Why Hillary Clinton is a Disaster for the Democratic Party
by DerekLarsson, Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:56:35 PM EST
The Case Against Hillary Clinton
Being a good president means being able to make the correct decisions. It means having a vision of where you want the country to go that benefits the vast majority of Americans -- not the War Establishment, not the Banking Industry, not Transnational Corporations, at the expense of the ordinary citizens. It means enhancing civil liberties, not depriving the public from them. It means having both experience and a proven track record in dealing competently with crises. In short, being a good president means having good judgment.
Hillary Clinton has "experience", perhaps (primarily as a mendacious U.S. Senator), but it's experience with making the wrong decisions and displaying incredibly poor judgment.
- Whitewater: A sham real estate transaction drafted by Hillary Clinton, which was so corrupt that it triggered the appointment of a special prosecutor, that paralyzed the White House for 7 years.
- Cattle Futures: "I was lucky," said Hillary when it was discovered that she'd made a 10,000% profit in one year. The same woman who called the `80s "Reagan's Decade of Greed" acquired her astronomical profit via preferential treatment and maybe even insider trading.
- Filegate: The "bureaucratic snafu" perpetuated by a former bar bouncer who worked for Hillary in the White House. "It's a done deal, Hillary wants him," said a White House lawyer when objections were raised about this bouncer's shady past.
- Health Care Reform: Here's where Hillary's incompetence truly flowered. She nearly single-handedly returned control of both houses of Congress to the Republicans...breaking a record of 40 years of Democratic control of the House. This defeat was so bad that one of Hillary's fellow liberals told Carl Bernstein, "My view is Hillary Clinton destroyed the Democratic Party." He also added that Hillary "was a disaster for what we were trying to do in government," as Bernstein reports in his new Hillary biography, "A Woman in Charge."
Hillary's decision-making when in the White House was so bad that even one of the Clinton Whitewater lawyers is on record about it. Attorney Mark Fabiani told Bernstein that several members of the Whitewater legal team came to believe that "Hillary's instincts are horrible in terms of politics, in terms of managing a crisis like this...We had a joke that all we had to do was ask her, What would you do? And then do the opposite...because almost always her instincts were wrong, backwards...". Fabiani also told Bernstein that Hillary "never surrounded herself with people who would stand up to her, who were of a different mind." This is the "smartest woman in the world"?
To see how Hillary's incompetence might play out, consider the way Hillary dealt with health care reform -- putting together half-baked plans in haste then refusing to even meet with Republicans or health care industry representatives when it became clear her plan was in trouble.
A health care executive who met with Hillary on her so-called "reform" plan told PBS Frontline, that she "just flunked the test of understanding Washington, understanding reality."
Hillary Clinton who is asking America to vote for her as president next year, in large part because of her "record of achievement" as First Lady. Clearly she can't tout her Senate record too much, given that she never read the National Intelligence Estimate -- the NIE -- upon which she based her vote to authorize the Iraq war. She claims to have been "briefed on it." (One senator who did read the entire report, Bob Graham of Florida, ended up voting against the war because he wasn't persuaded that Iraq possessed WMDs).
Here we have the most important vote of her legislative career- and yet Hillary couldn't be bothered to do her homework. Perhaps she wanted to get home to cook dinner for Bill. Despite such ineptitude, Washingtonian Magazine has called Hillary, "The Brainiest Senator." An assessment based on what, precisely?
As Michael Moore, (who was 100% correct about both "Fahrenheit 911"& "Sicko"), puts it:
Nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with no reservations. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March -- four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster.
All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence." Let's assume that's true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled? Misled by the likes of George W. Bush? I wasn't "misled," and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren't "misled" either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet... we knew we were being lied to! Let me ask those of you reading this letter: Were YOU "misled" -- or did you figure it out sometime between October of 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was up to something rotten? Twenty-three other senators were smart enough to figure it out and vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn't Senator Clinton?
I have a theory: One of the reasons the public, in the past, would never consider a woman as president is because she would also be commander in chief. The majority of Americans were concerned that a woman would not be as likely to go to war as a man (horror of horrors!). So, in order to placate that mindset, perhaps she believed she had to be as "tough" as a man, she had to be willing to push The Button if necessary, and give the generals whatever they wanted. If this is, in fact, what has motivated her pro-war votes, then this would truly make her a scary first-term president. If the U.S. is faced with some unforeseen threat in her first years, she knows that in order to get re-elected she'd better be ready to go all Maggie Thatcher on whoever sneezes in our direction. Do we want to risk this, hoping the world makes it in one piece to her second term?
I have not even touched on her other numerous -- and horrendous -- votes in the Senate, especially those that have made the middle class suffer even more (she voted for Bush's first bankruptcy bill, and she is now the leading recipient of payoff money -- I mean campaign contributions -- from the health care industry). In the primaries and caucuses, isn't this the time to vote for the person who most reflects the values and politics you hold dear? Can you, in good conscience, vote for someone who so energetically voted over and over and over again for the war in Iraq?
Everyone knows that Hillary Clinton has made the completely wrong and incompetent judgements in Foreign Policy, on both Iraq and Iran. Even far worse than any one particular vote, she attached her own credibility to public promotion and parroting of the plainly fraudulent White House talking-points, and a bizarre faith-based loyalty to their bogus intelligence (White House manipulated) -- even after the inconvenient truth was reported both Nationally and Internationally, and revealed before the whole World.
That, of course, is embarassing. But the scope and depth of Hillary Clinton's incompetence goes way beyond what she did 5 years ago, or what she did this summer (Kyl-Lieberman), or the many mendacious and reckless propaganda utterences and incompetent accusations that she has made about about Iraq and Iran over the past 5+ years. The errors are even larger, and something that is permanent and institutionalized by her own choice of trusted advisors, and that incompetence will never change either now or in the future. You can learn a whole lot about a candidate by who their trusted advisors are.
Both Barack Obama and Hillary have hired advisors that at one time served within the former Clinton administration. Yet, the similarity ends there:
- Lee Feinstein: Chief Foreign Policy Advisor - Supported the War and continues to defend that support.
- Madeleine Albright: Advisor - Supported 'regime change' by Military violence, and publically supported Bush's march to War.
- Bill Clinton: Withheld information about the success of the 1990s UNSCOMB Weapons Inspections from the American public that could have prevented War, publically promoted all the fraudulent Cheney-Bush Iraq WMDs and Nuclear claims, and continued to publically endorse "taking out Hussein" (by mass-violence) and, in his own words, "defended Bush against the left on the War".
- Tony Lake: Chief Foreign Policy Advisor - opposed the Iraq War buildup and regarded it to be a misadventure.
- Susan Rice: Never believed the the Iraq WMD/Nuclear claims to be legitimate.
Who has the winning team?
Clearly, the expertise that our Country needs now is demonstrated by Obama, and not Hillary Clinton.
While Obama has selected skilled and competent former-Clinton administration advisors who understood the Iraq situation accurately and made the correct judgements, Hillary Clinton has bunkered down with a goon squad of PNAC-CFR groupies like Lee Feinstein and Madeleine Albright who cheerled the Cheney-Bush march to War and have the audacity, even in the face of total failure, to continue to stick by their misguided, reckless, and dishonest assessments. It is no wonder then, that these are the same type of traits that are also exhibited by Hillary Clinton herself: the denial of any mistakes, the shameless repeating of false propaganda and fake 'threats' to justify bad judgements, the rushing to happily embrace the next concoction of dishonest White House War propaganda, or the blame shifting to the Iraq government (as we hold their Nation under an illegal, forced Military Occupation and steal their Oil). All of this reveals the fact that Hillary Clinton and her trusted advisors, never met a wrong & destructive Foreign Policy path that they didn't at once fall in love with. Furthermore, there is no track record of learning from past mistakes. Simply put, there is no demonstration of any wise "Experience" here to be found of any kind.
Contrast this with Obama, who has conversely surrounded himself with only the Clinton-era advisors who made the correct judgements and who possess the skill and integrity to advise him in an honorable and competent fashion.
And, in that isn't enough, it was revealed last week that that the Hillary Clinton adminstration (if people are dumb enough to actually vote for her) now plans to hire .. yep .. that 'old Iran-Contra criminal, and Saudi Oil Cartel crony, and CIA 'Bay of Pigs' Zapata Oil frontman, and Gerald Ford's HSCA Committee obstructing CIA-director, the man who hired Osama Bin Laden for the CIA, and recent Caryle Group Board member (along with Osama Bin Laden), and Iraq War Cheerleader with his idiot puppet sons, -- the ever-corruptGeorge H. W. Bush (War Profiteer) -- to advise & represent her administration on U.S. Foreign Policy.
This is Hillary's idea of "good advice".
What's next? Dan Qualye for Secretary of State?
One thing is for sure, I'll bet Hillary Clinton has a spot already reserved and waiting for Joe Lieberman in her adminstration in the area of Foreign Policy expert as well.
So, if Obama is able to choose the wise advisors, and Hillary Clinton is only able to surround herself with failed & incompetent advisors, doesn't that then suggest that Obama has the only "Experience" here that is actionable and actually worth anything?
I mean, if all you can do (Hillary Clinton) is drive a car off the road, you can do that as many times as you like, but that will never qualify you as an "experienced" driver.
- Obama has a positive track record and hence the "experience" to wisely lead.
- Hillary Clinton and her fumbling cadre of incompetent advisors, has demonstrated that they have no more true "experience" than Dick Cheney's hunting chauffeur.
One more point: This illegal Military Occupation will NOT END with Clinton as President.
"We Need To Stay in Iraq to Protect the Kurds From The Turks."
-Bill Clinton, Dec. 2007
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-flee twood/exclusive-bill-clinton_b_78349.htm l
The only thing Hillary Clinton is truly experienced at, is losing all three branches of government for the Democratic Party.
Hillary's LIES and the road to Hell
More Unpresidential Bullshit
Your Jobs At Risk