You know, I really thought the Left would be more subtle about their aspirations for Iraq--namely, that America is out win or lose, by the election, so they don't have to make any grown-up decisions. They reveal their infantilism if they say this straight out, so I thought, so I figured they would be subtle and deceptive thus the non-binding resolutions.
I was wrong.
Today, Hillary Clinton just plain said what the Democrats want--to run the Presidency, but more importantly to run their candidacy without having to deal with Iraq. (Of course, no matter the outcome in Iraq, future Presidents will have to deal with Iraq and all of the Middle East. A Democrat in the White House won't magic it away, no matter how much they wish it.) She says:
"I am going to level with you, the president has said this is going to be left to his successor," Clinton said. "I think it is the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it."
Bush describes Iraq as the central front in the global fight against terrorism that began after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "The war on terror will be a problem for the next president. Presidents after me will be confronting ... an enemy that would like to strike the United States again," he recently told USA Today.
I don't know why these people still shock me, but they do. And some think Hillary will be the New Iron Lady? And some think the only way Democrats will take Terrorism seriously will be to control the Presidency and Congress?Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. If the Democrats have proven anything, it's that they simply won't be serious about any real threat America and the world faces. They aren't based in reality and can't be bothered with the truth.