In all the nice buzz about her announcement, I can't forget Hillary Clinton's ultimate failure. Here's part of the speech.
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?
...
Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.
And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
In 2002, Senator Clinton failed her most significant test as a Senator. She failed it badly. And she failed it for the next five years, until her Presidential campaign started, and she realized Iraq would still be on the table. She's telling top donors her two priorities are going to be health care and climate change, despite failing to do anything meaningful on either priority as first lady or superstar Senator.
I was surprised by her announcement. She glossed right over her own complicity in the last six years, her own lack of leadership on Iraq, the signature issue of our time. John Edwards has addressed the problem head on, admitting he was wrong, and Barack Obama ran an antiwar progressive primary campaign for Senate in 2003. Neither of these figures have the baggage she does on Iraq. Ironically, as inexperienced as Edwards and Obama are, and as little as they have gotten done, Clinton is just as empty if not more so. She has a fairly good voting record, better than Edwards, but no major accomplishments. Her website used to be peppered with petty legislation she co-sponsored with Republicans, not instances she 'stood up to' Bush.
Senator Clinton can be a great leader, but to date, she hasn't been anything of the sort, having coasted on her name, connections, and intelligence. Can she win? Any of them can win, and she's better positioned than anyone else right now. Can she be a great or even just good president? Right now, based on her track record of personal survival married to policy and judgment failure, it's hard to see her doing a good job. And I'm honestly not sure what to look for to suggest that she could be a good President.
Anyone have ideas? I'm particularly looking for anti-Clinton people to name what she could do to gain your support.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 50 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
