Posted on 06/22/2006 2:27:47 PM PDT by EnigmaticAnomaly
Hillary redefines shameless.
From the New York Post:
HILL LABELS GOP TACTICS A ‘DISGRACE’
By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent
June 22, 2006 — WASHINGTON - Republicans are a "disgrace" for playing politics with the war in Iraq, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton charged yesterday as she moved to turn the spotlight away from Democratic infighting over when to withdraw U.S. troops.
"They choose to tar all who disagree with an open-ended, unconditional commitment as unpatriotic, as waving the white flag of surrender. They may not have a war strategy, but they do have an election strategy," Clinton charged on the Senate floor.
"The politically motivated resolutions put forth by leading Republicans to gain tactical partisan advantage are a disgrace," she fumed.
"My friends on the other side of the aisle believe that the status quo is working in Iraq. They do not believe we need a fundamental change in policy. They choose to continue blindly following the president."
But it’s the Democrats who sparked a new round of politically charged Iraq debates with a pair of dueling troop-pullout plans that has split the party and pitted Clinton against likely 2008 Democratic White House Senate rivals John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.
Kerry and Feingold are wooing the party’s liberal base with an amendment tacked on to the Defense Department budget that mandates U.S. troops pull out of Iraq by July 1, 2007.
Clinton - closely watched as she tries to navigate between the center and the left of the party - backs a weaker, nonbinding resolution supported by Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). and other party chiefs.
It calls for an unspecified number of troops to leave Iraq by the end of this year, but sets no other timetable and leaves the rest of the game plan to President Bush.
Republicans, eager to exploit the Democratic divide, have blasted Kerry’s plan as a "cut and run" strategy, and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told the Fox News Channel the Clinton plan amounts to "cut and jog."
But Clinton insisted the "only way the new Iraqi government can gain credibility is by proving they can handle an increasing share of the security of the country with fewer, not more, U.S. troops."
Meanwhile, from terrorist enabling Reuters:
Senate defeats Democrats’ Iraq withdrawal plans
Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:14 PM ET
By Vicki Allen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican-led Senate on Thursday rejected Democratic plans to start the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq as senators cast votes expected to resonate in November elections to determine control of Congress.
Republicans, embracing President George W. Bush’s policies in the war that has caused his approval ratings to plummet, defeated two Democratic amendments to start the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
A nonbinding resolution broadly backed by Democrats that urged Bush to start withdrawing troops this year but without setting a deadline for completion failed 60-39. Six Democrats and one Republican crossed party lines on the vote.
Another amendment to put into law a plan to start withdrawing combat forces immediately and complete the process by next July failed 86-13.
In politically charged debate, Republicans cast Iraq as central to the war on terrorism and branded Democrats as divided and weak on the issue.
Democrats said the United States was squandering the lives of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars on Bush’s failing policies.
“Withdrawal is not an option, surrender is not a solution,” said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican. “This senator does not want to be complicit in that decision that could reverse the success we have achieved since 9-11 in keeping terrorism off our shores.”
But Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said the Senate’s choice was “between doing nothing, the so-called stay the course option that the president and his supporters advocate, or changing the course and providing our troops and the Iraqi people a way forward.”
Republicans and Democrats accused each other of political posturing on the Iraq issue, expected to be key in the November midterm congressional elections.
But introducing “non-binding” resolutions so you can tell your peacenik constituents you voted against the war — that isn’t playing politics.
As for "Bush’s failing policies":
"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price." — Senator Hillary Clinton, September 13, 2001
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members… It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." — Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
They are Ms Rodham’s policies, too. Or at least they were until she saw the latest polls.
But God knows Hillary would never play politics about such an important matter.
That would be disgraceful.
hillary clinton iraq john kerry john murtha
If the Dems would get behind the war effort then there'd be no politics to play.
Pot meet kettle
Of course the DemocRATS have never played politics about any war.
As opposed to the Dems, who are playing Russian Roulette!
What scares me, is that 47% of voters don't care.
"They choose to tar all who disagree with an open-ended, unconditional commitment as unpatriotic, as waving the white flag of surrender. They may not have a war strategy, but they do have an election strategy," Clinton charged on the Senate floor.
---
Those who so willingly offer themselves up to be tarred without any viable alternative or solutions are the ones that concern me most. The many dems who wantonly and recklessly pursue politicizing damn near anything these days to regain power speaks volumes as well.
It's called politics when the GOP kicks them in the a$$.
I've never known anyone as corrupt, indecent and disgraceful as hillary clinton. She takes the cake in that category!
When you point your index finger at someone else, you have 3 other fingers pointing back at yourself.
"They may not have a war strategy, but they do have an election strategy," Clinton charged on the Senate floor.
This has got to be the dumbest suint on the face of the earth. Her party wants to leave the field of battle based on a calendar. The Republicans want to defeat the enemy and secure victory...and depart when events allow. When you're in a war for survival, I ask you... which is the right strategy?
I'm ceaselessly amazed at how those on the left that adore this shrew constantly remind us that she's the smartest woman that ever lived. Talk about propaganda!
It's time for the left to face up to the truth: Hillary Clinton is undoubtedly one of the stupidest, smarmiest, hackneyed politicins that ever lived. It's a toss up between her and barrack Obama for the title of: "Has there ever been so much written & spoken about so little?"
Jeez Louise, is this high-order projection or what?
Typical tactic of the Democrats - accuse your opponents of doing what you, yourself, are doing.
What in the heck are the RATS doing. Dumb numbnuts.
Heh! Well, I guess she told us! As for me, I'm shaking in my boots!
She was booed. The queen herself was booed! On Stage! And it was actually reported!
And now ladies and gentlemen prepare for a bazillion words of convoluted explanations of her Nnew/old/true/redefined/hawkish/dovish/idealistic f e e l i n g s on Iraq and those evil Republicans that made her say those things.
And no more booing!!
Wouldn't you know. The latest strategy of The Reptile is to accuse the mean ol' Republicans of exactly what she's doing.
Rewpublicans, starting with Bush ARE a disgrace for letting the Democrats play politics with this war and NOT fighting back.Bush just sits there and lets the Dims bury him with their lies. He is just like his father in that respect. Bush 41 didn't fight back either. Even Quayle was furious at him for lyng down and taking the lies from the left. Has Bush even opened his mouth about our soldiers being tortured, killed , and mutilated?
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.