by user Don Pesci
Former President Bill Clinton, as everyone knows, is the best metaphysician in the Democrat Party. A metaphysician is someone who devotes himself, day in and day out, to the meaning of the word “is,” as in “Hillary Clinton is not a war hawk.”
At least not today.
She was a war hawk after 9/11, when a few peaceable followers of Mohammed, blessings be upon him, drove two planes loaded with non followers of Mohammed, blessings be upon him, into the Twin Towers in New York, a state now represented in congress by Hillary.
Or was she?
Bill says “no.” “I don’t have a problem with anything Barack Obama [has] said on this,” said the former president on a conference call while speaking to hundreds of supporters -- Barack, by the ways, says “yes,” Hillary was a tempestuous war hawk after 9/11 -- but “to characterize Hillary and Obama’s positions on the war as polar opposites is ludicrous.
“This dichotomy that’s been set up to allow him to become the raging hero of the anti-war crowd on the Internet is just factually inaccurate.”
And here it comes, the metapolitical explanation: Having re-read the Iraq resolution last week, Bill has concluded that his wife, the artful Hillary, was justified in refusing to apologize for her vote favoring a military response that successfully overthrew Saddam Hussein but has now, unfortunately for war hawks everywhere, involved us in a messy war in Iraq because… because… here it comes… Hillary was “acting out of concern that future presidents might need similar language authorizing “coercive inspections to avoid conflict. It’s just not fair to say that people who voted for the resolution wanted war.”
Pure intentions purify bad decisions: That’s the metapolitical point.
Why hasn’t Bush offer the Hillary defense as a metapolitical barrier to “unfair” criticism from… well, Hillary and Bill, among others?
Because, the hapless Bush is a poor metaphysician, that’s why. Cowboys are usually deficient in this area.