Posted on 08/18/2006 10:24:37 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
“My goodness,” he said.
Secretary Rumsfeld was responding to a question asked by Hillary Clinton, junior senator from New York and, of course, our former non-cookie-baking First Lady. They were conversing while Rumsfeld testified at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The question, like so many delivered in such hearings, was actually a long, prepared diatribe.
My question is much shorter than Senator Clinton’s: was this the official start of her campaign for the presidency, or just the beginning of a new phase in that campaign?
“Under your leadership there have been numerous errors in judgment that have led us to where we are,” Clinton said. “We have a full-fledged insurgency and full-blown sectarian conflict in Iraq.”
After his “My goodness,” Rumsfeld put the shiv in himself, saying that he had tried to keep notes to facilitate “responding to your prepared statement.” Then he went to work on the specifics (for example, Taliban attacks are up because they follow a seasonal cycle) and the exchange became testy. Clinton accused him of “happy talk” and Rumsfeld disputed that, saying “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.”
By day’s end, Hillary was formally calling for his head. Saying that the President should accept Rummy’s resignation, she said, “I just don't understand why we can't get new leadership that would give us a fighting chance to turn the situation around before it's too late.”
Never mind that troops the Senator’s husband deployed to Bosnia are still there eleven years later, and the troops he sent to Kosovo are in year eight. Never mind that successful campaigns against insurgencies are so difficult that the definitive book on the subject is called “Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife.” What struck me is that here was a guy who retired from being Secretary of Defense the first time in 1977. Here’s a guy who’s been in the defense game so long that he once flew F6F Hellcats (yes, a World War II propeller-driven fighter), a guy who held the rank of Captain in the Naval Reserve. Meanwhile, Clinton’s qualifications for being on the Armed Services Committee consist mainly of sleeping in the same house with the Commander-in-Chief for eight years.
For those of you who think she picked up a lot as “co-president,” consider this: My wife is a registered nurse, and I often helped her study and discussed what she was learning; I even found it quite interesting. I, meanwhile, have a business degree. Do you think I picked up enough knowledge to put an IV in your arm?
Yeah, I didn’t think so either.
Clinton was stirring the pot on an issue that is traditionally a disadvantage for her party, in which she has little experience in, and she went up against possibly the most experienced and articulate defense expert on the planet. She’s no dummie, so what is going on here?
Quite simply, in the words of commentator Bill Sammon, Hillary was defending her left flank. She’s seen what has happened to Joe Lieberman.
Lieberman is under assault in the Connecticut Democratic primary and is probably going to lose. There’s only one reason a man who votes with the Democratic leadership would be in trouble—the Iraq War. Lieberman voted for it and supports it still.
In 2000, Lieberman was well-respected in his party and was preparing to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. In 2004 he was treated as if he were a traitor to all things liberal just because he doesn’t see George Bush as the anti-Christ. Now he’s in the fight of his political life. The left fringe of the Democratic base has decided there will be no dissent on Iraq. In their view, if you wanted 25 million Arabs to breathe free and terror training camps shut down, you are a traitor to all that is good. A little-qualified hardcore antiwar candidate, Ned Lamont, is treating Lieberman that way. Lamont talks about George Bush’s record a lot, because if he talks about Lieberman’s record, people might remember that Lieberman is a Democrat.
Hillary has seen Lieberman’s future, and she is edging toward the Cindy Sheehan Left so fast the polyester in her pants might catch on fire. We’ll see her spend the next two years criticizing the war she helped start. Or, if the insurgency suddenly collapses before 2008, she’ll take credit for whipping the war effort into shape. She won’t go as far as calling for a withdrawal, however, knowing that will lose her the swing voters.
She will go into 2008 declaring that she voted for the war before voting against it. My goodness, that has a familiar ring…
I agree, but I was referring only to the Dem primary, and at the time I worte this Lieberman was behind LaMont by double digits. In the three way race, he's going to smack LaMont around like nobody's business.
It was hilarious the other day to watch the people at DU shrieking about how the London terror plot news was ginned up to bury the news of Lieberman's primary loss. They're so dense that they don't realize the Lieberman situation is exactly what we want the voters to see, because it shows the current state of the Democratic Party and proves that said party is no longer trustworthy on national security issues. The way they've treated Lieberman helps nationalize the election.
I think she's going to be the nominee, and that she will lose in a landslide to any likely Republican except McCain. I don't believe McCain or Rudy can win the nomination, however.
Good article. HHC's husband.
Rumfields sighs...Hillary's thighs. when are ou
predicting she will announce for POTUS? The best
thing that can happen to Repubs is an early one...
but it probably will come ...Feb. 08. Jake
Smallbrite is still poking around. Where are Shillelagh and Renal? Brownernose? Axel Heman? Witchhazel O'Bleary?
As Donald "I shall return" Rumsfeld surely did return, does Hillary "I am Mt. Everest" Clintonsandtons already have her cabinet set?
yitbos
Clinton promised "one year and out" for troops in Bosnia. Our troops have been there 11 times that length of time and not a word from the MSM.
President Bush states that the war on terror will be a long fight and the MSM is all over him after about 2 years.
No bias though... /S
Thanks!
My crystal ball just isn't that good. We'll see.
"If you ever come over here and try to make good on that threat, I guarantee you'll need a coroner when I'm done with you."
Like I said, no more calls after that..."
R O T F!
B U M P
Thanks for the good read, and the ping.
Thank you, and I'm glad I could give you a chuckle.
Liberals are quintessential cowards : )
More like cankle
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.