Hillary Clinton -- Like her or hate her ...

She pretty well nails this one right on the head.

Here's a copy of her opening statement questioning Rummy during yesterday's committee hearing:


Mr. Secretary, we're glad you're here.

In your opening statement, you reference the common sense of Americans. Well, I think it's fair to say that that collective common sense overwhelmingly does not either understand or approve of the way you and the administration are handling Iraq and Afghanistan.

Under your leadership, there have been numerous errors in judgment that have led us to where we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a full-fledged insurgency and full-blown sectarian conflict in Iraq.

Now, whether you label it a civil war or not, it certainly has created a situation of extreme violence and the continuing loss of life among our troops and of the Iraqis.

You did not go into Iraq with enough troops to establish law and order.

CLINTON: You disbanded the entire Iraqi army. Now, we're trying to recreate it.

You did not do enough planning for what is called Phase Four and rejected all the planning that had been done previously to maintain stability after the regime was overthrown.

You underestimated the nature and strength of the insurgency, the sectarian violence and the spread of Iranian influence.

Last year, Congress passed the United States Policy in Iraq Act, which I strongly supported. This law declares 2006 to be a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq.

However, we appear to be moving in the opposite direction, with the number of U.S. troops in Iraq scheduled to increase, not decrease. That's the only way I think you can fairly consider the decision with respect to the 172nd Stryker Brigade.

So, Mr. Secretary, as we returned to our states for the August recess, our constituents have a lot of questions and concerns about the current state of affairs in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't need to remind any of us that we continue to lose our young men and women: 120 from New York alone.

Beside the U.S. losses, violence does seem to be increasing. From January to June of this year, there were 14,338 Iraqi civilian casualties, at least as far as anyone can count; in May and June alone, more than 5,000 deaths and 5,700 injuries.

In a July 22 article in the New York Times, General Abizaid was quoted as saying, "Two months after the new Iraqi government took office, the security gains that we had hoped for had not been achieved."

Then there was the big, ballyhooed announcement of Forward Together and the commitment by the new Iraqi government to secure Baghdad.

CLINTON: Two months into that, it's clear it's not working and we are now putting in more American troops and -- following the lead of Senator McCain's line of questioning -- removing them from other places that are hardly stable and secure.

In Afghanistan, your administration's credibility is also suspect. In December 2002, you said, "The Taliban are gone." In September 2004, President Bush said, "The Taliban no longer is in existence."

However, this February, DIA Director Lieutenant General Maples said that, in 2005, attacks by the Taliban and other anti-coalition forces were up 20 percent from 2004 levels, and these insurgents were a greater threat to the Afghan government's efforts to expand its authority than in any time since 2001.

Further, General Eikenberry made a comparable comment with respect to the dangers that are now going on in Afghanistan and the failure to be able to secure it.

Obviously, I could go on and on. A recent book, aptly titled "Fiasco," describes in some detail the decision-making apparatus that has led us to this situation.

So, Mr. Secretary, when our constituents ask for evidence that your policy in Iraq and Afghanistan will be successful, you don't leave us with much to talk about. Yes, we hear a lot of happy talk and rosy scenarios, but because of the administration's strategic blunders and, frankly, the record of incompetence in executing, you are presiding over a failed policy.

Given your track record, Secretary Rumsfeld, why should we believe your assurances now?

RUMSFELD: My goodness.

 

Hate her.

 

I second that.

 

Hate her, but not for her questioning of the war. That's valid. I think she's a power-hungry bitch who has no idea how to lead, and we have no idea what -- if any -- ideas or vision she has for the future. When was the last time she did an interview? The idea of being president is driving her, but once in office she'll be a divisive force that will drive the country further apart. That's dangerous.

God, we need a viable third-party candidate in this country. Can we summon the ghost of Ross Perot to run in 2008?

 

I second THAT

 

Like her. Besides, it would be funny to see Bill as the First Lady.

 

Does all that sand hurt your ears and eyes? It must surely be hell on your complexion.

 

How's the weather back there in 1972? And what's Edith cooking you for dinner, Archie?

 

A power hungry bitch? So most politicians who run for president aren't power hungry?

 

Not a fan, though her performance with Rumsfeld yesterday made for some excellent television.

 

She's better than what we got right now.  :-\