The Clinton-Obama White Flag?

by

Are these two consorting with each other to set up politics for a White Woman President and a Black Male Vice-President? Just wondering. Or, could it be the other way around? No way. Never mind. Hillary would NEVER be in second place and be considered a mere figure-piece.

From the New York Post:

May 26, 2007 — Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, both hurtling ever-leftward, covered themselves with the Move-On.org crowd this week by voting against the Iraq war-funding bill because it no longer imposed deadlines for withdrawing U.S. forces.

This despite the fact that both maintain they “support our troops” – and, until recently, had rejected the idea of cutting off funding. [shhhh! exposing the double standards and the flip-flops is anathema and mean-spirited…]

And the fact that last year both voted against setting any timetable for troop withdrawals. [shhhh! exposing the double standards and the flip-flops is anathema and mean-spirited…]

In other words, when it comes to deadlines and funding cutoffs, both senators were against it before they were for it. [shhhh! exposing the double standards and the flip-flops is anathema and mean-spirited…]

Though when it comes to the war itself, Hillary was for it before she was against it. [shhhh! exposing the double standards and the flip-flops is anathema and mean-spirited…]

Sen. Clinton seems to take her cues from whatever public-opinion polls are saying at any given moment – particularly those that have her falling behind in Iowa. [shhhh! exposing the double standards and the flip-flops is anathema and mean-spirited…]

As Sen. John McCain rightly noted, what Obama and Clinton did is “adopt the policy of surrender” and “the equivalent of waving a white flag to al Qaeda.” [shhhh! exposing the double standards and the flip-flops is anathema and mean-spirited…]

The two Democrats each hope to become the nation’s commander-in-chief come January 2009. How would they presume to fight a war, if necessary, with Congress setting artificial deadlines that bear no relation to the actual situation on the ground? [shhhh! exposing the double standards and the flip-flops is anathema and mean-spirited…]

Let’s hope they – and we – never have to find out.

Meanwhile, the fact is that President Bush won an important victory with this bill, thanks to his refusal to listen to those who pushed him to capitulate to the Democrats.

He said he would veto any bill that set a timetable for withdrawal or that threatened to use a funding cutoff to achieve that goal.

In the end, the Democrats – obviously aware that the American people don’t buy this “we support the troops but oppose funding them” nonsense – feared being held politically accountable if U.S. forces suddenly found their resources cut off.

Bottom line: Supporting the troops means supporting them fully. It means allowing the commanders and their soldiers to perform their mission without interference – and without sending public signals to the enemy that American resolve is weakening.

Anyone who doesn’t understand this has no business running for president. [shhhh! exposing the double standards and the flip-flops is anathema and mean-spirited…]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: