Sen. Hillary Clinton wants the Iraq war - the central front in the global War on Terror - all wrapped up by Jan. 20, 2009, reports the AP, because she doesn't want to deal with it after (if) she becomes commander-in-chief. Oh really...
President Bush has described Iraq as the central front in the global fight against terrorism that began after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He recently told USA Today: "The war on terror will be a problem for the next president. Presidents after me will be confronting ... an enemy that would like to strike the United States again."
Sen. Clinton: "I am going to level with you, the president has said this is going to be left to his successor. I think it is the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it."
Yeah, well, Bush probably resented your husband not doing squat about al Qaeda after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing or the October 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, but I don't recall him demanding you get that problem all wrapped up before he took office on Jan. 20, 2001 - and he sure diidn't use it as an excuse to pass the buck after 9/11.
Does Sen. Clinton really believe no outgoing president should ever leave unfinished business to the next president? Really? That seems quite an impossibility. Or is she only referring to military involvements? Okay - so, did her husband bring the troops home from Bosnia before he left office?
No. They're still there, in fact. Is that evidence of the "height of irresponsibility"? No. It's just a fact of life. Wars do not come prepacked in four-year units. Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not commit the U.S. to war against the Third Reich and the Empire of Japan under the condition that we end our involvement, win or lose, after a set period of time.
We were, as the saying goes, "in it to win it."
If only Clinton and others of her party showed the same determination to win the war as her determination to win the White House.
Comment Preview