Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Is Obama Incompetent? - Anybody but Hillary for Secretary of State; the return of the Clinton Cult

By Bernie Quigley

- for The Hill on 11/18/08

At the Yearly Kos conference summer before last Senator Hillary Clinton said she would consider using nuclear weapons in terrorist situations. This position was first publicly promoted by Cal Thomas, one of the most extreme voices of the Christian right, in a widely distributed newspaper op-ed shortly after 9/11 when he proposed nuking Islamic terrorists. By any rational approach to the new millennium this position approximates madness. At the same conference Obama said he would never use nuclear weapons in a terrorist situation. Why would he consider Hillary for Secretary of State?

In the same period, Harvard lawyer Alan Dershowitz supported the use of torture in extracting information from terrorists. Most opposed. But Dershowitz correctly pointed out that Bill Clinton’s position on torture was exactly the same as his. That is: We shouldn’t use torture. Only when we really need it to get information. As reported in the LA Times, Hillary position was exactly the same. Obama opposed the use of torture. Why would he consider Hillary for Secretary of State?

Senator Clinton, who considered herself “co-President” during her husband’s tenure, was in the White House when 90 Senators agreed to push into Russia’s near frontier under a new NATO agreement in which U.S. troops would be committed to responding to conflicts involving any of the new member nations of Central Europe. It was called an error of “ . . . historic proportions” by the best foreign policy minds of the period. This year, when Georgia invaded South Ossetia and antagonized Russia into responding, she called for a commission to investigate. It is a good idea. But to get the roots of this, investigators would have to go to the administrators who vigorously initiated the first incursions on to Russia’s border: President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and “co-President” Hillary Clinton. Obama says he will delay the deployment into Poland. Why would he then put Hillary in the position of Secretary of State?

At the time of the fateful vote on Iraq, Obama spoke out against the invasion. To some degree his position has been vindicated. Time will tell. The Bush position was carried by a public wave of war fever and a burning desire to avenge the 9/11. Because the Senate lacked oppositional leadership, the Bush position was accommodated by a weakling Congress. Bill Clinton and Hillary, the “presumptive nominee,” were the leaders of the opposition party. They showed the character of Vichy France in appeased President Bush, vigorously supporting his position when polls supported the war, then vigorously opposing it when polls showed that people had soured on the war. Obama was consistent in his position. Bill and Hillary were not brave when they needed to be brave. Why would Obama consider them now?

Senator Clinton’s claim to be knowledgeable on foreign affairs because of a visit to Bosnia with Sinbad, the actor, as First Lady became a laughing stock of her campaign and helped turn the Democratic primary against her. She lied about her experience. Why would anyone want Hillary now as Secretary of State?

Senator Clinton had a negative ceiling of over 50% all through her campaign. Among those between 18 to 28 years old her popularity hovered around zero and never when up past 11% in the campaign. She alienates half of the country. (“Toxic. . .” is the phrase Mudcat Saunders used.) Why would Obama choose her for Secretary of State?

Hillary’s career and Bill’s have been possibly the most corrupt in American history. Hillary’s husband has accepted a virtual bribe of one million dollars from a lobbyist for a foreign country now associated with “Scooter” Libby, one of the instigators of the war in Iraq, later convicted of obstruction and perjury. Clinton pardoned him and got him out of jail on his last day in office. Their presence in the White House poisoned the country and actually awakened two secessionist movements, The League of the South and The New England Confederation for the first time since the 1860s. Why would Obama want them back in the Oval Office today?

Is Obama incompetent? It has been noticed that so many mentioned for Obama’s administration got there simply because they went to college with Bill Clinton. It is beginning to look like the Hillary administration without the Hillary. With Hillary in place in an Obama administration sagging under the weight of Friends of Bill, the country will enter stasis; stuck in arrested development and trapped in the Clinton cult of personality. This could have devastating consequences.

Secretary of State is a tool of diplomacy not an honorarium.


Anonymous said...

or, obama is planning on naming someone else and wants to publicly margianlize HRC by deeming her not as qualified as someone else for the position. shrewd and firm leadership by obama in this case.

that, or you're absolutely correct in your posting today. putting HRC @ SofS is purely political.

many clintonistas circling on the fringes, one has gotten in so far @ chief of staff, will HRC be the 2nd??

Anonymous said...