Sunday, April 29, 2007

Democrats In War And Peace: Hillary vs Dodd

Dodd Likes Spinach

When a politician begins a statement this way – “Don’t misunderstand me, I like spinach’’ – you can be certain he deplores spinach. If the politician is a progressive, the same rule holds true when the “spinach” is “soldiers in Iraq busily undermining the Democrat congressional effort to subvert the war on terror and make the White House safe for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich or Chris Dodd, who has more experience than the other Democrat presidential candidates in subverting wars.”

Hillary the Stiff

It is said that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is much stiffer on the stump than her husband, ex-President Bill Clinton – soon to be, God willing, the future president’s First Partner. And this is true.

Hillary is more formal than Bill, more cautious, less certain that –whatever the rhetorical thicket she may wander into – she possesses the wit, charm, grace and verbal agility to escape the briars that will tear her tender flesh. She is a passable but not an accomplished liar. Her record of tub thumping lies is spotty, despite assurances from ex-Clintonite columnist Dick Morris, who appears to be nurturing a private grudge against the Clintons, that Hillary is the devil’s behind. Besides all this, Hillary has a past to recon with -- which includes Bill’s past, which includes, in the matter of terrorism, a certain fantasy or narrative that must at all costs be preserved.

The narrative goes something like this: As president, Bill hated terrorists and did all he could to send Osama binLadin to the clinker, which at the time was located somewhere other than Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. His failure to snuff out binLadin – or, better still, to bring him to trial in a court presided over by Sen. Chris Dodd, son of Nuremberg prosecutor Tom Dodd – was not successful; but he tried – very, very, very hard.

Bill had better success in far off Yugoslavia. Unlike the hapless President Bush, Clinton prosecuted the war against Hitler wannabe Slobodan Milosevic in the old tried and true fashion. He identified the belligerents: Christian Serbs on the one hand and Islamic Kosovars on the other and threw in his lot with the Islamisists.

Now this is the way the United States has won all its wars, with the exception of Vietnam and, if the Democrat dominated US Congress has its way, possibly the Iraq War:

Step 1 -- Identify belligerents.

Step 2 -- Choose to ally yourself with the prospective winners. Just flip a coin if you must, ever mindful of Henry Kissinger’s remark during the seemingly endless diplomatic negotiations (Listen up, Dodd!) between the Viet Cong, the South Vietnamese and the US during the late lost Vietnam War that he wished “both sides could lose.”

Step 3 -- By diplomatic means, persuade faithless, quivering, cowardly allies to lend their support. It’s a good idea to give them something. Dodd’s brother, a diplomat, might have been a helpful negotiator here.

Step 4 – Having identified the side you wish to win, kill all the belligerents on the other side. This is very important; your success will depend upon it.

Clinton, the hero of Kosovo, followed all these steps religiously and, after some carpet bombing, brought peace in our day to Yugoslavia, securing the gratitude of Dodd, among other warmongering Democrats. And a joy it was, as the poet says, to be alive on that day:

“We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
Make him a member of the gentry, even if he is a commoner.
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.”

The past, the more fiction it has in it, must be preserved at all costs. Hillary senses this deep in her bones. The First Husband must not be diminished.

“Some presidential aides and friends are describing Kosovo in Churchillian tones,” The Washington Post reported in the final days of the carpet bombing, “ as Clinton’s ‘finest hour… what Clinton believes were the unambiguously moral motives for NATO’s intervention represented a chance to soothe regrets harbored in Clinton’s own conscience.” The paper quoted a friend as saying “that Clinton had at times lamented that the generation before him was able to serve in a war with a plainly noble purpose, and he feels ‘almost cheated’ that ‘when it was his turn he didn’t have the chance to be part of a moral cause.’”

As for Bush – well, that is another matter. Clearly, the present duffer does not belong to the brave band of Democrat brothers vying for the presidency, and the elevation of Democrat winners depends on the devaluation of Republican losers.

If some Democrat presidential aspirants appear to be sympathetic towards the most resourceful enemies of of the United States since Aldolf and his crew prowled the earth attempting to rid it of pestiferous Jews, that is because the enemy of my enemy is necessarily my friend, certainly not because Democrats wish to aid terrorists in once again blowing up New York City. Democrats are betting that the American voting public is savvy enough to grasp this subtlety.
Post a Comment