A little pop quiz, guess who said the following in a Washington Post editorial today:

My visit left me even more deeply convinced that we not only have a moral obligation to help displaced Iraqi families, but also a serious, long-term, national security interest in ending this crisis.

Today’s humanitarian crisis in Iraq — and the potential consequences for our national security — are great. Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won’t explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?

What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made.

. . .

As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.

It seems to me that now is the moment to address the humanitarian side of this situation. Without the right support, we could miss an opportunity to do some of the good we always stated we intended to do.

Was it?

(a) George W. Bush
(b) Barack Obama
(c) Hillary Clinton
(d) Angelina Jolie

If you guessed Brad Pitt’s wife, you would be correct! How is it that this actress, one of the few who actually walks the talk she talks, can make more sense than both Democratic candidates for President? Read the whole thing.

I actually enjoy it when Hollywood elites give me a reason to praise them. I just wish it was not so few and far between.

Advertisements