Hillary Clinton: America needs to dream big [ ...while reading 'Soldier of Fortune']

Toledo Blade ^ | July 26, 2005 | By JIM PROVANCE

[johnny7]

Hillary Clinton: America needs to dream big Senator outlines vision of country at Democrat session in Columbus

COLUMBUS - Hillary Rodham Clinton's "American Dream" for 2020 includes affordable health care for all, cures derived from stem-cell research, terrorists without followers, and a Democrat in Ohio's governor's mansion.

The New York senator spoke yesterday to more than 300 moderate Democrats from 40 states at the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist group that helped to set her husband on the path to the White House in 1991.

[kcvl]

PUKE ALERT!

[Tarpon]

Thinking big always requires billowing clouds of cigar smoke -- I she going to pass out slightly used cigars?

[mtbopfuyn]

What America needs isn't a dream but a government and country not being sold out by an Clinton.

[mainepatsfan]

Didn't MoveOn.org basically declare the DLC their enemy?

[Just mythoughts]

Hillry's dreaming begins the nightmare for the rest of US.

[SIDENET]

I can just imagine her piercing monotone voice giving this speech. (shudder)

[bookworm100]

[Sacajaweau]

The agenda states problems.....but absolutely no solutions. Hell, I can do that.

Why wasn't security changed after the 1993 bombings of the Twin Towers? Why didn't Bubba take out Usama? Why was the DEM policy of Regime Change never taken seriously after Iraq kicked out the inspectors in 1995?

Because it would have meant spending money on the military and not creating more "socialism" programs.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Alternative headline:

'CLINTON SAYS: DEMOCRATS MUST REFINE LIES IN NEW STRATEGY TO FOOL AMERICA'

[johnny7]

It's the same 1850's style pap that Kerry shoveled. All the pig has is her rapist-partners last name... and about 60M, flotsam-brained women ready to create her Nanny-State USA.

[operation clinton cleanup]

All the pig has is her rapist-partners last name... and about 60M, flotsam-brained women ready to create her Nanny-State USA.

That pretty much says it all.... Is she still speaking truth to power, or did they give up on that?

[absolootezer0]

used on her? no thatnks, i'd prefer my cigars to not be frostbit.

[reformedliberal]

Don't be too certain about those women.

Last week, a knee-jerk liberal, Bush-hating feminist newspaper editor told us that she has begun to have *doubts* about Hillary. She thinks she is a liar, for starters.

If this person has changed their mind about the PIAPS, you can probably scratch some percentage of that 60M.

I have a more pragmatic POV: I cannot see Hillary surviving the physical marathon that is a Presidential campaign. Even if she could, I believe that the people who would see her up close and personal at Heartland rallies would be horrified at the thought of her being POTUS. And then there is the specter of televised debates. She needs to memorize her speeches. Extemp debate would destroy her.

[bookworm100]

Does anyone remember? Clinton supported the Muslims.


February 11, 1999
Clinton's Kosovo Confusion
at http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-11-99.html

by Gary Dempsey

Gary Dempsey is a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

Once again, President Clinton is preparing to play foreign policy Russian roulette, inserting 2,000 to 4,000 U.S. soldiers into a conflict that poses no threat to the territorial integrity, national sovereignty or general welfare of the United States. This time it's a full-scale NATO ground operation in the embattled Serbian province of Kosovo.

The president says U.S. troops won't be committed to Kosovo unless there is a well-defined mission and a clear exit strategy. But Americans have heard that one before. In his November 1995 address making the case for sending U.S. troops to Bosnia, Clinton assured the American public that the operation he was proposing had a "clear, limited and achievable" mission and that the total deployment "should and will take about one year." Since then, the president has twice reneged on his own exit dates and Washington now has an open-ended troop commitment that has already cost American taxpayers $10 billion, with no end in sight.

It should also be recalled that the Clinton administration claimed that Bosnia mission would be a strictly military operation. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott declared in November 1995, "There will be no 'mission creep' -- from purely military tasks into 'nation-building.'" But today the president says multiethnic political institutions, an independent judiciary, and a free press must be created in Bosnia before he will withdraw U.S. troops. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) says that policy "reads more like a nation-building strategy" than a military operation; it is "a formula requiring the completion of a new integrated democratic state. That is what nation-building is."

Mr. Clinton is undeterred. He contends that U.S. troops should be sent to Kosovo because a war there "could spark tensions again in Bosnia and undo what we just spent two [it's actually three] years trying to do." But that is only half the story because NATO intervention in Kosovo could itself cause the peace in Bosnia to unravel.

Sending U.S. troops to Kosovo is fraught with serious pitfalls that the president has yet to acknowledge.

Many Serbs consider Kosovo the cradle of Serbian history and their Christian Orthodox faith. In fact, Kosovo is where Serbia's medieval Nemanjic Dynasty fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1389 and is the home of the Pec Patriarchete, one of Serbia's oldest and most cherished religious sites. If it appears that Washington is facilitating Kosovo's secession, Bosnian Serbs may decide that the West has an anti-Serb agenda. Not only would that expose NATO troops stationed in Bosnia to possible acts of violent retribution; it would also threaten to undermine the fragile U.S.-brokered peace there by re-radicalizing the Serb population.

President Clinton also contends that U.S. troops should be sent to Kosovo because the conflict there could spill over into neighboring Albania and Macedonia. But again, that is only half the story.

Another plausible scenario is that NATO intervention inadvertently leads to Kosovo's independence. That could spell disaster for the Balkans. The Kosovo Liberation Army has made it abundantly clear that its goal is not simply to break away from Yugoslavia but to forge a Greater Albania, uniting the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia, Greece and Albania. If successful in Kosovo, the KLA could well decide to move on to a new target. It is for that reason that Macedonia's foreign minister, Blagoj Handziski, and Greece's foreign minister, Theodoros Pangalos, put aside their differences last summer and issued a joint statement opposing air strikes against Serbia because they feared strikes would bolster the KLA's campaign.

Last, President Clinton contends that "if a settlement is reached, a NATO presence on the ground in Kosovo could prove essential in giving both sides the confidence they need to pull back from their fight." But once more, that's only half the story. Indeed, after U.S. troops are deployed, Kosovo could degenerate into a military snake pit, with venom coming from any direction.

For example, if it appears that NATO troops are facilitating Kosovo's slow-motion secession from Yugoslavia, Serbs may conclude that NATO is in league with the ethnic Albanian separatists. U.S. troops stationed in Kosovo would then be exposed to attacks by government, paramilitary or irregular Serb forces. On the other hand, if NATO appears to be forestalling Kosovo's independence by enforcing some sort of autonomous status within Yugoslavia, U.S. troops could find themselves trying to contain a still-independence-minded KLA or be exploited as strategic shields in an ongoing guerrilla campaign. The most ominous prospect is that Belgrade and the KLA become dissatisfied with NATO's presence and U.S. soldiers find themselves fighting both.

Sending U.S. troops to Kosovo is fraught with serious pitfalls that the president has yet to acknowledge. The American people deserve a clear explanation of the risks and a vigorous congressional debate now over the wisdom of such a deployment. Once the troops are there, it'll be too late.

[cricket]

Fraudulent packaging . . .

[longtermmemmory]

Strong Parent Model vs Stong Father Model.

This is from Prof Lakoff, Hitlary is attacking the ability of "stong father" republicans (Bush) to protect the usa and at the same time promising stong parent (asexual) nany state FREE stuff.

IOW she is recyling the LBJ great society.

[johnny7]

Bush-hating feminist newspaper editor told us that she has begun to have *doubts* about Hillary.

Once she wins in New Hampshire... this femmanazi will toss all her criteria out the window and join the frog-march for Hillary.

Wählen Sie Hillary... für die Kinder!

[bookworm100]

This is from a 1997 January 16, 1997 government posting at
http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm
(the entire article makes very interesting reading with 20/20 hindsight.)

Extended Bosnia Mission Endangers U.S. Troops
Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base

"'There is no question that the policy of getting arms into Bosnia was of great assistance in allowing the Iranians to dig in and create good relations with the Bosnian government,' a senior CIA officer told Congress in a classified deposition. 'And it is a thing we will live to regret because when they blow up some Americans, as they no doubt will before this . . . thing is over, it will be in part because the Iranians were able to have the time and contacts to establish themselves well in Bosnia.'" ["Iran Gave Bosnia Leader $500,000, CIA Alleges: Classified Report Says Izetbegovic Has Been 'Co-Opted,' Contradicting U.S. Public Assertion of Rift," Los Angeles Times, 12/31/96. Ellipses in original. Alija Izetbegovic is the Muslim president of Bosnia.]

"'If you read President Izetbegovic's writings, as I have, there is no doubt that he is an Islamic fundamentalist,' said a senior Western diplomat with long experience in the region. 'He is a very nice fundamentalist, but he is still a fundamentalist. This has not changed. His goal is to establish a Muslim state in Bosnia, and the Serbs and Croats understand this better than the rest of us.'" ["Bosnian Leader Hails Islam at Election Rallies," New York Times, 9/2/96]

[stocksthatgoup]

American Conservative Union Score

Senator Hillary Clinton (D)
New York
2004 Score - 0 (that is 0 out of 100)
Previous Year's Score - 10
Lifetime Score - 9
Years of Service - 4

-----------------------------------

Progressive Punch Score

Progressive (read Liberal) Punch Score 91.63%

Ranked 11th most Liberal of 100 Senators

-----------------------------------

Conservatives and Progressives (liberals) agree Hillary Is A LIBERAL