Well, looks like Hillary Clinton caused another major international incident... and she's not even elected yet!
I mentioned recently that she said:
"I . . . hope that the Iraqi parliament will replace Prime Minister Maliki with a less divisive and more unifying figure when it returns in a few weeks."
Well, Maliki, our quasi-quisling in Iraq, has responded in kind:
"There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin. This is a severe interference in our domestic affairs. Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton are from the Democratic Party and they must demonstrate democracy. I ask them to come to their senses and to talk in a respectful way about Iraq."
And the sad thing about it is as poor of a national leader as Maliki is, he's *STILL* absolutely correct on this issue. Hillary Clinton doesn't particularly believe in democracy as anything other than a means to an end, and that end is control and power.
So, Hillary *AND* Obama have already caused major international incidents with some pretty stupid, undemocratic... (dare I say fascist?) bullshit.
I'm sorry, but democratic leaders aren't supposed to advocate illegally invading countries --as Obama did -- or deposing democratically elected foriegn leaders -- as Hillary did..
International law 101, people... What is so hard about these concepts?! Or are these "Democrats" just "me too"ing the "new, neocon reality", rather than shifting gears, denouncing it, and calling for accountability as democratic leaders ought to do?
We've seen the neocon reality. It has been tried repeatedly, and has repeatedly failed us. It's how we got into a war which should never have been started, and it's why we lost that war. Ideology trumped planning, reason, and basic goddamn common sense, and fatally poisoned the entire conflict.
So if neoconservatism doesn't work, then scrap it. Let's try democracy and the rule of law instead. Let the people of the world decide for themselves who their leaders should be, while we do our best to encourage fair, monitored elections and self-rule for everyone, everywhere... and let the chips fall where they may.
For all of Hillary's "experience", all she's shown is that she's got experience at acting like a neoconservative, with minimal respect for democracy or the rule of law. She approved the war to the hilt, and only now is trying to back away from it, because it would be political suicide not to do so. Hell, if Bush Jr. was running for reelection, he'd be doing the same thing, telling us that the surge is ending soon, and that we'll have major troop cuts and a phased withdrawl from Iraq.
Which, incidentally, is exactly what will happen anyway, because the current surge is unsustainable. By definition, everything from this point is a withdrawl, period.
As far as Iraq goes, both Hillary and Dubya would do pretty much exactly the same thing. The difference is what they'd call it. Hillary would call it a "safe, gradual withdrawl from Iraq", while Bush would call it a "phased drawdown" and "gradual redeployment"... because, well, he refuses to admit mistakes.
The fact is, with both Hillary and Bush, we'll still have troops over in and/or around Iraq, training people, subverting true Iraqi democracy, and bombing the bejeezus out of questionably actionable targets until... well... until Iraq becomes somewhat stable and something akin to a power we can deal with. And yeah, hundreds of thousands more Iraqis will die. Oops!
Is Hillary better than Bush? Yes. Better than all the Republican candidates? No. Ron Paul is significantly better, and some are a lot more similar than we'd think.
Really, Hillary's kind of like Rudy Giuliani in drag... and that's not pretty.