hillary clinton Covertly Hedges Her Bets on the War While Overtly Betting Everything on the Virtual Certainty--Another Terrorist Attack
Does she support the war or doesn't she?
(And why won't the 4th Estate finally VET this dangerous, repugnant fraud, anyway?)
- Congenital Bottom Feeder on Irish TV, Cowers Below Network Radar. . . Again
- Continues to Subsist on Cozy Clintonoid Interviews of Colmes Kind
by Mia T, 2.28.03
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...
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 &endash; 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?...
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...
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 &endash; 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."
Firemen beware! | Thursday, February 27, 2003 | Ann Coulter
Just as it it not surprising that hillary clinton would covertly hedge her bets on the war, it is not surprising that she would bash Bush on homeland security openly, loudly and often.
Both logic and empirical evidence inform us that perfect homeland security, especially in a post-9/11 world, is unattainable. The Bush Administration and terrorism experts tell us that another terrorist attack is a virtual certainty.
Thus, we have hillary clinton bashing Bush on homeland security. Vulnerability will always smoke out the opportunistic, cowardly thug.
- THE INTERMINABLE clintons
It's time to take out the trash...
A Senate en passant capture is THE MOVE... -
- NEW AUDIO! Hear the Bill Bennett (PARDONGATE) epilogue .
-
- hillary clinton A SECURITY RISK: Removal Calls Begin
- hillary clinton A SECURITY RISK: Removal Calls Begin
-
- THE UNSTATED MESSAGE OF THE POWELL EVIDENCE
-
- Another mistaken 'conceptzia'
WHY AMERICA (& THE WORLD) CANNOT SURVIVE ANOTHER CLINTON
(INDEED, IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT WE ARE GOING TO SURVIVE THE FIRST ONE,) -
- Utter-Failure clintons Concoct Left-Wing-Radio Scheme FIG LEAF
Flower Children Fall for the 2 Self-Evident Thugs & Opportunists Yet Again
(Liberals have always had problems figuring out causation) -
- THE CLINTONS--AMERICA'S BIGGEST BLUNDER: Hear Bush 41 Warn Us--October 19, 1992
-
- How to get rid of the clintons in 3 easy steps
-
- the logic of pathologic self-interest
