here in her starring role:
Posted on 08/18/2007 7:50:00 PM PDT by Enchante
(CBS) This column was written by Robert Scheer. What in the world was Sen. Hillary Clinton thinking when she attacked Sen. Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in going after Osama bin Laden? And why aren't her supporters more concerned about yet another egregious example of Clinton's consistent backing for the mindless militarism that is dragging this nation to ruin? So what that she is pro-choice and a woman if the price of proving her capacity to be commander in chief is that we end up with an American version of Margaret Thatcher?
In response to the 9/11 hijackers, armed with weapons no more sophisticated than $3 box cutters, American military spending, with Senate Armed Services Committee member Clinton's enthusiastic support, has catapulted beyond cold war levels. Senator Clinton has treated the military budget as primarily a pork-barrel target of opportunity for jobs and profit in New York state, supports increased money for missile defense and every other racket the military-industrial complex comes up with, and still feels no obligation to repudiate her vote for the disastrous Iraq war.
Given her sorry record of cheerleading the irrational post-cold war military buildup, do we not have a right, indeed an obligation, to question whether Clinton is committed to creating a more peaceful world? Don't say that we weren't warned if a President Hillary Clinton further imperils our world, as she has clearly positioned herself as the leading hawk in the Democratic field. What other reason was there for first blasting Obama for daring to state that he would meet with foreign leaders whom Bush has branded as sworn enemies, and then for the attack on Obama's very sensible statement that it would be "a profound mistake" to use nuclear weapons in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the attempt to eliminate bin Laden?
Isn't that a no-brainer — or can Clinton conceive of an occasion where even the threat, let alone the actuality, of a nuclear attack in the immediate neighborhood of nuclear-armed Pakistan and India would send the right message? And what about the dangerous message of Clinton's assault on Obama: "I don't believe that any President should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons." Huh? Just exactly how does one make a compelling case to other nations against the proliferation of nuclear weapons when members of the nuke club, particularly the President of the one nation that has killed hundreds of thousands of people with two of these ungodly weapons, will not, at the very least, promise to abstain from first use of a weapon that could quite easily eliminate most life on this planet?
Of course Obama was right, and it was no different than Senator Clinton's statement in April 2006, when she said, "I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," in relation to preventing Iran from developing such weapons. Back then, she recognized that nuclear weapons are weapons against civilization, not a means of ensuring its survival. "This Administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age," she said. "I think that's a terrible mistake." Yes, indeed — and Hillary's supporters will no doubt insist that this statement reflects her true feelings on the matter and that "militarist Hillary" is just an act to get elected.
Act or reality, it's working. Pundits for the National Review, The Weekly Standard and other pro-war outlets have come to applaud Clinton. A host of political scientists and other campaign hustlers have also approved this image makeover; as a recent Boston Globe headline put it, "Tough talk drives Clinton effort: National security stance seen adding to image of strength." One political scientist from Texas stated: "She's come off as credible and serious on national defense — an issue that two years ago most of us would have thought would be a liability for her." The Globe noted that "When Geraldine Ferraro was the Democratic candidate for vice president in 1984, she was dogged by questions about whether she could 'push the button' to launch an attack if the Cold War turned hot." The paper then quoted Ferraro as saying that Clinton, whom she supports for President, has passed that test: "You can't do that with Hillary Clinton. Hillary is in a totally different place."
Great, so forget the hope that a woman President might prove to be more enlightened than macho men in the matter of peacemaking, and instead rest assured that Hillary would have the cojones to "push the button" that would kill us all. Once again, the old Clintonian tactic of triangulation: positioning oneself politically instead of taking a position of integrity.
By Robert Scheer Reprinted with permission from the The Nation.
Scheer displays his usual laughable ignorance by claiming we have a military build-up that has “catapulted beyond Cold War levels.” As a matter of fact, the Army is barely 1/2 the number of divisions of 1990, the Air Force is greatly scaled down in numbers of aircraft and squadrons, overall personnel are much lower, and overall spending is only around 4% of GDP instead of a Cold War peak of 6% or more. Scheer knows about as much about the military as he knows about economics and politics, which is to say less than nothing since most of what he thinks he ‘knows’ is wrong.
Spoken like a true girly-man who pretends to think women the superior gender, when in reality he fears women.
The first sentences of this thing are so laugh-out-loud hilarious I just skimmed from that point on. Yeah, Hillary's a HAWK! You wouldn't happen to know a damned thing about her past positions on the issues, now would you, Bobbi? If you did you'd find she's a political opportunist who is lying to get a job--just like one of those awful MEN do!
Cut off your ponytail if you have one, Bobbi, it's causing stress fractures on your brain.
he was with ramparts magazine circa 1970.
i laughed at one of david horowitz’ books where he details how sheer advocated translating the no korean kim’s book into english,
but sheer was making $100,000 a year, and later living in a house on the huntington beach harvor with a boat slip.
a leftist true believer questioned his ethics; she thought you had to be poor to be a leftist.
he was with the lost angeles times for decades and nationally syndicated.
whatta phony.
THIS is the kind of thinking we have to deal with.
Bobbi (with an "i"), the enemy's budget isn't the freaking ISSUE, you wussy, shrieking, girly FOOL.
THAT is an ASSAULT??
The only "Margaret" that She Who Must Not Be Named could ever emulate is Margaret Hamilton, seen here in her starring role:
***
This column was written by Richard Scheer.
***
Pass the popcorn ...
****
So what that she is pro-choice and a woman if the price of proving her capacity to be commander in chief is that we end up with an American version of Margaret Thatcher?
***
LOL ... oh, we should BE so lucky ... Scheer would die of apoplexy if Senator Clinton turned out to be an American Baroness Thatcher ...
***
Once again, the old Clintonian tactic of triangulation: positioning oneself politically instead of taking a position of integrity.
***
There is only one position that Scheer respects ... cranial-rectal ...
I love seeing the Dems turn on each other and eat their own. I love it, I love it, I love it!!!
"Bobbi, the enemy's budget isn't the freaking ISSUE, now stop being a wussy, shrieking, girly fool."
Oh, yes, and did you read the story about how Scheer returned from a visit to North Korea (around 1969) frothing at the mouth with joy about the “people’s paradise” he’d seen on his Potemkin Village tour there. He thought North Korea was the future because they’d told him about “juche” philosophy for morons and he’d swallowed it all, like the leftist douchebag that he is.
The USA was in a bloody shooting war with the communists of North Vietnam/CHina/Russia, and we were still without a stable peace agreement with North Korea, but Robert Scheer was merrily doing propaganda work for our enemies. He is not merely an air-headed doofus like most leftists, he is a TRAITOR.
The idea that anyone should take him seriously on anything to do with US national security would be hilarious if it were not so appalling.
This Bobbi's certainly the QUEEN of the Hill.
To compare that marxist cow with Margaret Thatcher in any way is an outrage.
Biography:
http://www.robertscheer.com/6_biography/
That’s a very sanitized bio of a man who is an agit-prop specialist for the lunatic left. No wonder he hates Shrillery, for he is to Shrillery as Trotsky was to Stalin (ok, slight literary license taken here......).
Not to worry. Hillary will change her position 100 times before the election. She blows with the wind and will say anything to get to be Queen of the United States.
Hildabeast was thinking about," Got top get back to the Center with Leibermann." The writing is on the wall, the Leftwing Moonbats tried to start a Get out of Iraq public stampede, as they did in hoodwinking America to get out of Vietnam.
It didn't work, now Hillery KNOWS that to be elected president, she has to be a "moderate" Democrap. Too little too late Hildabeast. The Dem convention in Denver next summer is doomed to be either a blood bath, or a rigid, scripted event. Either way, America will see that a Democrap president is a laughable proposition in the face of Islamic Fascism, and its movement to establish world dominion via Islam. Now the Islamics have a good shot at doing so if they can get a nuclear device from North Korea , China or Russia (likely) or make one of their own ( less likely.). Hillary does not have what it takes to handle these issues, nor does any Democrap in the field.
Who does? Duncan Hunter.
Go Duncan Hunter!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.