Posted on 12/07/2003 9:06:04 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Senator Hillary Clinton, sweeping through the Sunday morning talk shows after her somewhat upstaged Thanksgiving visit to the war zones, startled her conservative detractors by emerging as a congenital hawk. (I used that adjective "congenital," in the sense of "habitual," in derogation of her credibility back when the world was young.) She does not go along with the notion that the Iraqi dictator posed no danger to the U.S.: "I think that Saddam Hussein was certainly a potential threat" who "was seeking weapons of mass destruction, whether or not he actually had them." When Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" gave her the opening to say she had been misled when she voted for the Senate resolution authorizing war, Senator Clinton countered with a hard line: "There was certainly adequate intelligence without it being gilded and exaggerated by the administration to raise questions about chemical and biological programs and a continuing effort to obtain nuclear power." On forgotten Afghanistan, like many hawks, she was critical of the failure of European nations "to fulfill the commitment that NATO made to Afghanistan. I don't think we have enough American troops and we certainly don't have the promised NATO troops." Would she support an increase of U.S. troops in Iraq? Senator Clinton associated herself with the views of Republican Senator John McCain, who disagrees with Bush and the generals who say they have adequate strength there. She cited McCain's conviction that "we need more troops, and we need a different mix of troops." And she directed a puissant message to what some of us consider the told-you-so doves who refuse to deal with today's geopolitical reality: "Whether you agreed or not that we should be in Iraq, failure is not an option." Her range of expressed opinions urging us to "stay the course" can only be characterized as tough-minded. Of course, to the relief of Democratic partisans, she is dutifully critical: like some neocons, she zaps the Bush administration for failing to plan adequately for the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam. She proposes an "Iraq Reconstruction Stability Authority" to build an international bridge to a greater U.N. role. Clinton also wants a close look at where our intelligence went wrong, but takes a long view of the weak gathering and faulty analysis: "This was intelligence going back into my husband's administration, going back to the first President Bush's administration." Consider the political meaning of all this. Here is a Democrat who has no regrets for voting for the resolution empowering the president to invade Iraq; who insists repeatedly and resolutely that "failure is not an option"; who is ready to send in a substantially greater U.S. force to avert any such policy failure — and yet whose latest poll ratings show her to be the favorite of 43 percent of Democrats, three times the nomination support given front-runner Howard Dean. What cooks? One reason is that Hillary stands aloof, hard to get, while all the others are slavering for support. Another could be that most Democrats don't yet realize she's a hard-liner at heart. A third is that her personal appeal to liberals (and apoplectic opposition from conservatives) overwhelms all Democrats' policy differences. A fourth — and don't noise this around — could be that she speaks for the silent majority of centrist Democrats who yearn for the Old Third Way without Mr. Clinton. Now for a moment's mischief. If President Bush wins re-election, Hillary would likely gain the Democratic nomination in 2008, and would run as the favorite against, say, Republican Bill Frist or Jeb Bush. But if Howard Dean wins nomination and election in 2004, he would surely be the Democratic candidate again in 2008, and by the time 2012 rolls around, Hillary would be a wizened, doddering Medicare recipient facing a tide of voter resentment after eight years of Dean's executive-privilege arrogance in power (I exaggerate for effect). Thus, envision this G.O.P. whispering campaign soon directed to women, liberals and the legions of centrist, semi-hawkish, non-angry Democrats: If you want the Clinton Restoration to the White House in '08, the only way to make it happen is to stay the course with Bush in '04. A dirty trick? Undoubtedly. I disavow any connection to it.
She didn't call her husband a deciever for saying it when he bombed Iraq. I wonder why she didn't speak out then.
Interesting FR thread - In Their Own Words - (Liberal Democrats Are Two-Faced Liars)"
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
She was referring to the Clinton administration right, since her hubby said the same things.
That's for sure if they think she is a "Centrist"
W is unbeatable in 2004 - therefore all is in readiness for the 2008 Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Anyone have polling numbers for the beast before and after her Thanksgiving trip to Afghanistan and Iraq?
The hawk pose is about listening to Al From. ("Unless we convince Americans that Democrats are strong on national security, Democrats will continue to lose elections.")
(goto: The Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent.)
"Congenital LIAR" rings true. At best, "congenital hawk" squawks.
More like a Turkey....large legs, small breast and left wing
NYT's calculation would be to trumpet Hill's supposed hawkness if it improved her electability. President Hill would be so worth it them, the NYT would stay to the right of Ariel Sharon up until the next Republican's elected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.