"I have known Hillary Clinton for a decade. She is the one candidate who, in my judgment, understands the need to get Americans out of harm's way and to move this to a political process," Wilson said. "She knows what to do. She has the leadership. On day one, she will be able to reach out to the international community, and I am delighted to fight the fight with her."He ties trying to "get Americans out of harm's way" with wanting to "fight the fight." Shown to be a serial, flat-out liar, Wilson was purged from the John Kerry campaign in mid-2004.
But he's good enough for Hillary.
4 comments:
Point One: Wilson's statement about whether the President had "sufficient other evidence to convict Saddam of being involved in the nuclear arms trade" is not inconsistent with his statements that the President may have misled the nation about whether Saddam had WMDs. Attempting to trade or actually trading in nuclear arms does not unequivocally equate to their presence in Iraq or their potential deployment. Then again, reconciling these two statements does not eliminate the criticism about Wilson's equivocation.
Point Two: Isn't the real problem here that Wilson may not have spoken up from the start to set the record straight (or to create one from the start)? Did personal political expediency keep him (like many others in the administration) from truly having "loyalty to his country and the constitution" as he claims? Only he knows for sure, but shouldn't Clinton seek the high ground? Does she even want to associate herself with someone who even raises these questions or doubts? In other words, doesn't she want to demonstrate that as President her staff should not make the same mistakes? And doesn't she already have enough balancing to do on this type of dilemma with the possible first FGOTUS?
More Important Point Three: We need some straight talk about what is going on in Iraq and how the U.S. can help with this problem, if at all. The U.S. and the entire world must facilitate a balanced dialogue about this matter and make some tough decisions about what is best long run, not just to win the next election. This is a problem that will linger well beyond 2008 if it not addressed openly and completely without the transparent election agenda we have seen lately on all sides. The U.S. should do better and the deserves better. So, too, the rest of the world.
-Cogito
Wilson's an egotistical opportunist. He and Plame both make me sick. The antiwar left loves 'em both, for trying to stick it to the administration.
Nice posting over here!
Cogito - "we need some straight talk about what is going on in Iraq..." etc.
Then you go on to use the phrase "facilitate a balanced dialogue."
Putting these two together, I conclude that you wouldn't know straight talk if it bit you. You have an answer that you want, but you want to keep the appearances of candor by having the nations of the world dance the right steps.
You likely have some latitude in exactly how this favored solution of yours is implemented. Bully for you. That makes you open-minded, then.
Cogito: He's a liar married to a liar and both are publicity hounds. It was a desire for press coverage that convinced Wilson to change his story, make up facts, and publicly dispute the Administration who hired him. He's a rooster, not a diplomat.
As for your final point, like AVI, I'm lost. We certainly don't need Joe Wilson's Monty Python skit ("Run away! Run away!") to know what's right in Iraq. The best way to stop terrorism is to kill terrorists.
As Dan Rather used to say: "courage."
Post a Comment