|
|
|
July 13, 2007
"The owner of this video does not allow video embedding"
(But Code Pink will forgive Hillary anyway!) I stumbled onto a fascinating YouTube video of Hillary Clinton being scolded by Code Pink in March of 2003. Caption: Hillary Clinton talks about her vote to go to war, Saddam, and WMDs 2 weeks before war in a meeting with Code Pink in March 2003.Warning: do not click on this if leftists make you sick, unless you have a barf bag or the medication of your choice handy.
Yeah, I know you can't watch the embed here. But it's nice to know you can't, because we're all in this YouTube village thing together, aren't we? Those who disable embedding by request undoubtedly have their special reasons for doing so, and I think it's really cool that people are special and take their specialness seriously. Maybe I, too, should be more special. While I only have one YouTube video (of Coco dancing to Bartok), should I disable embedding? (I'll ask Coco for her thoughts....) Anyway, for those who don't have the time or the stomach to actually go to YouTube and watch the video, here are a few tidbits: CP: "We know you say it takes a village. Well, it takes a bomb to destroy a village!" Really? I didn't know they were putting their bodies were on the line. (Anyone know how many Code Pink casualties there were?) It's easy to laugh at this, but if I were working for Hillary's campaign I would be carefully assembling key footage from confrontations like this (and I am sure there were others), for use later to reassure and shore up the moderate middle American vote. I think it's quite clear that Hillary knew the cameras were running, and that she would be running for president -- preferably in 2008. In retrospect, it makes for a nice "Sister Souljah" moment. Hillary does in fact stands up to the radical left in the video, but at the same time you can see that she manages to work herself into quite a righteous lather over Bush's economic policies (going to war without raising taxes) -- and draws applause from the group for that. Despite the anger of the crowd, Hillary knew then (and knows now) that she'll ultimately get the vote of most of the women in that room, along with those who agree with them. What, does anyone think they'd even consider voting for Giuliani or Thompson? If anything, a strong Republican candidate will only make them less likely to disable their embedding by throwing away their vote on a clown like Ralph Nader. I really should try to take this more seriously, but when I can't embed Hillary Clinton and Code Pink in my own blog, that hurts! posted by Eric on 07.13.07 at 09:22 AM |
|
July 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
July 2007
June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Whatever happened to "working class hero"? Or "day job"?
• Physicists Should Stick To Physics • In the name of science • Class Stratification • Happy Birthday to Dean Esmay! • The Greenwalding of Gender Virtue • Climate Of Fear • Psychedelic nostalgia in black and white • war party games I can't discuss at parties • Does battery life suck? Or does aging suck?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Those that want 'peace', but are unwilling to do the things necessary to create it have a special word that goes to them.
For the absence of war can have an unjust 'peace'.
Not all 'peace' is created equal.
Leaving those under threat from tyranny when it is cheap and easy to help protect them and will mean creating a just means so that they can speak for themselves, that, too, has a special name attached to it:
Murder.
Those that wish to leave such people who we have fought to save from tyranny deserve a chance to stand up on their own, so they can then tell us OFF if that is their wish, when they can protect themselves. That is just judgement upon our actions as a Nation - not handed out by critics at home, but handed to us by those we moved to help.
'Peace at any price' will always find supporters in the dictatorial and authoritarian modes... for the 'any price' that is brokered is continuing to adhere to using Rights to uphold Freedom for the cause of Liberty. That always has a price in blood attached to it, as not paying that price is submission, servitude and slavery. This concept still is Revolutionary to this day and the cost remains just as high now as it did when it was first fought for.
This video shows two sides of the same coin: self-serving attitudes to grasp at power. They talk on 'talking points' not on the basics of why securing Liberty is necessary against tyrants and despots. And both want it on the 'cheap' so as to barter lives for political gain. The Senator will not address the moral cowardice of her husband on Iraq, and the lack of countering of it during his time in office... where the phrase 'sneak and peek' was invented to describe how a tyrant played the world for a fool. Moral courage is not Bosnia and Kosovo, where Liberty and Freedom have yet, to this day, to be established.
The others seek their 'moral authority' as 'mothers and grandmothers' to show just how committed they are to 'peace'. And yet they speak very little on Justice for a tyrant who will not keep agreements and offer no other way beyond inspections which had failed for over a decade due to attitudes just like theirs. They will not address the 300,000 dead in Iraq who believed that the US would step in if they rose up against a tyrant. Just 'talking points' to them when a Nation betrays its word of support for political gain. Ammunition in partisanship only, not real lives to these ones. Not the word of a Free People given to HELP them... no, that would mean having to *stand* for something even if it had *cost* and *death* involved.
Being the friend of liberty, but safeguarding only our own gets this Nation only so far. When we give our word to help and say we will support those who rise up the banner of Liberty, we had best be prepared for the awful toll when we do not back up those brave words. Liberty and freedom is not sustained by duplicity and cowardice. When we are unwilling to back up our words, especially to a people under dire threat who have never experienced the sweet shade of the Tree of Liberty *ever*, then we deny that basis of all men being created equal to seek self-government with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as goals. And each of those have dear costs attached to them... we cannot pay it for others, but we can teach them the way to pay it for themselves.
Then they can tell us if we have done well or ill by them. Better that then the screams of their deaths because we fear death more than we hold onto Liberty for All.
"You must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing." - Andrew Jackson