End at any cost?
If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will.

-- Hillary Clinton

Well, at least she's finally made her position clear. (In analyzing her remark, it probably should be kept in mind that when she says "end" she does not mean "win.")

Democrats who still support the war (or at least might entertain support for the idea of victory) don't seem to be running for president. Right now there seem to be two camps: those who were for it before they were against it, and those who were always against it.

I don't know what I would do if I were still a Democrat, but it's not the first time the Democratic Party has gone officially on record as being in favor of ending a long, drawn-out war.

This was part of the official Democratic Party Platform of 1864:

Resolved, that this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretence of military necessity, or war power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate convention of the States or other peaceable means, to the end that at the earliest practicable moment peace may be restored on the basis of the federal Union of the States.
Then as now, the Democratic Party was on record as supporting the troops:
Resolved, that the sympathy of the Democratic party is heartily and earnestly extended to the soldiers of our army and the seamen of our navy, who are and have been in the field under the flag of their country; and, in the event of its attaining power, they will receive all the care, protection, and regard that the brave soldiers and sailors of the republic have so nobly earned.
No way could the Democratic Party have been against the troops. Their presidential candidate was General George McClellan, who had done his level best to keep his troops out of harm's way, and who was finally removed from his command by Lincoln.

I see that I'm not the only person to think about McClellan as a role model for Hillary...

Here's American Thinker's Jeffrey Schmidt:

McClellan is the mask that Senator Clinton would wear because it offers her the ability to project general support for the War on Terror while dishing up plenty of criticism of Bush's management of it, even if the Iraq situation is perceived as improved. To placate the party's core activists, who furnish the grassroots organization and raise a lot of money, Senator Clinton may give tacit approval to antiwar planks in the party's platform, publicly warn about the dangers of future Iraqs, and call for more United Nations leadership and push greater allied involvement, while offering support for military action in the abstract.
Not being a general, I expect she'll draw on her connections and surround herself with uniformed McClellan wannabes.

What saved the Republican Party was success on the battlefield, which resulted from McClellan's resignation, and the emergence of Grant and Sherman.

It's an interesting analogy, but I don't expect history to repeat itself.

posted by Eric on 02.03.07 at 05:21 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4547






Comments

If anyone could hate the religious right more than I do, I don't know who. And I would add all religious fanaticism into the mix, whether Muslim, Christian, or Communist.
And despite that, I fear someone like Hillary being President more than a "Christianist" like Bush, or Romney.
The woman is pathological, period!
So she would end the war in Iraq if elected.

Bullshit.

First she would assemble a focus group to decide for her what her position should be. Then she'd weigh the pro's and con's against political advantage.
And finally she would reach into the dark recesses of her miserable soul, and find the perfect response based upon how much damage she could inflict on the male ego and psyche.
And if it meant torching a building with 50 innocent children inside, or sending a refugee child, who's mother sacrificed herself to give him freedom, back into the arms of unspeakable statism and terror, or bombing an asperin factory in Africa, or an embassy in Belgrade, well they deserved it.
She'll show those "evil men" by god.
And all the while, she will plan the socialization of 1/6 th of our economy with a single payer health care plan. And whatever else she can nationalize.

Is this what our country has come down to -- Lucretia Clinton for President?

Frank   ·  February 3, 2007 11:58 PM


March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits