Big Dogs Weblog

Partisan Hack Hillary Suffers from BDS

by Big Dog on Feb 17, 2007 at 17:54 Uncategorized

Hillary is a partisan hack and a typical Democrat. She believes that certain rules apply to Republicans (especially George Bush) and not to her, or other Democrats. Since she is running for president (a revelation I made over two years ago) it is fitting to see how Hillary is playing this game and how she affords herself luxuries that she will not give to President Bush. The NYT has an article that deals with Hillary’s strategy with regard to her vote to authorize the war. She has had a number of responses to her vote but none of them have been the words “I was wrong.” I do not think her vote was wrong but since many moonbats do it is worth looking at.

I have previously discussed her words of wisdom that if she knew then what she knows now, she would not have voted for the war. I will not belabor the point but suffice it to say that many people might feel that way about a number of things. Hindsight is always 20/20 and it is easy to say that if you had this knowledge then you would not have done something. It is always easier to say what you WOULD have done because you have the benefit of knowing what the outcome is. Jeez, she could have said, if I could see into the future I would never have voted for the war, same thing.

I don’t care how Hillary answers the question. I would appreciate it if a politician just had the courage to say I voted this way or that because it was the right thing to do at the time. Hillary does not want to be labeled a flip-flopper and she wants to appear decisive. She also believes she has the nomination in the bag so she is pandering to the moderate conservatives and Independents. But three items from the article demonstrate how she operates:

Mrs. Clinton’s belief in executive power and authority is another factor weighing against an apology, advisers said. As a candidate, Mrs. Clinton likes to think and formulate ideas as if she were president — her “responsibility gene,” she has called it. In that vein, she believes that a president usually deserves the benefit of the doubt from Congress on matters of executive authority.
~snip~
Foreign policy advisers say they have made similar arguments: look to the future, not the past, and stand by a vote that was based on military intelligence that was widely accepted at the time.
~snip~
Her approach to leadership and national security was forged during her eight years in the White House: She believes in executive authority and Congressional deference, her advisers say, and is careful about suggesting that Congress can overrule a commander in chief. [emphasis mine] NYT

Hillary believes the President deserves the benefit of the doubt, except if the president is George Bush. Have you ever heard Hillary say, well let’s give the president the benefit of the doubt? Has she, in her anti-war mode, said that the president deserves the benefit of the doubt with regard to the intelligence? She and her fellow Democrats will tell you that they were misled into war, that Bush lied, that he manipulated the intelligence (quite an achievement for a man they all believe to be stupid). Did she ever once say, I will give him the benefit of the doubt on the intelligence? No, and that is a problem for a person who claims to believe the president deserves the benefit of the doubt. The only benefit of the doubt she gave a president was the one she gave Bill when he said he did not have sex with that woman. That happened under her nose and she gave him the benefit.

Speaking on military intelligence. Her advisers think she should stand by a vote that was based on military intelligence that was widely accepted at the time. It is amazing that she was right for her vote based on accepted intelligence but Bush misled people when using THAT VERY SAME widely accepted intelligence. Was the intelligence Hillary got different from that of the president? How was it Hillary got widely accepted intelligence and Bush lied and manipulated intelligence in order to go to war. Does it not stand to reason that if hers was widely accepted and he was manipulating it then she would have noticed the difference between her widely accepted intelligence and his manipulated version? Since she voted for it we can only conclude he gave the same widely accepted intelligence that she had or she saw the difference, remained silent, and voted for it anyway. In any event, this does not wash and is more political double speak from Hillary.

She is careful in suggesting that Congress can overrule the president. Except, of course, if that president is George Bush and he wants to send more troops to Iraq. Then, Hillary and the rest of Congress can overrule that decision. They can all vote on non-binding resolutions and they can threaten to impose all kinds of unconstitutional rules on him. They can not overrule a president unless it is based on one of Bush’s nominations. Then they can oppose the nominee and filibuster, which in effect, overrules the president. He is saying I want this person and they are saying you can not have that person. Overruled! If President Bush wants to listen to terrorists on the phone or track their money then Congress can overrule these things and he does not get the so-called benefit of the doubt. Overruled! Executive authority and Congressional deference my rear. She is full of E. coli.

It is obvious that Hillary suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome. No matter what he wants or is trying to do the Democrats (and Hillary) will oppose it and there will be no deference, benefit or any other item that will provide the man with the slightest bit of success. She also suffers from Liberalism, which should be classified in the DSM IV as a mental disorder. Only someone who is mentally challenged can express a belief in these things and but only if they do not apply to anyone else.

Hillary wants people to excuse or understand her vote on the war. In doing so she is asking for privileges as a presidential candidate that she is unwilling to extend to the person who actually is the president. The do as I say and not as I do mentality is prevalent among the Democrats and is particularly abundant in partisan hack Hillary.

Tags: Commentary