George Thinks There May Be A Hillary In Your Future!

goldenponderbob · 10-08-2007, 05:09 PM

Found an interesting piece from the Sunday (Oct 7) Times (UK not NY).
I'd been looking for Hill's "dodges" on the issue of "Warrrantless
Wirtaps" and whatever related matters I could find.

Here are excerpts that, put together, tell an interesting story
the upshot of which we won't know until 1/21/09, when, of course,
it will be too late.

George is aparently now grooming her because he has no choice, she
simply cannot move into the white House and take over without a running start.

BUSH administration officials are paving the way for a
smooth transition to a possible Democratic presidency as
Hillary Clinton consolidates her position as the over-
whelming favourite to win her party’s nomination for the
2008 election.

With Clinton looking the near-inevitable nominee, Bush
officials intend to hold her to her promise to be tough
on defence and national security. Robert Gates, the
defence secretary, is hoping to establish a bipartisan
consensus on defence that will last beyond next year’s
election.

In the clearest sign of a shift in gear, Gates is to
appoint John Hamre, a former official in President Bill
Clinton’s administration, to chair the Defense Policy
Board once led by Richard Perle, a leading neoconserva-
tive advocate of the invasion of Iraq. The board’s job
will be to prepare for the transition to a new admini-
stration in 2008, according to a Pentagon spokesman

In common with Gates, Hamre is sceptical about the value
of the Iraq troop surge. He recently served on a bipar-
tisan commission on Iraq chaired by James Jones, the
former Nato commander. In evidence to Congress last
month, Hamre said: Absent political reconciliation,
it’s hard to see how this [the war] ends well.

Hamre, who heads the influential Center for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington, also argued that
America will be hurt if we crawl out or run out of Iraq.

He believes the next president should maintain a vital
but scaled-down presence in the country in order to over-
see the training of Iraqi security forces and to direct
operations against known bad guys.

Lawrence Korb, a defence expert at the Center for American
Progress, a Democratic think tank, described Hamre’s
imminent appointment as a brilliant move which would mark
a dramatic break with Perle’s era.

Most people think the next president will be a Democrat
and Gates, who has been around for a long time, believes
it is his job to ensure that national security is not
affected, Korb said.

Clinton has been sidestepping calls to pull US troops out
of Iraq if she wins, sticking to a broader promise to begin
a phased withdrawal. In a recent television interview, the
New York senator refused to state that all US combat troops
would leave Iraq by the end of her first term in office.

She voted in the Senate last month to designate the Iranian
Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation.

Perle believes that Clinton might be prepared to order
military strikes against Iran if President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
takes Tehran’s nuclear program to the brink. If President
Clinton is informed in March 2009 that we’ve got ironclad
intelligence that if we don’t act within the next 30 days
it’s going to be too late, I wouldn’t begin to predict what
she would do, Perle said. Nobody wants to act before it is
absolutely essential. . . but things can change quickly.

Perle is generous about the appointment of Hamre, arguing
that the Defense Policy Board has a tradition of bipartisan-
ship. He’s an experienced professional and a very good
choice, Perle said, noting that George W Bush had kept on
George Tenet, a Clinton appointee, as CIA chief after
winning the 2000 election.

Bush believes Clinton will win the Democratic nomination
and has privately advised her not to voice antiwar rhetoric
on Iraq that she may come to regret, according to a new book,
The Evangelical President, by Bill Sammon. It’s different
being a candidate and being the president, Bush said.

No matter who the president is, no matter what party, when
they sit here in the Oval Office and seriously consider the
effect of a vacuum being created in the Middle East . . .
they will then begin to understand the need to continue to
support the young democracy.

If any portion of this article passes the smell test, it's surely a
most "telling" piece of information about the way things will be
after 1/21/07 (domestic issues notwithstanding.

My take on how things will be according to the above is:
- Hill in charge . . . . . morethanlikely!
- Troops in Iraq . . . . . morethanlikely!
- War with Iran . . . . . morethanlikely!

So, from the above, can any on here at LL figure out what she plans to do about:
- conducting the war on terror
- closing Guantamo,
- ending warrantless wiretaps
- abolishing secret CIA detention

How much, in fact does anyone know about what this woman plans to do.
We know scads about how far she is ahead of Obama and the others, and how she expects to do in Iowa. Like that's all that matters.

Imagine, Nancy takes over the "House" but not much changes.
Imagine, Hill takes over the "WHouse" but not much changes.
If George is so bad and so low in the polls, how can anything close to
"business as usual" after 1/21/09 make sense?

How do the democrats get away with screaming at George while
Hillary moves along with completely unchallenged policies that she
sometimes decides need to remain hidden

The answer, to me, is that a lot of people are feeding a lot of BS
to a lot of other people, and we're just taking it al in as though
it were some kind of "theatrical nonsense".

This article is from a UK publication. The Brits certainly have
learned something about investing money and blood on hairbrained
military adventures. They will soon be down to 2500 participants,
and what's all that bought them? Have the insurgents or Al Qaeda
been surpressed? Are Iraqi security forces sufficiently trained?
Or has the patience of the British people simply run out?