I thought I'd heard it all, until I heard Hillary's latest demand.
She insists that President Bush must 'clean up his own mess' by January 19, 2009. No ifs, ands or buts.
In Hillary's view, it now seems, all programs, problems, initiatives which a sitting President undertakes must be completed by his exit date. No exceptions.
Of course, she's not counting her husband's unfinished dalliances with early terrorism in the Mideast. Nor his passing along a fractured intelligence-gathering establishment and an ignored military.
But, no matter. The future begins today! And Hillary says that all issues currently open in the Bush administration must be closed and resolved before his successor sets foot off the rostrum on that January afternoon in 2009.
If this is what Hillary's spouting so early in the campaign, there's no limit to how inane and silly this election season/cycle is going to become. So, buckle in, grab the popcorn and a diet soda, and get ready for some primo free political entertainment from now until November, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
What I fail to understand is: If Hilary (or any Democrat) wants to grab attention on the subject of Iraq, simply ask the Administration for two very simple, straightforward things:
1. A definition of "success" in Iraq for the US.
2. A committment to leave Iraq once "success" as defined in #1 has been ahcieved.
This pins the Adminstration down to measurable objectives, and allows for rational debate about how realistic said objectives might be, if our measures of success can actually be objectively tracked, etc. If the Adminstration refuses to deinfe success in Iraq in any measurable way, then the Democrats have an actual, solid, campaign issue.
But, oh, I forgot. It's not about rational debate and actual issues, is it?
Never mind. On with the timetables and ultimatums.
Thanks for your comment.
I agree with your points. Regardless of one's partisanship leanings, if one has them, what you suggest works for simply wanting success in Iraq as an American.
Without this, we'd never know when we have accomplished our objectives. In this regard, and only this regard, the current situation is a bit like Vietnam, I fear.
Hopefully, Petraeus will convey #1, in the form of some sort of security-related metric.
Of course, some of us think it's not a bad idea to have a reason to place 2 divisions of US troops on the ground, unfettered, in the region, right next to Syria and Iran.
I would, btw, be one of those people.
Post a Comment