Hillary Clinton continued her effort to get to Barack Obama’s left today, speculating that the Iraq war could ultimately cost $1 trillion. This claim, while made up out of whole cloth, is nevertheless noteworthy, in that it may represent the first time any office-holder has overestimated the cost of future federal medical benefits. If Hillary were to apply the same logic to Medicare, the results would be interesting.
Hillary went on to say, as she has many times before, that Iraq is “another country’s civil war, a war we cannot win.” She seems to view this as a tautology, but it isn’t clear why. Pretty much the entire leadership of al Qaeda in Iraq, our primary enemy there, comes from other countries, as does much of the group’s rank and file. So why is this a “civil war?” As far as I’ve seen, Hillary never explains.
Further, why does the fact that some Iraqis fight on the terrorist side mean that the war cannot be won? The vast majority of Iraqis are anti-terrorist. Why should they be doomed to defeat? If the terrorists can’t be beaten in Iraq, why should they be defeated anywhere else?
Sometimes the Democrats try to pin their defeatism on the Maliki government. But, for what it’s worth, Maliki’s approval rating of 40% is about the same as Hillary’s. So why should his government be destined to defeat at the hands of terrorists?
Hillary Clinton is a slave to an irrational and outmoded ideology that assumes, without evidence or, seemingly, knowledge of history, that American military efforts must always fail. That her defeatism goes unchallenged by reporters shows how deeply in the tank they are for their party.
- Subscribe now!... Get rid of ADs!Support Power Line...VIP MembershipPresentsPower Line
Most Read on Power Line
Subscribe to Power Line by Email
Find us on Facebook
“Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” Winston Churchill
“Proclaim Liberty throughout All the land unto All the Inhabitants Thereof.” Inscription on the Liberty Bell