When it comes to flipping on an issue and making you believe he never said
(or did) what, in fact, he said (or did), no one can top Bill Clinton. He
makes you want to believe him because he is such a good old rogue with a
unique gift of persuasion. Had he not been selling himself to voters,
readers of his book and audiences at six-figure honorariums, he might have
been the top salesman at any car dealership in the country. Bill Clinton
could sell snowmobiles to Miamians.
Not so with Hillary Rodham Clinton, who thinks the Democratic Party notion
of entitlement entitles her to be president. We are asked to believe that
this woman is the most intelligent female in America, a person with deep
convictions, unique vision and the experience to lead the nation in troubled
times.
In Iowa last weekend, Sen. Clinton showed why she shouldn't - and I believe
won't - be president. She deliberately misled the audience about her vote to
authorize President Bush to use force against Saddam Hussein. The big media
has, so far, ignored her flip in favor of pursuing their storyline about the
"historic" progress women are making in politics. But thanks to YouTube and
other Internet sites, Sen. Clinton will not be able to escape even her
recent past.
Last weekend in Des Moines, Sen. Clinton attempted to explain her 2002 vote
in favor of a Senate resolution "to Authorize the Use of United States Armed
Forces Against Iraq" (S.J. Res. 45): "I said that we should not go to war
unless we have allies. So (President Bush) took the authority that I and
others gave him and he misused it, and I regret that deeply. And if we had
known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never
would have voted to give this president that authority."
Speaking to the left wing, anti-war organization, Code Pink, on March 7,
2003, which can be found on YouTube, Sen. Clinton tried to justify her
pro-war vote: "There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put
into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely
no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed
for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have
been much more forthcoming. Š I ended up voting for the resolution after
carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available,
talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount the
political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way part
of this decisionŠ"
Sen. Clinton also told the Code Pink women that sometimes the United States
has to go it alone and she specifically compared Iraq with Bosnia and Kosovo
"where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the
Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United
States, and we had to do it alone."
So much for the necessity of seeking allies and additional UN resolutions to
follow previous unheeded resolutions before America acts.
In her Senate floor speech on Oct. 10, 2002, Sen. Clinton said, "It is clear
that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his
capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to
develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter
the political and security landscape in the Middle East, which as we know
all too well affects American security." Later in that speech, Sen. Clinton
criticized the UN, saying, "It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own
mandates." Adding to her conviction that Saddam must be toppled, Sen.
Clinton said, "I want this president, or any future president, to be in the
strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in
war."
One wonders what took such a smart woman until last weekend in Iowa to
conclude that she had been duped and, if she can be misled by so many people
in whom she has confidence, how will she be able to see clearly as
president?
Unlike her husband, she won't be able to get away with the political
equivalent of "of course, I'll respect you in the morning."