Not good enough Hillary

By Libby
Updated below

Cernig already has the quote of the day with this post on Hillary Clinton refusing to commit to any sort of drawdown of forces from the occupation in the first year of her presidency. Cernig has the links and details and the ultimate response.

Of course it's appropriate to be speculating, you weasel-worded harridan! Bush is speculating, the U.S. top officials in Iraq are in front of Congess speculating, every foreign policy thinker on the planet is speculating!

Look, either Hillary believes that the foreign policy debacle which the Iraq occupation has created will get worse if the U.S. stays or she doesn't. Either she thinks the continued U.S. presense incites increased violence and division or she doesn't. Either she believes a U.S. withdrawal will heat the Iraqi civil wars or she doesn't. Either she thinks Iraq is a frontline in a cold war against Iran or she doesn't.

She's already well informed enough - or should be - to venture an opinion on the biggest foreign policy question of the coming election and if she isn't then she shouldn't be running. Sitting on the fence trying to please all the people all the time won't cut it for anyone because people will see a prevaricator, not a president.

Amen. This is why I've been wary of Hillary all along. She's slick. She doesn't really take clear strong positions on the occupation and the greater muddle in the Middle East and when she does give us a clue on her position, she sounds entirely too hawkish for me.

We don't need more swaggering bravado. We need to elect a president that practices statesmanship, not brinkmanship. God only knows where we're going to find one.

Update: Michael van der Galien thinks we're going to have to learn to live with her. I rather hope he's wrong.