- List All

  • Web   The Point


+ Theology/Religion + Culture + Marriage & Family + Politics + Academia + Human Rights
Christianity Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Religion Blogs - Blog Top Sites
Link With Us - Web Directory

« Handling Hostile Teachers | Main | ’Lipstick on a Pig’: The rest of the story »

December 17, 2007

Fighting an obsolete war

Jim Geraghty at NRO has the latest fundraising e-mail from Hillary Clinton. See if you do as big a double take as I did:

When I get to the White House, I'll end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home. I'll stop the cowboy diplomacy and Bush's war on science. I'll reverse the attacks on our Constitution and civil liberties. I'll ask the Congress to send me everything that Bush vetoed, like stem cell research and the Children's Health Insurance Program. From day one, I'll be fighting for you, because America needs a clean and decisive break from seven years of George Bush.

Not one of the Republican candidates is capable of making that happen. They're all promising four more years of the same failed policies. [Emphasis mine]

Um, Senator, speaking of failed policies . . . I think someone forgot to tell you that war is over.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fighting an obsolete war:


Joe Dalfonzo

What a very, very desparate pup the would be candidate has become. Perhaps someday she'll understand that the ony thing that Mr. Bush is running for in 2008 is Crawford and a well-deserved respite from the endless condemnation and invective that he and his family have had to endure.


I am not a big Hilary fan nor am I an embryonic stem cell research fan, but I'm still going to chime in:

The Republican candidates, by not distancing themselves from President Bush for the most part (except for Ron Paul, of course) seem to indicate that they would maintain the status quo. It is therefore appropriate for Senator Clinton to point out the differences between her positions and the GOP partyline, as set by the President.

As for the endless condemnation, if you're going to forsake traditional Republican values of fiscal responsibility and run up one of the largest debts ever all the while waging a war that is costing American lives weekly years after the mission was declared accomplished, well... taking criticism is part of what you bargained for.

Americans--Republican and Democrat alike--I've found, are unsatisfied with what the courses of action the current President has charted. Hilary is simply appealing to the nation's desire for a change... a change that the GOP candidates aren't promising. I, however, am unconvinced that Senator Clinton is the change that this country needs.

Michael Snow

Now we see to what we have to look forward, because if if comes down to a Clinton vs. Romney sceneario the evangelical vote will give it to Clinton (a la an abc poll that shows that 15 percent of evangelicals will not vote for Romney no matter what).


A promise to restore Constitutional liberties from the woman behind stealing the FBI files, the VAAPCON surveillance on all pro-lifers, including the cardinal archbishop of New York as 'potential terrorists,' (enemies of the State) the Waco pogrom, Ruby Ridge and similar incidents elsewhere?

Talk about trying to sell a bridge!

I suspect that if She Who Must Not Be Named is not nominated, that the Democrat will likely be president - if Christians support a genuinely pro-life, pro-Constitution candidate, as I think is a moral necessity. Then, the next election, we will win, as with the break-up of the Whig party in the 1850's due to its refusal to stand strongly enough against slavery. The "Black" Republicans lost the first presidential election, but then they won the second one, as the first loss was necessary to create the new party out of the remnants of the Whigs.

If She Who Must Not Be Named is nominated, everything must be done to support the GOP candidate most likely to win, considering what she did -before- the "Patriot" Act, and "homeland security."

Joe Dalfonzo

Perhaps if Brian had been less than a mile from the Pentagon when the plane struck and had two friends incinerated he would have a different perspective on a war "that is costing American lives". When you lay your tired little head on your very safe pillow tonight, you can thank this President and his very capable administration that you can close both eyes. 'nuff said.


One can agree with the point to fighting Islamic jihadists without believing it necessary to overthrow the Constitution, including the requirement for either letters of marque and reprisal on the one hand (appropriate for dealing with non-State actors) or congressional declarations of war, on the other.

Not to mention the use of water torture by Americans, which is despicable and shameful beyond writing about.


When George Bush declares martial law and cancels the 2008 presidential election, then the Constitution has been overthrown, but so far I see no signs of that happening.

In the eyes of some, the Constitution guarantees the right to infanticide and pornography. So far it looks like the same crowd is the one getting all convulsed about W overthrowing it. Pardon me while I roll my eyes.


apology to labrialumn...I should have said "largely the same crowd" in that last comment and not thrown him (or her) in the same crowd. There are a few noteworthy conservatives, though clearly only a tiny minority on the right side of the political spectrum, who share his (or her) opinion.

Still, when it comes time to cast my vote, I want the candidate who, when facing the islamofascists, will be thinking "what would Jack Bauer do?" And I DO NOT CARE about the constitutional rights of foreign mass murderers. Lincoln did far worse with less justification, and the republic survived.


Joe Dalfonzo wrote: "'nuff said."


And the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. The rest of us are blessed by the fruit. Thanks.


Joe, my mom drove past the blazing Pentagon on her way to work before turning around, our close family friend was at a Staples in the WTC complex--we spent 8 hours trying to locate her, and I sat with friends in the lunch room as they determined whether or not their parents were in the parts of the Pentagon that were struck. The father of one of my best friends died in Tower 2 that day.

Al-Qaeda, not Iraq, ripped apart our lives. Please don't slander the memory of those close to me--and those close to you--by lumping the two together.

And in the future, I'd prefer it if you talked at me and not about me.

Gina Dalfonzo

Brian, although my father is perfectly capable of speaking for himself, I will just say that he certainly was not "slandering" anyone's memory and would never do so.

(And Lee, I'm honored by the comparison!)

Finally, I think we've all somehow managed to wander pretty far off the topic, which was embryonic stem cell research (the "war" I referred to in my post title). Let's get back to that subject, please. Thanks.

The comments to this entry are closed.