Columnist Mike Gallagher thinks Hillary Clinton should have taken the path of least resistance at her recent town hall meeting in New Hampshire by apologizing for her support of the Iraq War:

[A] fawning Democrat ... basically told her Democrats want to support her all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but they just can't do so until she comes clean about her years-long support of the war. ... another presidential contender, John Edwards, has no problem with apologizing for his vote for the war in Iraq - so why can't she?

Here was the perfect chance for Hillary Clinton to score easy points. Heck, it was an unopposed lay-up, a slow curve ball right over the heart of the plate. Sure thing, she could have said, I'm happy to apologize. Despite my earlier claims of having done personal research that led me to support the war, I was just flat-out wrong and should never have done so. I apologize!

But naturally, the woman's outsized ego and massive hunger for power didn't allow her to say that. … Clinton simply refuses to give the Democratic base what they want: an apology for flip-flopping on the war.

As anti-war Dems refuse to cut her any slack, Hillary has been unable to finesse her “evolving” position on the Iraq War with the Kerryesque phraseology, “if I knew then what I know now I would not have voted to authorize sending US forces to Iraq.”

So Hillary has apparently decided to ape her husband’s successful Sistah Soulja gambit. The New York Times reports:

Several advisers, friends and donors said in interviews that they had urged her to call her vote a mistake in order to appease antiwar Democrats, who play a critical role in the nominating process. Yet Mrs. Clinton herself, backed by another faction, never wanted to apologize - even if she viewed the war as a mistake - arguing that an apology would be a gimmick. …

Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in. …

Her decision not to apologize is regarded so seriously within her campaign that some advisers believe it will be remembered as a turning point in the race: either ultimately galvanizing voters against her (if she loses the nomination), or highlighting her resolve and her willingness to buck Democratic conventional wisdom (if she wins). …

“She is in a box now on her Iraq vote, but she doesn’t want to be in a different, even worse box - the vacillating, flip-flopping Democratic candidate that went to defeat in 2000 and ‘04,” said one adviser to Mrs. Clinton. “She wants to maintain a firmness, and I think a lot of people around her hope she maintains a firmness. That’s what people will want in 2008.” …

Mrs. Clinton is running, in part, a general-election strategy - taking positions on Iraq that might appeal to independents and some Republicans.

As with every breath she takes and every move she makes, this risky maneuver has been hashed out with her advisors, according to Dick Morris:

Hillary, for all of her vaunted independence, depends on gurus to guide her every move. She falls under their spell and, while thus mesmerized, she believes they can do no ill or make no mistake.

Hillary wouldn't compromise on health care because her guru-du-jour Ira Magaziner told her not to do so. She wouldn't release the Whitewater records because her former mentor, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, advised against it. She wouldn't back off her support for the war partially because the generals to whom she had come to listen and admire while serving on the Armed Services Committee warned that it would lead to a disaster. Combine that with the flawed guidance of her pollsters and you see why Hillary is stuck.

Sometimes the gurus are right (as on Iraq). Sometimes they're wrong. But Hillary can't tell the difference.

But there is one guru Hillary knows enough to ignore: Kerry campaign advisor and perennial loser Bob Shrum, who told The New York Times, “For the life of me I don’t understand why she can’t say, ‘I made a mistake, I was misled, the country was misled, the intelligence was manipulated.’ … I think there’s this tremendous desire in her campaign not to get into a position where you’re identified with traditional Democratic views. But this is now a party that is strongly antiwar, and is desperate for change on big issues like Iraq and health care.”

That Shrum talks about Iraq and health care in the same breath shows he doesn’t get it, and never will.

We Fight Them Over There So We Don’t Have To Fight Them Over Here?:  Part II

The Bush administration has an open-door policy when it comes to granting student visas to Saudis and Talibanis (third item, The Daily Blade, November 17, 2006). As a result, 15,000 students steeped in Wahhabism are now ensconced at colleges and universities throughout the US taking engineering, chemistry and other subjects that will help the unknowable number among them who harbor dreams of jihad to become more effective mass murderers.

Now, with sectarian strife reaching a fever pitch in Iraq – Sunni against Sunni, Sunni against Shia, jihadis against infidels – the administration has bowed to bipartisan pressure from Congress and will allow some 7,000 to emigrate to the US, reports The Wall Street Journal:

Initially, the Bush administration did little to welcome Iraqi refugees, in part to avoid acknowledging that instability in the country had become a long-term phenomenon. Fewer than 500 Iraqis have been admitted to the U.S. as refugees since 2003, officials said at a recent Senate hearing.

U.S. lawmakers and even some military leaders say more should be done to help Iraqi refugees, especially those who have assisted the U.S. war effort. Of particular concern are the Iraqi interpreters whom soldiers and Marines often depend on for information. About 5,000 have served; more than 250 have been killed and many others injured. They often wind up with refugees who have headed to Jordan, among other countries. Seeing themselves as combat veterans, most would like to emigrate to the U.S., but often must return to Iraq, where they and their families face heightened risk because of their American affiliation.

The U.S. plan also envisions giving special treatment to Iraqis still in the country whose cooperation with the U.S. puts them at risk of reprisal. The U.S. plans to contribute about $18 million for a world-wide resettlement and relief program.

Earlier this month, the Washington Post reported that countries in the Middle East that have taken in fleeing Iraqis worry that they are importing sectarian violence along with the refugees:

As the fourth year of war nears its end, the Middle East's largest refugee crisis since the Palestinian exodus from Israel in 1948 is unfolding in a climate of fear, persecution and tragedy.

Nearly 2 million Iraqis - about 8 percent of the prewar population - have embarked on a desperate migration, mostly to Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, according to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. …

For decades, Jordan welcomed refugees. Roughly a third of its 5.9 million residents are Palestinian refugees. According to the United Nations, 500,000 to 700,000 Iraqi refugees live in Jordan, but aid officials say the actual number is nearer to 1 million because many Iraqis live under the radar. Jordan's tolerance has waned, however, since a group of Iraqis bombed three hotels in November 2005, killing 60 people, according to Iraqis, aid officials and human rights groups. The government fears that Iraq's mostly Sunni Arab refugees could remain in the country permanently or become recruits for Iraq's insurgency.

Now, the exodus is generating friction and anger across the region, while straining basic services in already poor countries. Iraqis are blamed for driving up prices and taking away scarce jobs. Iraq's neighbors worry the new refugees will carry in Iraq's sectarian strife.

The centuries-old Sunni-Shia religious rift has also followed Iraqi and other Muslim immigrants to the US, according to a recent article in The New York Times. Clearly, our elected officials and military leaders did not understand the people or ethos of Iraq before committing our troops to battle. These same folks now want to transplant large numbers of Iraqis to the US. Have they given any thought to just how many refugees established Muslim communities in the US can absorb without becoming Baghdad or Beirut in microcosm?

Instead of fighting crime, will law enforcement resources in these communities be utilized keeping Sunni and Shia Muslims from killing each other? Will mayors one day be begging the governors of their states for a surge of police officers to control sectarian strife?