Hillary . . . bigot? racist? or both?
Two letters I sent this week; I'll have a comment on the Great Equivocator tomorrow.
Editor,
Imagine my complete lack of surprise that the article covering Sen. Hillary Clinton's announcement that she has formed a presidential exploratory committee failed to mention Sen. Clinton's bigoted, knee-jerk reaction to Dubai Ports World's proposed October 2005 purchase of just port operations of six U.S. seaports (Clinton gives her answer to voters: I'm in, January 21, A1). Recall, Dubai Ports World is a state-owned company of the United Arab Emirates.
And while I'm discussing the Senator's tolerance, or blatant apparent lack of, also missing from the article was any mention of how Sen. Clinton voted in last year's Senate Democratic Caucus vote for President Pro Tempore of the Senate. I can find no record of the vote on any web site; only that Senate Democrats elected former Ku Klux Klan member, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, as President Pro Tempore thus making him third in Presidential succession.
Hopefully a responsible media will ask the necessary questions over the next 22 months to resolve, one way or another, if Sen. Clinton is a bigot and/or a racist. (End of first letter.)
Boy, everyone is "against the war in Iraq" but even Sen. Clinton can't stop supporting it!
Editor,
Ms. Susan Milligan had it exactly right when she wrote, " . . . (Sen. Hillary) Clinton . . . voted for the authorization to use force in Iraq . . . she (Clinton) said she supports phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but without a specific deadline (Clinton toughens stance on Bush war plan, January 18, A2)."
Coupled with the fact that Sen. Clinton voted for war funding every single time she had an opportunity, it's hard to see any difference between Sen. Clinton's position on the war against terrorists and President Bush's. And, just for those scoring at home, Sen. Clinton's two most significant votes for war funding were for $60 billion on October 7, 2005 and for $70 billion on September 7, 2006.
Given that Sen. Clinton won re-election by 1.5 million votes, no she didn't get 1.5 million votes, she won by 1.5 million votes, I do struggle to see how the 2006 elections were a repudiation of the Bush/Clinton war against terrorists when the only one of the two that was on a ballot in 2006 won in a super-landslide.
Anyway, I just thought the readers of the Boston Globe would appreciate some facts appearing on the editorial pages for a change. (End of second letter.)
Two letters I sent this week; I'll have a comment on the Great Equivocator tomorrow.
Editor,
Imagine my complete lack of surprise that the article covering Sen. Hillary Clinton's announcement that she has formed a presidential exploratory committee failed to mention Sen. Clinton's bigoted, knee-jerk reaction to Dubai Ports World's proposed October 2005 purchase of just port operations of six U.S. seaports (Clinton gives her answer to voters: I'm in, January 21, A1). Recall, Dubai Ports World is a state-owned company of the United Arab Emirates.
And while I'm discussing the Senator's tolerance, or blatant apparent lack of, also missing from the article was any mention of how Sen. Clinton voted in last year's Senate Democratic Caucus vote for President Pro Tempore of the Senate. I can find no record of the vote on any web site; only that Senate Democrats elected former Ku Klux Klan member, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, as President Pro Tempore thus making him third in Presidential succession.
Hopefully a responsible media will ask the necessary questions over the next 22 months to resolve, one way or another, if Sen. Clinton is a bigot and/or a racist. (End of first letter.)
Boy, everyone is "against the war in Iraq" but even Sen. Clinton can't stop supporting it!
Editor,
Ms. Susan Milligan had it exactly right when she wrote, " . . . (Sen. Hillary) Clinton . . . voted for the authorization to use force in Iraq . . . she (Clinton) said she supports phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but without a specific deadline (Clinton toughens stance on Bush war plan, January 18, A2)."
Coupled with the fact that Sen. Clinton voted for war funding every single time she had an opportunity, it's hard to see any difference between Sen. Clinton's position on the war against terrorists and President Bush's. And, just for those scoring at home, Sen. Clinton's two most significant votes for war funding were for $60 billion on October 7, 2005 and for $70 billion on September 7, 2006.
Given that Sen. Clinton won re-election by 1.5 million votes, no she didn't get 1.5 million votes, she won by 1.5 million votes, I do struggle to see how the 2006 elections were a repudiation of the Bush/Clinton war against terrorists when the only one of the two that was on a ballot in 2006 won in a super-landslide.
Anyway, I just thought the readers of the Boston Globe would appreciate some facts appearing on the editorial pages for a change. (End of second letter.)
posted by Zack at 5:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home