Sunday, December 30, 2007

Hillary Clinton demands more bloodshed in Pakistan

James Lewis at the American Thinker observes that Hillary Clinton is doing her best to completely destabilize Pakistan.

While the world holds its breath to see if Pakistan will explode, Senator Hillary Clinton tossed a fragmentation grenade into the fireworks factory yesterday. It may be the most irresponsible and selfish act by a presidential candidate in history:

"I don't think the Pakistani government at this time under President Musharraf has any credibility at all. They have disbanded an independent judiciary. They have oppressed a free press," she said.

Naturally, she also said, "I don't think politics should be playing a role in how our country responds ... to the tragedy."

Well, she just did exactly that by denouncing President Musharraf, who has been targeted by four assassination attempts himself, and is desperately trying to keep Pakistan from falling apart. He's the one who controls those nukes that we don't want Al Qaida to get. You don't have to like him to realize that weakening his position right now is wildly irresponsible. It plays right into the hands of those who want civil war.

Some people say that Hillary Clinton is an irresponsible, power-hungry hack who would do or say anything to get elected. And in this case, some people appear to be right.

Hugh Hewitt reminds us of the gravity of this particular situation.

Governor Huckabee might want to read The Nuclear Jihadist by Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins. This book will keep most thinking people awake at night, and it reminds all voters why the U.S. can't vote for the nice guy, but must vote for the candidate with the capacity to deal with the world as it is -- a very, very dangerous place. That means a vote for either Romney, Giuliani or Thompson. I will almost certainly vote for Mitt in the California primary, but I can enthusiastically support Rudy and get behind Fred with energy as well... I think Mike Huckabee is not ready for the presidency, and that John McCain is burdened with too much baggage to win, though I would vote for either of them over any of the Dems.

In The Nuclear Jihadist: The True Story of the Man Who Sold the World's Most Dangerous Secrets...And How We Could Have Stopped Him, Frantz and Collins deliver a brusque reminder: It wasn't just Iran that the naif Carter lost, but Pakistan as well. The coup that took down Benazir Bhutto's father -- with all his nuclear ambitions -- occured on July 5, 1977. A. Q. Khan's network, already established, flourished under Jimmy Carter, another former governor of a small southern state, and metastasized under Bill Clinton, another former governor of a small southern state. Reagan and Bush, the book makes clear, are not blameless in this slowly exploding crisis, but Carter and Clinton [were] completely clueless and erratic throughout their presidencies...

The world is in danger of attacks that could send it spinning out of any ordinary cycle. The West needs a leader that has the character and capacity to absorb and act on the many information flows that inform the Oval Office. He (or she) will have to be able to project sunny optimism about the decade ahead while practising a steely resolve to survive...

And reading polls on an hourly basis doesn't count as a critical information flow, which should disqualify Ms. Clinton from consideration.

No comments: