… not the party hack à la Pelosi … surfaces in this NYT article. I wonder what the Move On crowd says about this, assuming they read anything. And I wish Hillary would show respect for the American public by talking like this on the campaign trail. Too much to ask in these partisan times, I suppose.
Roger L. Simon
Blacklisting Myself Memoir of a Hollywood Apostate in the Age of Terror
BUY HERE IN HARDCOVER- BUY HERE ON KINDLE! New radio: Fred Thompson Show, Hugh Hewitt on PJTV (first of five-parter). YouTube version of Roger on BookTV (After Words) with Armstrong Williams - here. Video: Roger on Greg Gutfeld's Red Eye. Reviews so far: Lloyd Billingsley @ FrontPage, Ron Radosh in the National Review, Sonny Bunch in the Washington Times, Andrew Klavan in City Journal, Marty Dodge in Blogcritics, Tod Goldberg in LV City Life, John Hinderaker in Powerline. Lone Star Times, Mark Coffey at Informed Speculation, John Ruberry at Marathon Pundit, Dan Blatt at Gay Patriot. First syndication Commentary. Advance comments from Michael Barone, John Podhoretz and Ron Silver. Podcasts: Milt Rosenberg Show, John J. Miller - National Review, Ed Driscoll - Sirius Radio. Video review by Bernard Chapin. FrontPage Interview w/ Jamie Glazov. Join the Facebook group. BUY HARDCOVER! - BUY KINDLE!
PJM HomeRoger L Simon
The blog of the mystery writer, screenwriter and CEO of Pajamas Media
Just Published
 With gratitude to the readers of this blog without whom my new -- and first non-fiction -- book would likely never have been written.
Simon's first non-fiction book - Blacklisting Myself: Memoir of a Hollywood Apostate in an Age of Terror - Pub. date: February 5, 2009 |
Books
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
4 Comments
1. gumshoe:wouldn’t surprise me a bit if
Hillary and Bill coached the (late) Yassir Arafat
on the importance of keeping your real intentions
hidden from the public and being very selective(Arabic vs English)
about on-the-record comments.
/only moderate sarcasm
Mar 15, 2007 - 1:20 pm 2. Soldier's Dad:There are 2 messsages that need to be communicated to the various regional players in Iraq.
1) If they truly want a regional conflict…the US might very well opt out. The Saudi’s could surely purchase some nukes off of Pakistan to “level the playing” field so to speak.
2) If the regional players don’t want a regional war…then the US would be favorable to remaining in Iraq as a stabilizing force for a substantial period of time.
Without completely detaching from reality, one can easily make the case that the various regional players have been jockeying for position in the “Post US” Iraq. The historical examples of Vietnam and Somalia are prime examples. The Iranians aren’t interested in a Saudi puppet state and he Saudis aren’t interested in an Iranian puppet state on their borders.
So while I can’t stand Hillary…her statements are somewhat consistant with US goals in regards to Iraq.
Mar 15, 2007 - 5:37 pm 3. GreaterFool:According to the NYT, Mrs. Clinton says that 1) “…she would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military”.
BUT!
2) They “…would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence even if it descended into ethnic cleansing”.
Were 2) to happen, which is possible should the number of U.S. troops to be significantly reduced, how could Clinton possibly pursue 1)? If she were pursuing 1), how could our troops not get involved if 2) were to occur?
Mr. Simon, I generally agree with your views, but you are wrong to call this “relatiely sensible”, even for Hillary. For her to make those two statements is silly. If she actually believes they can both be concomitantly pursued, she is delusional.
Mar 15, 2007 - 7:49 pm 4. Barry Dauphin:…even if it descended into ethnic cleansing
That is the part that caught my eye. My thought is ….wanna bet? Bill did not want to do Kosovo, but good ole Jack Chirac plopped himself on the White House lawn and in we went. Just watch ethnic cleansing on the news cycle several times, and we’ll see US forces back in the middle. Who knows what she’s really gonna do? Keeping everyone guessing is her strategy for now. She’s only looking to elections. She’ll do what she wants when and if she gets in office, until circumstances put her in a bind.
Mar 15, 2007 - 9:36 pm