Hillary the Warmonger

I first created this entry in August 2006 for my blog on another website. With her recent anouncement that she intends to run for the presidential nommination of the DNC it seems entirely appropriate to repost it here.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon 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." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"The intelligence which the president shared with us was in line with what we saw in the White House." -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 2003

Hillary Clinton not only agreed with President Bush about the intelligence regarding Iraq, but she confirmed it! She built support for the war in Iraq by confirming to the world that she saw the very same intelligence as “co-president” in the previous administration. She was so convinced of the correctness of the intelligence that she voted for the invasion of Iraq.

“The long and drawn-out conflict this administration triggered…” --SEN. HILLARY CLINTON'S SPEECH ON JAN. 18, 2006 ON THE MIDDLE EAST AT PRINCETON UNIVERSITY'S WOODROW WILSON SCHOOL. (Unofficial transcript; as provided by the Daily Princetonian newspaper.)

Just three years later she tries to distance herself from the role she played in sending this nation to war. She places blame on the current administration and makes no reference to her own comments that gave credibility to the war in Iraq.

“I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end, nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. If last December's elections lead to a successful Iraqi government, that should allow us to start drawing down our troops during this year while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safe areas with greater intelligence and quick-strike capabilities. This will help us stabilize that new Iraqi government. It will send a message to Iran that they do not have a free hand in Iraq despite their considerable influence and personal and religious connections there. It will also send a message to Israel and our other allies, like Jordan, that we will continue to do what we can to provide the stability necessary to prevent the terrorists from getting any further foothold than they currently have.” -SEN. HILLARY CLINTON'S SPEECH ON JAN. 18, 2006 ON THE MIDDLE EAST AT PRINCETON UNIVERSITY'S WOODROW WILSON SCHOOL. (Unofficial transcript; as provided by the Daily Princetonian newspaper.)
http://justhillary.com/herwords/princeton.php

Can there be any doubt from her speech that she is seeking re-election? She seems to be searching for a safe position on Iraq. Read her words carefully. She doesn’t want to “pull out of Iraq immediately” and even suggests “leaving behind a smaller contingent in safe areas with greater intelligence and quick-strike capabilities”. Does “safe areas” sound like a synonym for military bases? Our military has been maintaining similar “safe areas” in Germany for over 60 years to send this message to what used to be the Soviet Bloc. We have been maintaining “safe areas” in South Korea for over 50 years to send the very same message to North Korea. The next question is to determine who would be the target of these “quick-strike capabilities”? The answer is in the rest of the paragraph. Her anticipated target is Iran! Unlike the unfounded warmonger allegations of Ronald Reagan in 1980, Hillary Clinton has detailed how she intends to take this nation to war with another country should she become the Commander-in-Chief. Could this speech be her oral rendition of Mein Kampf?

“You did not go into Iraq with enough troops…” -HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON STATEMENT AT SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE HEARING WITH DEFENSE SECRETARY RUMSFELD, Aug. 3, 2006

Not even two weeks ago she publicly scolded Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for not taking enough troops into Iraq. This suggests that she would use many more troops in Iraq. Obviously, placing more troops in harm’s way equates to more potential American casualties. This is not really an unexpected response since the Clintons have nver held our military in very high esteem.

Begin withdrawing troops from Iraq in 2006. Clinton voted YES. Amendment rejected.

Withdraw all troops from Iraq in 2007. Clinton voted NO. Amendment rejected.

These two votes regarding troop withdrawals are consistent with her speech on August 3, 2006. She wants to withdrawal some troops beginning in 2006, but not all of them out in 2007. Remember, she wants “quick strike capabilities” in Iraq.

Hillary’s position on Iraq is very calculating. She hasn’t given much information regarding her position other than she is not pleased with how the Administration is handling it. What Hillary seems to want is our troops to maintain permanent military bases in Iraq to act as a deterrent to Iran. However, she doesn’t want enough troops left behind to actually repel an attack from Iraq’s traditional enemy. Instead, she only wants enough troops left behind so that an attack on Iraq would be considered an attack on America. This theory is what has kept our troops in foreign lands for over 60 years. Hillary’s foreign policy is designed to tempt our enemies into attacking us. Not only is Iran the world’s 4th largest oil producer, but they are also working on creating nuclear weapons if they haven’t acquired them already.

Hillary Clinton is a scary figure, but not because she is “the world’s most intelligent woman”. She is scary because she would take this nation to war to cement a second term as president. In her own words, “We’ve never unseated an incumbent president during wartime. That’s just a given,”