More Signs The Bush People Are Preparing For President Hillary Clinton

[Echo In Light]

More Signs The Bush People Are Preparing For President Hillary Clinton
Published on Sunday, October 07, 2007. Source: NY Daily News - HELEN KENNEDY

This article...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article2604138.ece
...from the UK Times is worth a read. Here are the most significant (read: scary) parts:
BUSH administration officials are paving the way for a smooth transition to a possible Democratic presidency as Hillary Clinton consolidates her position as the overwhelming favourite to win her party’s nomination for the 2008 election.
...
In the clearest sign of a shift in gear, Gates is to appoint John Hamre, a former official in President Bill Clinton’s administration, to chair the Defense Policy Board once led by Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative advocate of the invasion of Iraq. The board’s job will be to prepare for the transition to a new administration in 2008, according to a Pentagon spokesman.
...
Hamre, who was Bill Clinton’s deputy defence secretary in the 1990s, has been highly critical of the conduct of the war on terror. In The Washington Post last year he wrote: “The policies that led to Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, secret renditions and warrantless wiretaps have undermined America’s towering moral authority.”

In common with Gates, Hamre is sceptical about the value of the Iraq troop surge.
...
However, Hamre, who heads the influential Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, also argued that America “will be hurt if we crawl out or run out of Iraq." He believes the next president should maintain a vital but scaled-down presence in the country in order to oversee the training of Iraqi security forces and to “direct operations against known bad guys”.
...
Clinton has been sidestepping calls to pull US troops out of Iraq if she wins, sticking to a broader promise to begin a phased withdrawal. In a recent television interview, the New York senator refused to state that all US combat troops would leave Iraq by the end of her first term in office. She voted in the Senate last month to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation.
...
Perle believes that Clinton might be prepared to order military strikes against Iran if President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad takes Tehran’s nuclear programme to the brink. "If President Clinton is informed in March 2009 that we’ve got ironclad intelligence that if we don’t act within the next 30 days it’s going to be too late, I wouldn’t begin to predict what she would do,” Perle said. “Nobody wants to act before it is absolutely essential . . . but things can change very quickly.”
...
Bush believes Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and has privately advised her not to voice antiwar rhetoric on Iraq that she may come to regret.
...
The Treasury, under Henry “Hank” Paulson, has also been appointing Democrat supporters to senior positions. Robert Novak, the conservative columnist, reported that Paulson last week named Eric Mindich, a leading Democratic fundraiser, for a key role as an adviser on financial markets. One Republican in the Bush administration wrote disapprovingly in an e-mail: “This leads some to wonder whether this Treasury has become the preplaced Hillary Clinton team.”

Got that? It seems like even the Bush people are resigned to the fact that we will probably have a Hillary Clinton presidency on our hands come 1/20/09. But the scary part is they don't really seem too worried about it.

Even Richard "Prince of Darkness" Perle thinks it's likely that Hillary would bomb Iran given the chance. Of course, after he predicted Iraq would be a great success, we may want to stop twice before we crown him Nostradamus, but the fact that he's putting this idea out there should certainly give even the most ardent Hillary supporters pause.

Shouldn't her supporters be at least slightly worried by the fact that even Bush's most loyal henchmen don't really seem to give two shits if she becomes president? Shouldn't we be aiming to elect a Democratic president who will give the Bush people nightmares? Someone who would roll back every single one of their disastrous policies?

Why are Democrats still so fond of Hillary? Are they just not paying attention to this stuff? Her full blown hawkishness on the war, her defense of lobbyists, her multiple corporate ties, her vote to declare the Iranian National Guard "terrorists," her recently discovered link to Blackwater?

What is it with you Hillary supporters?

4 more years! 4 more year--I mean, Time for a Change! Time for a Change!
http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=4453

[Larkspur]

1. Why are Democrats still so fond of Hillary?

Charles MacKay wrote a book in 1850's called "Extradordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds". This title answers most of this question.

[Echo In Light]

5. Because she's a SHE...

That's the gimmick. Coax the majority of those who vote based upon which media "celebrity" persona they like the best to line up to support what would be our first female president - something that in an altogether different reality would be exemplary!

[liberaldemocrat7]

10. I will remain a Democrat but it looks like the Democratic and Republiklan party

make up two wings of the business party unless liberals and progressives stop enabling people like Hillary Clinton and the triangulators.

Good name for a rock group.

Hillary and the Triangulators.

[achtung_circus]

2. Richard Perle

the fount of all knowledge. Consider his history and motives when considering what he has to say.

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. It's called acting responsibly. Maybe getting * to admit a mistake

is too much, but someone has to clean up the mess.

[ShortnFiery]

8. Hell, HRC, like Bush, is too damn arrogant to admit mistakes.

Meet the new boss, SAME as the old boss. :(

[Fredda Weinberg]

9. I heard her apologize just yesterday. Try again ...

Y'know, when people meet HRC, they like her. There's nothing you can do to change that fact.

She's responsible and capable. Even our political opposition credits her qualifications. And in the past, she's demonstrated that she can overcome personal prejudices - see how the Clintons recovered after Bill's failed re-election in AK.

[ShortnFiery]

11. Fredda, please provide me that source? Web URL? Because that honestly, IMO, would be a first.

:shrug:

[Fredda Weinberg]

12. Delighted to oblige

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/07/400826.aspx

Randall Rolph, from nearby Nashua, asked why he should support Clinton's candidacy when she did not appear to have learned any lessons from having voted to authorize force in Iraq.

Clinton thanked him for the question and explained her Iran vote would lay the groundwork for using diplomacy and sanctions to pressure that government.

Clinton accused the man of being a plant who had been sent to ask the question, to which he took exception, saying the question was a result of his own research.

"I apologize," Clinton said, explaining that she had been asked the very same question in three other places.

The crowd applauded when the senator ended the back and forth by saying the two had a disagreement and offering to put Rolph in touch with her staff, who could provide him with the text of the legislation, which she suggested he had misunderstood.

[ShortnFiery]

19. Thank you Fredda. That's a hopeful sign.

I stand humbly corrected. :hi:

[denem]

17. Regime Change in Iraq

was the policy of the Clinton Administration. HRC does not believe her vote on IWR was a mistake. And interestingly, she is not prepared to lie about it.

[MethuenProgressive]

4. The Ultra Conservative Times runs a hit piece on Clinton?

Gee, who'dathunkit? :eyes:

[RC]

6. Here is why we think Hillary is the one...

Go Hill..., Win one for the Gipper.

Ever wonder why Bill 'n george the greater hang together? I do.

[HeraldSquare212]

7. Bizarre

That's unheard of, isn't it, that kind of pre-election appointments?

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

13. No. I haven't decided who to support yet, but you've made

quite a leap here in attacking Sen. Clinton.

Here's your statement:

Even Richard "Prince of Darkness" Perle thinks it's likely that Hillary would bomb Iran given the chance.

Here's what the article says:

Perle believes that Clinton might be prepared to order military strikes against Iran if President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad takes Tehran’s nuclear programme(sic) to the brink.

[Cameron27]

14. So will Edwards, and Obama

probably not Kucinich.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

15. True, but the OP didn't mention Edwards or Obama

or Kucinich. Only Clinton.

Like I posted, I don't have a favorite yet. I like several of the candidates.

[Cameron27]

16. I noticed they were missing in the OP...

same here, no favorite yet.

[ginchinchili]

18. The Republicans are already running against Hillary

Why? Because in presidential elections candidates say whatever they think will best motivate their base. The candidates will mention her in a way that paints a picture of her defeat by the Republican candidate, theoretically increasing their electability. That's why they continue to talk about Hillary and no other candidate. Anyone suggesting that they do so because they're genuinely scared is genuinely naive.

[illinoisprogressive]

20. She only wins if people let her. You don't have to just accept it before a vote is cast.