Hillary the Phony Hawk
You can be sure the BBC won't be broadcasting the New York Senator's
position on Iraq.
Hillary the Hawk
By Andrew Sullivan
December 9, 2003
British anti-war liberals, lefties, and conservatives have just won a
new enemy. This gung-ho member of the neocon cabal, this imperialistic
threat to world peace, this destroyer of multilateral alliances
actually believes that president Bush is too soft for the Iraq war. The
president is too swift to turn over sovereignty to Iraqis, according to
this critique. He needs to pour in more troops, display more resolve,
demand more from allies, and take more time to get the job done right.
Who is this foe of the anti-war left? Drum roll, please. It's Hillary
Clinton.
You won't have read much about the New York Senator's Iraq position in
the British press, because it rather over-complicates the picture for
both right and left. You can be absolutely sure that the BBC is
reluctant to broadcast it. But Clinton is fast showing a skill in
American politics that is both delighting her friends and alarming her
enemies. Emerging from the shadow of her husband's centrist presidency,
she combines all the advantages of Bill's shrewd grasp of policy and
the American political center with far less of his personal fondness
for sleaze, scandal, and perjury. And her game-plan for inheriting the
presidency in 2008 seems to be shaping up extremely well.
Her biggest recent coup was, alas, overshadowed. Over Thanksgiving, she
toured Iraq, visiting soldiers, talking to troop commanders, surveying
the post-liberation scene. Pity the president's drop-by sucked up most
of the media oxygen. But Hillary did not engage in angry denunications
of the war, in the style of Howard Dean. She pulled a Margaret Thatcher
instead. It's worth remembering she voted for the war against Saddam in
the first place. And now she praised the president's visit, while
criticizing him from the
right. "I applaud the president. It sends a message of support," she
said. "But on the other hand it isn't a substitute for a plan to
increase security or to eventually create more independence for
Iraqis."
What would increase security? "We have to exert all of our efforts
militarily, but the outcome is not assured," Clinton opined. She
opposed what she called a premature handing over of authority to the
Iraqis: "I think an exit strategy, unfortunately, is being driven by
our political calendar, not necessarily what's in the best interest of
a long-term, stable Iraq." She called for more U.N. involvement and
more allied troops, despite the fact that the Bush administration has
asked for both and been denied. She was doing what successful Democrats
have often done in the past - from Truman to JFK. She was outflanking
a Republican on defense from the right.
It was a nifty rhetorical strategy - far shrewder than anything most of
the Democratic candidates have been saying. And as the blogger Mickey
Kaus observed, she can't really lose. If Bush's strategy succeeds, she
can say that she favored the war and its objective of a stable
democracy in Iraq. If Bush's plan fails, she can claim that she
supported different tactics. Certainly she cannot be accused of selling
out American troops, being weak on national security or wishy-washy in
the war on terror. Maybe she's sincere. Maybe she's not. Either way,
she wins.
Is she right? Who knows? The variables at play now in Iraq are highly
complex and the impact of any number of potential future events - from
the the capture of Saddam to another major terrorist attack in the U.S.
- are virtually impossible to judge in advance. But it strikes me as
far too cynical to believe that the Bush administration is attempting
to pull a quick exit strategy for purely political reasons. Between
next June and November, there is a long period in which the
consequences of premature Iraqi sovereignty will be fully visible. Bush
will be judged electorally whatever his policy. And if he really wanted
to use Iraq purely for electoral purposes, why announce a deadline now
- rather than unveil a surprise later, when it would have more impact
on the electoral cycle? Besides, with a booming economy, and major
legislative gains on hand, Bush's re-election prospects have never
looked better. He doesn't need the boost his critics are accusing him
of engineering.
But all of that plays into Hillary's hands as well. Almost certainly,
she has no plans to run for president next year. But the more the
Democratic candidates degenerate into anti-war shrillness and the
further they drift
away from a decent chance at beating Bush, the better situated she is
to take control of the party machinery after a Bush re-election; and
the easier it will be for her to run from the center in 2008. Hillary's
enormous gift is that the left of the party adores her, almost
regardless of what she says or does. She is so hated by the far right
that the left adopts her as an ally almost reflexively. So she alone of
most Democrats has the ability to campaign from the center, to pose
with troops in photo-ops, to out-flank Bush on the right in the war on
terror, without endangering her base. It's the reverse of Bush, who has
such emotional support from the right that he can do nothing to stop
abortion, spend money like Lyndon Johnson, enact the biggest new
welfare state entitlement in a generation, and still be enormously
popular with the party base.
She also knows that time is on her side. The longer the time there is
between her presidential election campaign and her husband's
administration, the better able she will be to run on her own terms and
without all that cumbersome and odorous baggage. Her book was a
smashing success - however bland and fake the contents. She has been
diligently working as a Senator, slowly building a bond with voters and
a working relationship with other Senators, two critical elements in a
successful presidency. I've been a Hillary-sceptic in the past. But
everyone deserves a second chance. And as the time ticks by, the
likelier it seems that Hillary Clinton is going to get one.
--
Left-wing liberals are EVERYTHING they accuse the right of being. They
are mean, vicious, hateful, greedy, cold-hearted, closed-minded,
selfish, intolerant, bigoted and racist.
.
|
