Posted on 02/27/2003 4:53:01 AM PST by JohnHuang2
After voting in favor of the war with Iraq right before the November elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton never had another kind word to say for the war. Just a few weeks ago, Sen. Clinton gave an interview on Irish TV in which she said she opposed precipitous action against Iraq. She said Bush should give the U.N. weapons inspectors more time.
Hillary did not object to precipitous action against Iraq when her husband bombed it on the day of his scheduled impeachment. President Clinton attacked Saddam Hussein without first asking approval from the United Nations, the U.S. Congress or even France. But now we have a president who wants to attack Iraq for purposes of national security rather than his own personal interests, and Hillary thinks he's being rash. President Bush has gotten a war resolution from Congress, yet another U.N. Security Council resolution, and we've been talking about this war for 14 months. But he's being precipitous.
When Clinton bombed Iraq to delay his impeachment, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle was ablaze with war fever. Daschle said: "This is a time to send Saddam Hussein as clear a message as we know how to send that we will not tolerate the broken promises and the tremendous acceleration of development of weapons that we've seen time and time again in Iraq." Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said of the impeachment bombing: "Month after month, we have given Iraq chance after chance to move from confrontation to cooperation, and we have explored and exhausted every diplomatic action. We will see now whether force can persuade Iraq's misguided leaders to reverse course and to accept at long last the need to abide by the rule of law and the will of the world."
Now here we are, more than four years later, Saddam still hasn't complied with U.N. resolutions, and America has been attacked by Islamic crazies – and these same Democrats think Bush is acting impulsively. Democrats are always hawks in the off-season. They're all for war, provided it has nothing to do with America's security.
No one in the United States saw Hillary's interview on Irish TV, so she is now secretly on the record against the war, which will come in handy if the war goes badly. But if the war goes well, she is also officially on the record as being for the war, allowing the New York Times to call her a "moderate."
Aren't we entitled to ask: Does she support the war or doesn't she? Sen. Clinton has sat idly by watching her fellow liberals attack Bush savagely for a war she allegedly supports. If her vote for the war was genuine and not just a cynical place-holding vote, why doesn't she defend the war? This is a party that overtly says: Let's fake out the American people. Any Democrat who purported to be for the war last October but does not speak out now is a fraud.
Hillary hasn't shied away from talking about the war on terrorism. She has repeatedly bashed Bush for not doing enough to protect the country from another terrorist attack. Democrats love "Homeland Security" because they see it as a ruse for more socialist programs. They think Bush won't show he's serious about fighting terrorism until we have full prescription-drug care for the elderly.
Hillary's idea for "Homeland Security" is a federal program to fund local police and fire departments. I've noticed that feminists have become big fans of firemen since 9-11. Anti-war activist Susan Sarandon was in a play directed by her anti-war partner, Tim Robbins, titled "The Guys," about New York City firemen after the terrorist attack. Renowned feminist harpy Anna Quindlen has been on television gushing that "firefighters" are "aces." And Hillary's anti-terrorist initiative is federally funded firemen.
I suppose we've made real progress when feminists are defending firemen rather than suing them. Until Sept. 11, feminists hated no group of people more than firemen and policemen. Remember that? These were reviled white men shutting out women and minorities through their quote-unquote standards, which liberals said were a wily subterfuge to keep 5-foot-2-inch former gymnasts out of fire departments.
It is blatant phoniness for these women to pretend they like firemen. Rich feminists have as much in common culturally with firemen as I do with sumo wrestlers. They hate the way firemen talk, they hate their beer, they hate their moral and cultural sensibilities – including sexist views about sending girls into burning buildings. Sarandon is such a blue-collar-type, she made a movie about two women, "Thelma & Louise," who go around terrorizing males. That's their fantasy.
Fawning over firemen is how feminists make-believe they're patriotic. They hate the military but see firemen as gentle warriors who don't kill anybody. While leering over the prospect of a military catastrophe in Iraq, Hillary pals around with cops and firemen. When the war starts, Sarandon will have to make love to a fireman publicly to maintain her faux patriotism. The name of this play ought to be "The Guise."
I gotta chuckle out of that little zinger...
Next, I'd love to see her slice and dice that dimwit Sheryl Crow - who I always thought made it big primaily due to the bassline and slide in "All I Wanna Do".
As far as her part in that song, that particular line "All I wanna do is have some fun... Until the sun comes up over Santa MoniCA Boulevard. Absolutely atrocious syllabic stuffing.
As comic-book guy would say..."Worst lyrical hackjob EVER!"
BTW.... so do you John :-)
What a woman!
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.