Discover more from Kevin McKenzie
Hillary Clinton's Iraq War Regrets Are Pure Politics
If it wasn't obvious before then it became obvious last night that Hillary Clinton's renunciation of her vote to invade Iraq was nothing more than political calculation rather than genuine remorse or belief that she was wrong. At the first Democratic Party debate for the presidential candidates Hillary stated that the overthrowing of Maummar Gadhafi in Libya was "smart power at its best," citing nonsense about Gadhafi having "American blood on his hands."
You might argue that Iraq and Libya are two different examples and that you could oppose one but support the other, but the facts would not support this. In both countries the United States overthrew a dictator based on lies and the removal of that dictator led to tribal genocide and civil war that cannot be contained by the puppet governments established in those countries by the United States. The exact same policies led to the exact same results in both countries. Then there is the fact that Hillary wants to do the exact same thing in Syria now by removing Bashar al-Assad from power and leaving ISIS to take over.
Now you may be inclined to believe that it's reasonable to make the same mistake over and over, but that's not even the point. The point is that not only has she repeatedly made the same mistake, but that she's had different responses to those same mistakes based on the political acceptability of those mistakes. The only difference between the regime change in Iraq, Libya, and her support for future regime change in Syria is that Iraq is massively unpopular with voters and Libya and Syria don't matter to voters at all.
So it's not only that Libya proves that Hillary learned nothing from her mistake in supporting the war in Iraq, or that Syria proves that she's learned nothing from the horrors of Libya, but it's the simple fact that she believes that she has nothing to learn from those failures because she does not see them as failures at all. Either Clinton believes regime change is good in her heart of hearts, and thinks that the horrific results, including genocide, are worth it, or she's on the dole from people who want regime change in these countries for their own interests. Probably a bit of both, but whatever the case may be it proves that she's unfit to ever hold any political power in the United States.