Hillary's Doublespeak

It appears that Hillary Clinton was quite confused yesterday.

While delivering an address to members of the NDN, her comments on divisions within the Democratic Party were sharply divided.

Washington, D.C. (AHN) -- U.S. Senator, and former First Lady, Hillary Clinton (D-NY) admits that the Democratic Party is "openly struggling with a lot of the difficult issues," ahead of the 2006 mid-term elections.

Despite the challenges before the party, Clinton still says Democrats are preferable to their "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil," GOP rivals.

Clinton says, "Although unity is important it is not the most important value. It is, I think, a tribute to the Democratic Party at this moment in time that we are honestly and openly struggling with a lot of the difficult issues facing our country."

OK. That's typical political rhetoric (AKA BS).

Hillary acknowledges the fissure (more like chasm) separating Dems on the Iraq war, and then spins it as a plus for the party.

I do think her "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" remark about the Republicans is a poor choice of words. It makes me think of the strategy that she must employ in her marriage to good ol' boy Bill.

I'm not taking a cheap shot there. I'm serious when I say that. She carries a lot of sleazy baggage that she can't leave behind.

But I digress. The point is Hillary clearly admits to divisions within the Dem Party.

Also during her address yesterday, Hillary touted her party's unprecedented unity on Iraq.

Huh? Are they united by their divisions?

From The Washington Times:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said yesterday that Democrats emerged from the Senate debate on U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq "more united" than ever behind a conditional-exit strategy in the war that has divided her party.

In remarks before the NDN, a new centrist-leaning Democratic advocacy group, Mrs. Clinton avoided the criticism she had earlier leveled at anti-war lawmakers seeking a quick pullout of all U.S. forces within one year. This time she offered only words of praise for the widely differing withdrawal positions offered by liberal Democrats in the Senate.

In other words, this time Hillary offered a political ploy.

In other, other words, honesty is not the best policy in Hillary's world.

"The Democrats may have different views about how we succeed in Iraq, but we are together and unified in fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities to engage in serious debate, to ask the difficult questions and to offer honorable and responsible positions," she said.

And what would those "honorable and responsible positions" be?

I'm not aware of those offerings.

While the Democrats' withdrawal proposals were easily defeated in the Senate Thursday, Mrs. Clinton said the 37 Democratic votes for a nonbinding, non-deadline resolution offered by Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, which urged the administration to begin some withdrawals this year, signaled a growing consensus within her party

I don't see "growing consensus" at all.

Wishing won't make it so, Hillary.

I see those Dems as trying to appease elements of their fringe base while at the same time attempting to appeal to the somewhat more moderate wing of their party by not coming off like the reckless extremists who voted for the Kerry-Feingold amendment.

"Democrats come out of this, I think, with a unified message that we want success in Iraq, we want the Iraqi people to have the stability and security and peace that they have voted for. We want their government to be able to deliver that," she said.

No, that's what the Bush administration and Republicans have been advocating from day one.

If Dems had a unified message of wanting success in Iraq, Russ Feingold and John Kerry wouldn't be grandstanding about setting a deadline for troop withdrawal and sucking up to the radical Left.

If Dems were unified, John Murtha wouldn't be taking every chance he gets to moan about "no progess" in Iraq.

If Dems were unified, Hillary wouldn't have been booed mercilessly a few weeks ago when she said that setting a hard and fast deadline for American troop withdrawal was not a "smart strategy."

Dems may want success in Iraq, but they have a dramatically different definition of success than the Republicans do.

For the Dems, success apparently means relentlessly accusing our military of atrocities, abuses, and torture. It means saying that 2500+ precious Americans died for a pack of lies. Success means retreating from what Howard Dean says is an "unwinnable" war.

If the Dems do want a stable Iraq rather than leaving the job undone, as Hillary claims, then they should stop trying to make political hay out of the suffering and sacrifices of Americans, our coalition partners, and the Iraqi people. Kerry should quit with the "lie and die" stuff.

Obviously, Dems aren't unified.

Obviously, politics doesn't stop at the water's edge anymore, not 21st century Dem politics.

The Dems' tactics sicken me.