Hillary takes responsiblity for war, but is that enough?

I'm glad to finally see Hillary Clinton take responsibility for her vote to authorize the war in Iraq. It is certainly a start toward reconciliation with Democrats who are leery of supporting her. I think she also needs to explain why she's been in bed with the right. Earlier this year, Rupert Murdoch held a fund raiser as well as endorsing Clinton in her Senate reelection bid.

Before I continue, I want to state that I supported Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. I personally believe he was a great Presidents and helped our country in many different ways. I also admired Hillary Clinton for her work as First Lady and have read her book Living History. These days, I have some severe doubts about her motivations, especially when it comes to her running for President. I believe now is the time to question her candidacy before it's too late.

In May of 2006, Richard Cohen wrote a column that asks the question that is on many people's mind lately, "Just who are you Hillary?" Cohen asks some hard nosed questions about Hillary Clinton's relationship with Murdoch:

"The latest reason for my perplexity is Clinton’s agreement to have Rupert Murdoch host a fundraiser for her this summer. Murdoch is the very personification of the contemporary conservative movement. He is the proprietor of both the New York Post and Fox News, both of which are ideologically biased, sometimes blatantly so. No doubt Murdoch can raise lots of money. That’s not the question. The question is: What will it buy?"

I too have to wonder what Hillary had to do to get Murdoch to agree to do a fundraiser. Are we to believe he did it out of the kindness of his heart? I don't buy this for a minute. There is some ulterior motive being pushed by Murdoch and/or Clinton.

In addition, I find Clinton's support of a law making flag burning a crime (specifically it makes burning a flag to intimidate someone a crime) quite unsettling. While I wouldn't personally burn a flag, I believe the right do so would be a violation of the 1st amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

We all know Hillary Clinton carries some severe baggage whether we want to admit it or not. The scandals that happened in the White House during her husband's Presidency including his impeachment (even though he wasn't convicted). Much like George W. Bush, Hillary is a divisive figure in politics. If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, she will in fact motivate the right to donate and campaign in droves to defeat her.

Has Hillary Clinton given enough thought to some of these issues to be able to give honest and sincere answers? I think the answer is clear. Clinton needs to do a better job taking responsibility for her voting record on Iraq as well as disclose her connections with Murdoch. Many Democrats (including myself) would rather sit out the election (if she is nominated) rather then vote for her.

This election is far from over. If Hillary wants the nomination, then she had better start by taking a better look at her own record and make amends with the hardcore Democrats who supported her husband.

Are Bush and al-Maliki pulling a rope-a-dope?

I'm suspicious of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's recent criticism of the Bush Administration not sending enough weapons to Iraq. Is it possible that Bush and al-Maliki are pulling a rope a dope with the American public. This wouldn't be the first time Bush has played politics with our troops.

Bush is in a political fight with Congress to try to get more troops and funding for the war in Iraq. He's under pressure from Democrats and Republicans in both the US House and Senate as well as ordinary citizens who want the US to pull out of Iraq.

I have to wonder if Bush and al-Maliki are trying to influence public opinion on the war in Iraq. Look at Bush's reaction. He simply shrugged it off. It's a bit too convenient given the fact Bush is getting reamed at home about the Iraq war.

Maybe this is just a far flung conspiracy theory, but it sounds just about as Rovian as you can get.

Gordon Smith: The Flip Flopper

Many people remember the attacks on Kerry during the 2004 for his flip flop on the war in Iraq. Now Smith too is flip flopping after his sudden change of heart against the war. You'll remember that Smith gave a speech on the floor of the US Senate after his party got their ass kicked in the November election.

In an article that was in todays Oregonian, Smith tells the Eugene Register-Guard this:

"I don't have enough information to say I'm against the (troop) surge."

So are you against sending more troops Gordo?

Who knows? He says he's against the war, but not sure how he would vote in terms of a troop surge.

In terms of spending, Smith has said he's oppose to cuts.

So let me get this straight, he's against the war, not sure about a troop surge and oppose to any cuts to the war.

Typical Gordo spin.

Is Pat Buchanan Crazy?

Sure, some of the suggestions Buchanan made as a presidential candidate were pretty far out there. But as I listen to him and read his books, I’m convinced he’s actually pretty sane. I’d like to tell you why someone like me might think that.

First, Buchanan has opposed the US invasion of Iraq from the beginning. In a column published just prior to the invasion, Buchanan said:

“Though Iraq does not threaten us, has not attacked us, cannot defeat us, and does not want war with us, the United States is about to invade and occupy that country. If we do, it will be the first purely imperial war in our history, a war launched to reshape the domestic politics and foreign policy of another nation to conform to our own.”

I for one, happen to agree with Buchanan 100% that this war has reshaped our domestic and foreign policy. Our strategy of pushing democracy, our own values and beliefs is wrong. Do we intend to make a habit of starting wars for the purpose to promoting democracy?

Yet it is these words that Buchanan wrote in his column on February 3rd of 2003 that ring eerily true, “Rarely do wars, once begun, work out as anticipated.” Now, three and a half years into the Iraq war, over 2900 American’s have lost their lives. So much for “mission accomplished.”

Buchanan has stated in his latest column, as well as on MSNBC, that the Republican party may be headed for a civil war over what to do in Iraq. Many conservatives, like Chuck Hagel, have begun to state their doubts about our involvement in Iraq. The war in Iraq caused the Republicans to be defeated in the 2006 Midterm Election and landed them in the minority in both houses of Congress for the first time in 12 years.

Some think if fighting in the Republican Party becomes worse, due to differing opinions about what our involvement in Iraq should be, so much so that it could spark a civil war within the party. Such a civil war could lead the Republicans to lose any hope of regaining control of Congress races in 2008, but also the keeping a hold on the presidency.

Now, being a Democrat, I have to salivate at the idea of this happening. The Republican Party imploding? Are you kidding? That would be the next best thing to one of my favorite football teams winning the Superbowl. Yet, also I have to wonder if ole’ Pat is whispering to the neocons, “I told you so.”