Hillary Unfit To Be U.S. President: Part One
December 10, 2007
By Joan Swirsky
When I was studying to become a nurse in the late 1960s, I learned that the most important value in patient care, for both nurses and doctors, was safety. Not curing, which is often impossible, and not even empathy, although a high priority. That is because the patient who falls out of bed, or is given the wrong dose of medicine, or whose grievance is ignored, may pay with nothing less than his or her life.
As a mother of three, I already knew this - that all the love and support and education in the world meant nothing in comparison to keeping my young children safe: away from unprotected outlets, sharp table corners, a hot stove, automobile traffic, people with contagious diseases, and of course bad values.
I never forgot this lesson: safety first, a value that applies as well - first and foremost and above all others - to our country.
Does Hillary put safety first? No. The New York Democrat Senator and presidential contender has consistently demonstrated - in word and deed - that she is unfit to conduct the foreign policy of our country. No matter where in the world our heroic troops are defending our country and our policies, Hillary is on the wrong side of every issue.
Especially in the perilous times we live, her constant flip-flopping on the urgent matters of national security and her tendency to fold in the face of even minor adversity on the campaign trail make her uniquely unqualified be the leader of the free world.
Does the date October 10, 2002, ring a bell? That was the date of the Iraq War Resolution, which Hillary voted for - without uttering a single syllable of reservation. In fact, in voting for President Bush's initiative, she cited her husband's invasion of Iraq and the "known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites" of Saddam Hussein as well as his "aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members." The over-400 cruise missiles the former president dropped on suspected WMD sites in Iraq must have been fresh in her memory.
But today, as she veers far left, the smartest woman in the world claims, disingenuously, to have been "mislead." She does this to please - read, pander to - the anti-American branch of her party that is funded by George Soros and features such national embarrassments as Code Pink, Senate Majority leader Harry "the war is lost" Reid, House Majority leader Nancy "Iraq is not the war on terror" Pelosi, Sen. Dick Durbin (who compared our troops to Nazis), and the rest of this sorry lot.
Does the date January 26, 2007, ring a bell? That is the date that Hillary voted to confirm General David Petraeus to lead the surge in Iraq, again without even a token expression of doubt. Apparently this date is lost on Hillary's conveniently sieve-like memory.
But when (1) polls told her that public sentiment for the war was waning, (2) the antiwar left was picking up steam and publicity, and (3) she was preparing for her run for the presidency and knew she'd need this voluble faction to get the nomination, she did what Clintons always do when focus groups and polls tell them what to think and believe - she changed her mind! She stated loudly and often that she regretted voting for the war and that monetary support should be withheld from the Iraqi government in a war we're now winning - the same strategy leftists like her did to end the war we were winning in Vietnam!
Does the date September 10, 2007, ring a bell? That is when The New York Times ran an ad, paid for by MoveOn.org and headlined "Gen. Petraeus or Gen. Betray Us" which was published for a generously half-priced rate - in case anyone on earth thought the Times was unbiased.
To this day, Hillary has steadfastly refused to condemn the ad that slurred the four-star general, the commander of our 170,000-person Multi-National Force - Iraq, a 35-year veteran, a Princeton graduate with a Ph.D. in International Relations, and a man who has spent his entire existence putting his life on the line for our country.
Does September 11, 2007, ring a bell? That is when Hillary, showing her lifelong contempt for our military, told General Petraeus that his report to Congress, which cited empirical evidence that the surge was working - that America was winning!- required "the willing suspension of disbelief." Translated: General Petraeus, you're a liar!
Yes, Hillary Clinton considers General David Petraeus a liar - while she continues to defend the man who lied to our entire country for almost a year, was disbarred because of his egregious behavior, and was impeached as President of the United States.
Yet she wants us to believe she is fit to be Commander in Chief!