Hitch on Hillary

Brilliant as usual..

During the Senate debate on the intervention in Iraq, Sen. Clinton made
considerable use of her background and "experience" to argue that, yes,
Saddam Hussein was indeed a threat. She did not argue so much from the
position adopted by the Bush administration as she emphasized the stand
taken, by both her husband and Al Gore, when they were in office, to
the effect that another and final confrontation with the Baathist
regime was more or less inevitable. Now, it does not especially matter
whether you agree or agreed with her about this (as I, for once, do and
did). What does matter is that she has since altered her position and
attempted, with her husband's help, to make people forget that she ever
held it. And this, on a grave matter of national honor and security,
merely to influence her short-term standing in the Iowa caucuses.
Surely that on its own should be sufficient to disqualify her from
consideration? Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state
tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on
health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security:
The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of
course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly
fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her
enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry.

Ouch..