So, Bush, with the initial support of Hillary and Edwards, has destabilized
the Middle East. Now he's trying to keep it
destabilized with a long-term
agreement with the Iraqi government with "diplomatic, economic and
security components". Boiled down, this means the United
States will continue to secure its access to
cheap oil with an aggravating military presence in the region. Obama's policies, however, don't include
long-term dependence on Iraqi or Middle Eastern oil. So, Bush may plan to
keep troops there, but he's not seeing the big picture of long-term freedom
from our oil addiction.
Let's say Bush manages to secure the presence of troops in Iraq
for the foreseeable future. What does this mean for 2008? What does
this mean for Obama? The pragmatic voter may push aside the issue of Iraq
and withdrawal. Hillary's campaign, however, is not pragmatic.
Remember when you buy a mutual fund: “Past performance is no indicator of
future results.” However, let’s be optimistic and take Hillary’s performance
(experience) as an indicator of what will happen. With her record of initially supporting the
war and her hawkish rhetoric toward Iran,
we should project a long-term presence in Iraq
with or without new Bush policies. In
fact, what about Hillary’s record and rhetoric indicates that she won’t use Iraq
as a staging point for attacking Iran
or Syria?
I want to know why the press isn’t bringing up the 800,000 Rwandans
killed in preventable genocide. Pauline
Park has an excellent post on the issue of Rwanda
related to Hillary’s claimed role in Bill’s presidency (here). So, Hillary was willing to use force to
secure our interests in Iraq
but not willing to come to the aid of Africans.
I just wonder what other dark spots there are in her “experience”.