I arrived in Washington to speak at the Take Back America Conference fast on the heels of the wildly different takes on Iraq offered up in speeches by John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, which everyone at the Washington Hilton was still buzzing about.
While getting ready to MC the Conference's gala awards dinner, I watched Kerry's speech on the web and found myself in tears.
If he had given that speech in 2004, he'd be in the White House today. And the world would be a better and safer place.
Sadly for Ms. HuffPo, she conveniently ignores the big question that should have been raised by her comment. Which one is the real Kerry - the 2004 model, or the 2006 retread? What does Kerry really believe? 2004 or 2006?
The obvious answer is that Kerry believes whatever he thinks is the most politically expedient at the time. If that's the kind of politician HuffPo wants in the White House, good luck with that.
As mentioned in the first paragraph, Ms. HuffPo also heard Hillary's speech and didn't care much for it:
Then I watched Hillary's speech, which also made me cry -- but for an entirely different reason.
It was déjà vu all over again. Are the consultants who helped steer Kerry over the '04 cliff now advising Hillary? Her language on Iraq was replete with the same kind of equivocation that cost Kerry the last election.
"I do not think," she said, "it is a smart strategy for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment, which I think does not put enough pressure on the new Iraqi government, nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain."
Is that not the second coming of I voted for it before I voted against it?
HuffPo's got a point on that one. In one sentence Hillary came out against setting a date certain in Iraq, and also for it. She hasn't gotten much attention for that remark because most of the mainstream press is not willing to take her on. Leave it to the angry left to take on that chore.
The rest of her piece was the usual lefty tripe, so read it at your peril.
No comments:
Post a Comment