It’s such a pity that, unfortunately, Bush has been unbelievably successful at this game.
Though Bush is not capable of running for a third term, there has always existed the very real possibility that some of the candidates running would be little more than a reincarnation of the sitting president. This list would include virtually the entire GOP field, and now, just in case you weren’t quite filled with enough despair, the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton.
Hillary has been feinting right for some time now. From her increasingly evasive rhetoric on the Iraq War to the vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, the Hillary Clinton we see now is increasingly running away from the strong rhetoric that pumped up supporters with her, “If Bush doesn’t get us out of Iraq, when I’m president, I will.”
Don’t hold your breath on that promise. In yet another strong move to the right, and into the hands of George Bush who said that at this stage of the game it’s all about making his successor feel comfortable keeping up the war effort in Iraq, we come to learn that none other than Michael O’Hanlon is Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Advisor now.
Michael O’Hanlon, if you will remember, was one of the two Brookings Institute “war critics” who penned an optimistic paper on the so-called progress in Iraq. It would later come out that O’Hanlon was actually never a critic, but instead had been a supporter of the Iraq war from the very beginning. In fact, the claim that he was a critic was merely an attempt to improve the PR surrounding Iraq prior to Petraeus’ report by taking the wind out of the anti-war movement’s sails.
Since then, O’Hanlon has been pimping the Iraq war with regularity, and even adopted the Orwellian overtones of the pro war movement when he not so subtly hoped the highly critical GAO report leaked before the Petraeus report would be “improved” before official release.
That Hillary would pick this man as a foreign policy advisor is highly disturbing, and just about eradicates any hope that she would even engage in a significant change of strategy in Iraq. In other words, should she be allowed to attain the Democratic nomination, we voters will be faced with a simple, though depressing, choice.
Vote for more war in Iraq or vote for more war in Iraq.
My only hope at this point is that she has played her hand too early, and is currently in the process of destroying her own prospects at nomination.