|Scams and Scammers - Expose hypocrisy and spread respect ! Don't get ripped off! REGISTER|
HILLARY'S Ongoing DILEMMA
Hillary's ongoing dilemma
© 2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
The Washington Post is apparently just now getting around to figuring out that Hillary Clinton has crafted a "vague stance" on the war in Iraq as she "eyes" the 2008 presidential election.
Imagine that: One of the leading lights of the mainstream media characterizing as "vague" the policy position of the presidential candidate it will likely endorse in 2008, on the most central political issue of the day.
What they won't share is that Hillary's inscrutable policies on Iraq weren't brought about by any principled, much less sophisticated, foreign policy analysis, but raw political calculations and opportunism.
A glaring truism about the Clintons – Bill and Hillary – is that they are first and foremost about acquiring and retaining power. All other considerations are subordinated. They are political liberals, not moderates, as conventional wisdom has graced them, who only adopt centrist positions when necessary to preserve their electability and popularity.
This was clearly true of Bill Clinton, who loved nothing more than demagoguing against the "rich" as he increased taxes on upper middle-income producers and used the military as an international Meals-on-Wheels.
He and Hillary earnestly sought to nationalize health care, and he only signed on to welfare reform after thrice kicking and screaming. And but for the forced austerity imposed by Gingrich Republicans, he would never have swerved into balancing budgets he didn't even aspire to balance when he took office. Yet the fawningly delusional MSM has perpetuated the myth that he was a fiscal conservative.
Now, we're already seeing the same thing play out with Hillary Clinton as the aroma of 2008 wafts toward her nostrils. Whatever principles she has she will temporarily abandon or relegate to the backburner if necessary to further her presidential ambitions.
This has manifested itself most clearly in her nearly indecipherable position on the war in Iraq. I say "nearly indecipherable" because to call it totally indecipherable would be a slight to John Kerry, who holds the award for the most unintelligible stance on the war.
Smart Democrats know that no anti-war candidate is going to get closer to the White House than the Democratic presidential nomination. That's why during the 2004 campaign we had to endure the excruciating spectacle of the anti-war, military-slandering John Kerry schizophrenically vacillating between a love affair with the Michael Moore base and "Reporting for Duty."
Hillary is one of those smart Democrats. So she has been posturing as a hawk for well over a year now and trying to distance herself – at least for public appearances – from the kook base of her party.
But like the rest of us, she didn't seem to anticipate that her base would become so agitated over her quasi support for the war. They may have winked and nodded to John Kerry as he feigned toughness on terror during his campaign, but they've not yet been so forgiving toward Hillary.
This puts Hillary in a very difficult position. She is not used to being held accountable for anything, especially by her base. But she still can't afford to come out full force against the war. And, like other Democratic presidential hopefuls, she can't afford to support fully the president's policy on Iraq, or she gives voters no reason to vote Democratic on the Iraq issue.
So far, she has gotten away with such indefensible tripe – articulated in a speech to Kentucky Democrats – as "I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit, and I reject an open timetable that has no ending attached to it."
Translation: "I know, based on my party's unsuccessful ploy in demanding a withdrawal timetable for Iraq, that I can't go there, but I also know that the loony base is still insisting on withdrawal, so, like John Kerry, I'll throw out gibberish and pray for no follow-up questions. In the meantime, I'll just bark unceasingly over how we were tricked into the war in the first place and how we alienated our allies, which might have the dual benefits of distracting attention away from my incoherent position and mollifying the base."
If Hillary had a principled position on Iraq, she wouldn't have to torture logic to come up with one – or more. But even with the luxury of having no fixed principles on the matter, without a crystal ball unveiling the condition in Iraq two years hence, she can't know for sure whether to go on straddling the fence or jump down on one side or the other.
It will be interesting to see what kind of policy pretzels she might bake over the next few years as she pretends to support our goals in Iraq without supporting President Bush, and attempts to appease her base without answering its secular prayers.
Re: HILLARY'S Ongoing DILEMMA
I wonder if people will look the other way (or sweep these things under the rug), or if they'll make an objective decision based on the facts, while holding the right people accountable.
“Rather than perpetuating the signature Clinton ethic of denial, semantical and rhetorical responses to valid requests and questions, and stonewalling, it is time to accept your responsibility as a Federal elected official and do the right thing…” demand made on Sen. Clinton by her Mega-Contributor turned Whistle-Blower Peter Paul.
(Please refer to this link, as there are links that don't show up on this page).
The Hillary Election Fraud Conspiracy: How Democrat leaders conspired with the Clintons to obtain millions in campaign contributions and hide it from the Feds
Key leaders of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), including DNC Chair Ed Rendell, DNC Convention and DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe, DNC California Regional Chair Stephanie Berger, and former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, recruited businessman Peter Paul as a major donor to the DNC.
They induced Paul to underwrite, host and produce fundraising events for the campaigns of Al Gore and Hillary Clinton in order to pursue his efforts to hire Bill Clinton when he left the White House.They then conspired with the Clintons to hide Paul's various contributions from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the public, and obstructed the Federal investigation that led to the indictment of Hillary Clinton's finance director David Rosen.
Rosen Trial Verdict Sets Stage for Paul Civil Suit
The first ever civil suit to charge a U.S. President and Senator with fraud, coercion and conspiracy was given a major boost during the recent trial of David Rosen, former National Finance Director of Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign, when the Justice Department corroborated several key allegations of the civil suit with no challenge from the defense. Among them: that Plaintiff Peter Paul contributed more than $1.2 million of his personal funds to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign as part of an attempt to involve Bill Clinton in Paul's internet businesses after he left the White House, and that the co-defendants in the civil suit were acting on behalf of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
David Rosen was acquitted of two felony counts that he "knowingly and willfully caused to be made materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements" to the Federal Election Commission. Although the prosecution failed to prove its case that Rosen was responsible for the FEC filings, the trial did provide detailed evidence that the Clinton campaign's FEC statements were in fact false. Peter Paul's civil suit now becomes the only way to compel sworn testimony from Hillary Clinton about her role in the most massive fraud ever charged against an American political campaign.
The criminal charges against Rosen stemmed from the largest fundraiser on behalf of Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign. The August 12, 2000 Hollywood Gala Salute to President Clinton featured performances by Cher, Diana Ross, Toni Braxton, Patti LaBelle, Melissa Etheridge, Sugar Ray and Michael Bolton. The event cost organizer Peter Paul more than $1.2 million to host, and raised $1 million in "hard money" contributions. By falsely reporting those costs as $401,419, the Clinton campaign avoided paying at least $800,000 in hard money -- not including the fair market value of the performances -- during the crucial final weeks before the election. If Paul's contribution had been reported fully as required by law, it could have bankrupted the campaign.
Peter Paul's extensive evidence, which we are organizing and presenting on this site, shows clearly that Hillary Clinton knew of the actions taken by her finance director, and that she orchestrated those actions and others in violation of federal campaign statutes and regulations.
Mr. Paul is being represented in his lawsuit against the Clintons by the U.S. Justice Foundation, which has formed the Hillary Clinton Accountability Project to put the facts of the largest and least reported campaign finance scandal in history before the American people.
For more information about Peter Paul, see his bio at Wikipedia.
Last edited by boone : 12-21-2005 at 12:09 AM. Reason: Image didn't insert