The return of Senator Flip-Flop
No, not that one even though he always did give the best soundbites to brow-beat him with. I'm referring to this flipper. Why call Hillary a flip-flopper? Jim Geraghty has the details courtesy of Allah at Hot Air. Here is Geraghty's post:
Hillary Clinton: FLIP...
July 27 : US Democratic presidential candidate and New York Senator Hillary Clinton has rejected suggestions of a unilateral US strike in Pakistan's tribal region, American troops should accompany Pakistan troops.
Addressing a fund-raising dinner organised by the National Association of Pakistani-Americans, Hillary said a unilateral US strike would not produce the desired results, but would create fresh problems. Only a combined effort could destroy militant hideouts in the area, she added.
...FLOP:
But she did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998.
"If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured," she said.
The first comment is from July 27, the second from August 1. Way to go, Senator.
So which is it, madam Senator? Either you don't support striking targets in Pakistan (blowing up camels and tents with cruise missiles), or you do. You can't have this both ways. And this is a bad gaffe on her part. Basically, Barack Obama handed her the knife, and offered his back to her when he said that he'd invade Pakistan. A sort of "If they can't do the job effectively, we'll do it for them" sort of US-policing-the-world type of worldview; a view that the vast majority of the nation didn't appreciate it during the Clinton years.
It's pure folly to think that this sort of a strategy would work. It wouldn't. It'd be a disaster at a point in Pakistan's history where such stupidity can't be allowed to happen. Musharraf has enough problems in his country right now, and the possibility that the next president may turn their attention to his country wouldn't help stabilize anything int he region. If anything, not only would it possibly lead to the fall of the Musharraf regime, possibly putting nuclear weapons int he hands of Islamofascists as they seize power (remember that AQ in the Pakistani tribal regions called for a coup to topple the Musharraf regime in response to the Red Mosque incident). Barack's plans would facilitate the sort of instability Musharraf doesn't need.
But so would Hillary's plan (or is a non-plan and lip service?). Instead of flexing their mouth muscles over attacking an ally, wouldn't it be more prudent to address the theaters we're currently engaged in before we go off, and open a new front? Prudence dictates that one should, but these Democratic candidates have never really followed logic. They're too busy jockeying for position int he race to be concerned with real issues. For both Senator Clinton and Obama, they have to create problems just to make it look like they'd be the right person for the job.
Publius II
Hillary Clinton: FLIP...
July 27 : US Democratic presidential candidate and New York Senator Hillary Clinton has rejected suggestions of a unilateral US strike in Pakistan's tribal region, American troops should accompany Pakistan troops.
Addressing a fund-raising dinner organised by the National Association of Pakistani-Americans, Hillary said a unilateral US strike would not produce the desired results, but would create fresh problems. Only a combined effort could destroy militant hideouts in the area, she added.
...FLOP:
But she did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998.
"If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured," she said.
The first comment is from July 27, the second from August 1. Way to go, Senator.
So which is it, madam Senator? Either you don't support striking targets in Pakistan (blowing up camels and tents with cruise missiles), or you do. You can't have this both ways. And this is a bad gaffe on her part. Basically, Barack Obama handed her the knife, and offered his back to her when he said that he'd invade Pakistan. A sort of "If they can't do the job effectively, we'll do it for them" sort of US-policing-the-world type of worldview; a view that the vast majority of the nation didn't appreciate it during the Clinton years.
It's pure folly to think that this sort of a strategy would work. It wouldn't. It'd be a disaster at a point in Pakistan's history where such stupidity can't be allowed to happen. Musharraf has enough problems in his country right now, and the possibility that the next president may turn their attention to his country wouldn't help stabilize anything int he region. If anything, not only would it possibly lead to the fall of the Musharraf regime, possibly putting nuclear weapons int he hands of Islamofascists as they seize power (remember that AQ in the Pakistani tribal regions called for a coup to topple the Musharraf regime in response to the Red Mosque incident). Barack's plans would facilitate the sort of instability Musharraf doesn't need.
But so would Hillary's plan (or is a non-plan and lip service?). Instead of flexing their mouth muscles over attacking an ally, wouldn't it be more prudent to address the theaters we're currently engaged in before we go off, and open a new front? Prudence dictates that one should, but these Democratic candidates have never really followed logic. They're too busy jockeying for position int he race to be concerned with real issues. For both Senator Clinton and Obama, they have to create problems just to make it look like they'd be the right person for the job.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 3:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home