Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Ken Blackwell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Clinton and Obama stop playing nice
by Ken Blackwell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


That's bad news for a future Clinton-Obama ticket.

The top requirement of a vice president is that they're qualified at any moment to become president. In war time, a president has no greater obligation than making sure the person who would become commander-in-chief in the event of an attack or assassination is ready to take on the job.

And anyone who fails to understand that our response to such an attack must be retaliation against our attacker has yet to grasp how to protect our nation. But this internecine squabble also exposes Mrs. Clinton's lack of veracity. She refuses to tell the public what she knows and believes to be true. This could be a disqualifying flaw.

Mrs. Clinton believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, just like President Bush. Her husband and the previous administration believed that as well, as did Britain, France, Egypt, Jordan, and a host of other nations. Even Saddam's own generals believed it.

Everyone believed it, and everyone was wrong. But being sincerely wrong does not make you a liar, and so Hillary knows it's not fair to say President Bush "lied us into a war."

Mrs. Clinton knew she was voting for military warfare with her vote, not diplomacy. She supported the war, but refuses to admit that now. She also promised to continue funding the troops and said not to do so would be wrong, but now she's done exactly that.

She could have chosen to be a unifier. Instead, she's chosen partisan division and political advantage over bringing the nation together. Instead of pursing the national interest, she's pursuing her party’s nomination with statements she knows to be untrue.

Senator Clinton knows that Senator Obama's "irresponsible and... naive" foreign policy mouthings should raise questions about his readiness to be president or vice president. But her duplicitous and deceptive comments about her Iraq vote and the war challenge her veracity and give life to questions about her own ability to execute a competent national security strategy.

These interesting Democrat party intramurals might provide an opening for a strong Republican candidate with a coherent and straightforward national security message.

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | < Previous
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mr. Blackwell, a contributing editor at Townhall.com, is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and American Civil Rights Union.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Ken Blackwell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Obama is correct
Obama is correct and his position is the right one. Why should a president of America not meet the leaders of Iran or Syria? If Americans think that these people are bad gyes and they should also know that others too percieve the american president as a bad gye. So perceptions are naturally differ from person to person as well from nation to nation.

If we need peace on this plenet we need to learn to live together if we all call ourselves as civilised. What is it if we plan and produce WMDs to kill millions of people in a second? is it all about civilization? why we should not solve our problems peacefully? in that context what is wrong if the futurte preseident of America meets these leaders and sort out issues for a better world for our children. After the world war 11, Soviet and American blocks were fighting on idealogical differences, those days also American and western media highlighetd the communist activists as terrerist? The was claiming as it fights terrerism? After the fall of Soviet, terrerism did not cease to exist? why? Americans created another retterism in the form of redical Muslims? and the fight against terrerism continues? where were these islamist terresist during the soviet era? were they just witing until the fall of Communism and face the Americans? why they did not join hands with Soviet to fight the west. Therefore this senario of terrerism is a creation/fabricATION. If the west wanted to stop it, it can do.

Lets have the futute president of America a pragmatic person who can bring about a permanent peace. I pray Mr.Obama can do it!

What did he do wrong
Eastlake; I still have a problem understanding what President Bush did that anyone else would have done differently.

I have a small business that I have operated for 20 years. I will periodically lay plans for how to build the business, produce new products and entice new customers. I will also forecast a budget and plan a schedule for accomplishing various tasks.

The problem is always in the execution. I may plan for 10 new customers and after contacting over 50, I will almost always miss my targets.

Now, why does this happen? Simply because I cannot predict how the potential customer will react.

War is even more unpredictable as many great generals will tell you. While a general may be able to control his plans, he cannot predict how the enemy will respond. Obviously, the penalty for missing the mark in war is far more painful than in business. Lincoln had to fire several generals before he found one who realized that the best way to win a war is to defeat the enemy. In other words, as Grant demonstrated; battles are won with great loss of life. That is painful, but it is true.

I don't mean to imply that you or any of the people posting here are Naive; however, some may be, shal I say, inexperienced?

Have a great day; support Bush. He is the only one who has the power to fight the terrorists. If he loses, we all lose.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.