- Israel hits symbols of Hamas rule; scores killed
- Mississippi abortion law can’t be enforced
- Teacher who survived Sandy Hook has book deal
- Jury awards Jesse Ventura $1.8M in case vs. ‘American Sniper’ author Chris Kyle
- Middle Eastern firm’s deal to manage U.S. cargo port raises security concerns
- Bob McDonnell’s defense: Lonely wife developed ‘crush’ on CEO
- Chinese hackers stole ‘huge quantities’ of sensitive data on Israel’s Iron Dome
- House Republicans unveil bill to speed deportations of border children
- Californians protest middle school for hiring white man to teach cultural studies
- Killer’s sentencing overturned because mother couldn’t find seat in courtroom
BLANKLEY: Killing Iraq softly with her song
Hillary Clinton’s smooth words can’t turn withdrawal into commitment
Question of the Day
No one should miscalculate America’s resolve and commitment to helping support the Iraqi democracy.
- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (Oct. 23, 2011)
Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
- George Orwell (May 1945)
[W]e are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue … the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.
- George Orwell (March 22, 1946).
I offer up George Orwell’s second quote in possibly partial defense of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s assertion on “Meet the Press” Sunday that as the United States government orders the final, complete retreat from Iraq, the U.S. government remains resolved to support Iraqi democracy.
Are Mrs. Clinton’s words designed to make lies sound truthful, or does she actually believe things she knows to be untrue?
Her statement is undeniably untrue. Our government has quite specifically given up its “resolve and commitment” to Iraqi democracy and to our own national security interests in the region. We have given up our armed force to resist the emerging armed forces of Iran and Turkey, and of Iraq’s Kurds, Shia and Sunni militias. The Turks already have sent 10,000 troops into Iraq’s Kurdish region to attack Kurdish terrorists.
As a prescient Washington Post editorial pointed out in April, if all U.S. troops leave Iraq by the end of 2011 as agreed, “next year Iraq will lack critical defense capacities: It will be unable to defend its airspace or borders, protect oil shipments or platforms in the Persian Gulf, or partner with U.S. special forces in raids against al Qaeda. Perhaps most seriously, American soldiers who have been serving as de facto peacekeepers in the city of Kirkuk and along the sensitive border zone between Iraqi Kurdistan and the rest of the country will disappear. Many experts believe that in their absence, violence could erupt between Kurds and Arabs.”
In the place of U.S. armed forces as a material expression of our “resolve and commitment,” Mrs. Clinton offers as a substitute a “support and training mission similar to what we have in countries from Jordan to Colombia. … We will also have a very robust diplomatic presence.” This isn’t “resolve and commitment.” This is the withdrawal of our resolve and commitment. It is, in fact, the grave-digging of Iraqi democracy.
But the question Orwell’s quotes raise - Are Mrs. Clinton’s words designed to make lies sound truthful, or does she actually believe things she knows to be untrue? - goes to an even more important matter than the Obama administration’s heartbreaking decision to just throw up its hands and give up, reversing its own decision of only last month to keep 3,000 troops in Iraq past the end of the year.
It goes to whether the administration - and many senior GOP politicians as well - are merely capable of deceiving the public or they have succeeded in deceiving themselves about the dire circumstance in which our nation finds itself: Our debt and deficit crisis, our position vis-a-vis China, and our deepening national security vulnerabilities around the globe.
As Gore Vidal wrote of a presidential candidate in his play “The Best Man”: “Y’know, it’s not that I object to your being a bastard, don’t get me wrong there. It’s your being such a stupid bastard that I object to.”
My fear is that Washington politicians (and commentators as well) have been denying Washington’s utter failure to confront and resolve the dire threats to our national existence for so long that we have deceived ourselves into believing the dangers do not exist - or are only on the distant horizon.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
TWT Video Picks
Get Breaking Alerts
- Boehner rules out impeachment: 'Scam started by Democrats'
- Obama thanks Muslims for 'building the very fabric of our nation'
- Federal judge grants 90-day stay in D.C. gun case
- Inside the Beltway: Immigration rage festers on all sides
- Obama's brother wears Hamas scarf bearing anti-Israel slogans in photo
- D.C. seeks to stay judge's order allowing gun owners to carry in public
- Smugglers, rainstorm combine to poke holes in border fence
- Hillary Clinton: Forget Obama, George W. Bush made her 'proud to be an American'
- Obama: 'Not a new Cold War,' but new Russia sanctions announced
- Hillary Clinton: I was indeed 'dead broke,' but shouldn't have said so