Sunday, October 21, 2007

Hillary and "the war"

Over at Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish, you'll find several negative references to Senator Clinton; especially often will there be strong comments against her position on the Iraqi situation(s).

I've never heard the Senator say anything with which I totally disagree. I might find a word or a nuance a touch disturbing, but sometimes even Sullivan drives me up the wall, yet I continue to be a fan. So let it be with Mrs. Clinton.

One thing which really bothers me is the constant reference to "the war." What, Dear Gentle Reader(s) do you think this reference means? It would seem to me that there are two "wars," if you will: the Bush misadventure in Iraq, and the aptly-defined-by-Bush "ideological struggle of the 21st century."

Now, I haven't heard Mrs. Clinton say very much (if anything) about this ideological struggle (and that, to me, is the true danger to the American way of life), but what I have heard her say about the Iraqi situation is pretty much along the lines of what Secretary of State Powell said, "If you break it, you own it." We (Oh, how that hurts, and how I'd love to be able to say, HE!!) broke it.

We cannot leave immediately in any case, although Sullivan and Co. make persuasive argument that we should leave post haste.

What would Sullivan have the good Senator do?

I begin to think there's nothing she could say and responsibly mean which would satisfy him.

Further, I think Sullivan should constantly remind his readers that there is a second front on this war, an ideological front, which does not get very much "ink;" and he should always use the Iraqi adjective when discussing, specifically, the Iraqi part of this struggle.

Trust your "gut," Andrew; but verify! And clarify!

Sphere: Related Content

No comments:

Post a Comment

The courage of your conviction virtually demands your name, if we don't know you.