Hillary's Letter to President Bush

Dear Mr. President:

As you prepare to address the nation tomorrow, I write to request that you seize the opportunity and offer the American people a candid assessment of the challenges that we continue to face in Iraq and offer a change in course to your failing strategy.

Over the past two days, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have testified before Congress about the current situation in Iraq. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker both have long and distinguished careers in service to our nation and in their testimony, they tried to put the best possible face on the difficult situation that we confront in Iraq.

In their testimony, however, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker could not mask the fact that the ostensible goal for increasing U.S. troops in Iraq earlier this year - to create the "space" for Iraqi political reconciliation - has not been met. And indeed, serious concerns have been raised about many of the metrics cited by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker in support of their assertion that progress is being made in Iraq.

General Petraeus testified that he has proposed a decrease of five combat brigades in Iraq by July/August 2008 and press reports have suggested that you plan to announce your acceptance of this recommendation when you address the nation tomorrow evening. However, if completed, these troop reductions would merely bring troop levels in Iraq back to the levels before you announced the "surge" in January of this year. Moreover, as was discussed during General Petraeus's testimony, troop levels in Iraq must decrease by this amount in order to avoid extending Army deployments beyond 15 months and straining our military even further.

What you are planning to tell the American people tomorrow night is that one year from now, there will be the same number of troops in Iraq as there were one year ago. Mr. President, that is simply too little too late, and unacceptable to this Congress, and to the American people who have made clear their strong desire to bring our troops home, and end this war.

As Commander-in-Chief you have the authority and ability to greatly accelerate the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, and to bring so many more troops home so much faster. I strongly urge you to choose this course of action.

Mr. President, it has been nearly four and a half years since you landed on an aircraft carrier and stood before the American people under a banner that read "Mission Accomplished." Do not repeat that mistake on Thursday night. Do not misrepresent the facts about the situation on the ground. And do not portray an unavoidable reduction in U.S. troops to pre-surge levels that would occur anyway as a marker of success. Be candid with the American people. They deserve it.

Thank you for your consideration

Sincerely yours,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

This is Hillary's letter, posted today to President Bush, on her presidential campaign website. My first suggestion to Hillary would be, don't speak for the troops, you have no idea what they want, or what they are going through. Leave it to the people who have experience and know what the hell is going on over there to decide how to complete the mission. DO NOT call them liars!

My personal statement to Sen. Clinton is that there are a lot of troops (though she does not know of any) that welcome an extended assignment in Iraq. They know the benefits of succeeding over there; they don't want to have to go back, or to fight them here in two years time. And, this might be a more personal issue, but many of them, even those who aren't sure what the hell is going on, welcome the pay raise for working over there.

Long story short...get some real experience before you try and change the policy or attempt to discredit those who try to inform you.

Hillary Clinton Lacks Resolve After General Petraeus Speaks to Congress

As should be expected, Sen. Clinton made a squishy response to Gen. David Petraeus's testimony yesterday. Most Democrats have come out with crazy left-wing remarks (such as, "Gen. Betray-us"-- which is disgusting), but not the pandering Hillary. In campaign mode she fails to take a firm position. In Boca Raton, FL yesterday she said,

"Our troops who have performed heroically and have done everything they've been asked to do in Iraq have no business refereeing an Iraqi civil war. It is up to the Iraqis to make the decisions as to how they will stabilize their own country...But I honestly believe that if the troops come out tomorrow, next year, five years or 10 years, because there is no military solution, if the Iraqis have not resolved their own internal problems, there is nothing we can do."

Though most of us informed citizens know that Hillary Clinton is as far left as Sean Penn, she continues to shift like a bowling ball on a pirate ship when it comes to Iraq. She is hesitant to condemn the noble work of our men in uniform because she does not want to be viewed as unpatriotic, not because she doesn't actually want to condemn it. I can only hope that her lack of stability on such issues will lose her the support of the "hug-a-Taliban" crazies from MoveOn.org and DailyKos.

For the people I know who have fought in Iraq, it would be an incredible and insulting mistake to put a waffler like Hillary in charge. Her statement shows her disregard for America's future and her inability to lead the greatest country in the world.

Free Trade

Though this is a major political issue, and definitely one that our presidential candidates should address, I haven't heard much from Sen. Clinton on free trade, or any trade for that matter--other than her husband's detailed encounters of trading women.

Being as Hillary is using her "First Lady" experience as authoritative experience for the White House, perhaps she should explain her views on NAFTA and China. Douglas Turner, in his article for The Buffalo News, describes how these two trade initiatives cost New York state alone nearly 200,000 jobs, though it was swore they would help our economy and employment rate during the Clinton administration.

Phillepe Reines, Hillary Clinton's spokesman, says that she favors "smart trade" where environmental and labor ideals are prevalent. Sure, we should focus more on who burns their waste in a barrel than who sends us tainted products. Perhaps instead of condemning a free trade agreement with South Korea, she should be more active in tightening up on our trade policies with China.

Since we have received several defective and/or poisonous goods over the last year from China, she could take an active role in monitoring this relationship. Perhaps being somewhat of a communist herself, she is less likely to regulate the dealings of a like-minded nation than she is to support the common values our country was founded on.

Having known people who have gone to Iraq, I deeply care about this issue. But, we all know how the differing sides view Iraq, but Iraq will settle down one day. So Hillary, tell us about how you would handle an ongoing problem, not so much in the forefront, such as free trade.

Repealing Bush's Authority

Rarely do wars run smoothly and quickly, the war in Iraq is no exception. Of course Hillary Clinton has proposed that Congress repeal the authority to "wage" war on Iraq. She did vote to invade Iraq nearly five years ago, but has since changed her mind with the tide.

Hillary has proven that she is not strong enough to be our president. Even if this war was a mistake (which none of the people in the military I know believe it to be), a strong leader would recognize it and see it through to a positive end. There are no take-backs in war.

Her proposal is weak. If we bail out now, we bail on our country and on Iraq.

She goes on and on about her support for our military, but it seems to me she wants to lower the morale of our troops. Since we cannot give back the American lives that have been taken in this endeavor, we need to honor them by being successful.

She knows so little outside of her privileged, upper-class, liberal world. How could she take on the job of commander-in-chief?