LOOK... it's TouristSenator!!!
It shows up in more places than TouristGuy did only with less style and substance...
she's Vaporware, just an empty crusty.
(Please spread me around like the parasite that i am...)
Posted on 08/03/2006 2:06:54 PM PDT by Havok
WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton excoriated Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a Senate hearing Thursday, saying he is presiding over a "failed policy" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Under your leadership there have been numerous errors in judgment that have led us to where we are," the New York Democrat said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. "We have a full-fledged insurgency and full-blown sectarian conflict in Iraq."
The showdown between Clinton, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, and Rumsfeld, the public face of the Bush administration's war effort, included the strongest criticism of the Iraq war she has made to date.
The defense secretary seemed briefly stunned by the intensity of her attack, exclaiming, "My goodness," before launching into a point-by-point defense.
He rejected some of her specific criticisms as simply wrong and said the war against terror will be a drawn-out process.
"Are there setbacks? Yes," said Rumsfeld. "Is this problem going to get solved in the near term? I think it's going to take some time."
The testy exchange between Clinton and Rumsfeld came after a top general told the panel violence in Iraq is probably as bad as he's ever seen it and the country may be descending into civil war.
Rumsfeld's popularity has suffered through the three-year Iraqi insurgency, but Clinton has faced critics within her own party furious about her vote in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq and her continued support for the overall mission there.
A day before the hearing, Clinton pushed Rumsfeld to testify publicly before the committee, and when her turn came to speak, she laced into him.
"When our constituents ask for evidence that your policy in Iraq and Afghanistan will be successful, you don't leave us with much to talk about," said Clinton.
"We hear a lot of happy talk and rosy scenarios, but because of the administration's strategic blunders — and frankly the record of incompetence in executing — you are presiding over a failed policy," she said. "Given your track record, Secretary Rumsfeld, why should we believe your assurances now?"
Rumsfeld vehemently denied he'd ever glossed over the difficulties of the fighting in Iraq or elsewhere.
"There's a track record here," countered Clinton. "This is not 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, when you appeared before this committee and made many comments and presented many assurances that have frankly proven to be unfulfilled."
"Senator, I don't think that's true," Rumsfeld fired back. "I have never painted a rosy picture. I've been very measured in my words and you'd have a dickens of a time trying to find instances where I've been excessively optimistic. I understand this is tough stuff."
At that point, the Republican chairman of the committee, Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia, came to Rumsfeld's defense, saying his past comments had been balanced.
Clinton still shied away from two demands made by a growing number of Democrats: Rumsfeld's resignation and a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
The disagreement between the two extended to Afghanistan. The senator specifically faulted Rumsfeld for saying in 2002 that the Taliban was gone, noting that the extremist faction has grown stronger in recent months.
He conceded violence has escalated in Afghanistan, but added, "Does that represent failed policy? I don't know. I would say not."
The defense secretary said he expected the violence there to follow a seasonal pattern and decline as winter approaches.
I doubt that the Rumster was stunned. I think he was counting to 10. In addition, what usually follows "my goodness" is either "someone needs a time out" or "someone needs a hug."
7. Where did those other ten military divisions go?
R.D.I.F. So she and Billy boy could slide billions into social spending from the Defense buget.
What part of that blurb doesn't hold the weight of truth? and be specific...
I'll give you a few observable facts that back my contention that the General's would be itching to beyootchh slap Cinton after such remarks made by her.
1. Murtha's comments over the last year- Democrat.
2. The latest stunt by various high visibility democrats to unite behind a demand that troops leave Iraq by the end of the year, regardless of the situation in the region.-Democrat driven idiocy.
3. The constant questioning or prewar intel for which even they (democrats) signed off on- proof that the continued hypocrisy of the democrat leadership knows no end, plus a visible clue to their willingness to lie to the detriment of this country.
I agree the Generals have a lot on their plate, and yes they answer to the civilian government, but there's a lot at stake...and certain things must be brought to light (political "gotcha" or not).
We're going to pay dearly down the road unless the Democrats/Media are called to the carpet by this Administration and the leadership of our military, which bests understand the stakes of this fight.
FWIW-I can only guess at what the General's think, and in the end it's my opinon that's crafted that blurb...but I know enough about the military, and active duty military officers that serve in it, to know they would love to speak their minds but are constrained by the institutional practice of being non-partisan to do so. It's time to break that practice.
Rumsfeld ripped right back. Which is what the headline should be.
....I don't disagree with the contents...I just think generals should stay our of politics as much as possible..state the facts...if someone is misrepresenting the shove it back up their ass....but we really don't want the military taking sides....well publically....that to me would open up a whole different can of worms....IMHO but I agree with your sentiment totally.....this is all political witch hunt crap
-- Hillary Clinton can't control her own husband how can she win a war? --
Great point! How can you run a government, Hillary, when you can't run your family?
The situation has become so bad, that IMHO, it's time to take sides...it really is.
Too many things are happening in the world today to the detriment of peace, because we as a nation are not perceived as united in our cause to being down evil ...it's time to step up. If not the Generals that lead the fight, then who? Also, if not u or I, then who?
IMHO, the world is in transition and if the US is the largest, strongest, tool for peace in it...we better start acting like it.
And Rumsfeld made clinton look like a fool that she already is.
Did she stay long enough to hear his answer? What a waste of Rummy's time.
Are there any links to transcripts of the hearing? I would love to see what both sides said.
details!
And there are people that are going to vote for this slime....UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!
Laugh at Hillorat, but,all of those that will stay home if the Republicans don`t nominate some one that is exactly "right" on all the issues, you are going to be elect her President.
This commie hag is not worthy to iron Rummy's socks, much less judge a military operation.
Rumsfield knows that. He was way too nice to her. I don't know how he controls his temper like that. He must have been boiling inside. I would have been far less "measured". Hillary deserved to be verbally hammered for her blatant desplay of pandering to her left-wing-nut constituents. What a phoney!
Whe is no match for Rummy on any level in any way. I can just here that ugly harpie blabbing away in that shrill voice. *shudder*
I believe her handlers make her do this because if she speaks without prepared statements, she sounds like a combative ex-wife that nobody can stand to listen to.
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.