UPDATED:Iraqi Elections As The Defining Moment: Now Hillary Clinton Says Saddam’s Cronies Have Failed
Early July 2004, a week or so after the CPA left Baghdad and Iyad Allawi’s interim Iraqi government took over: I was sitting in the Corps’ Joint Operations Center(JOC) in Al Faw Palace, Baghdad, drinking a big cup of tea. The JOC had a huge screen covering an entire wall, like a movie theater screen divided into ceiling-high panels capable of displaying multiple computer images and projections. A viewer could visually hopscotch from news to weather to war. In the upper right-hand corner of one panel Fox News flickered silently–and for the record, occasionally CNN or Al Jazeera would flicker there as well. Beneath Fox ran my favorite channel, live imagery from a Predator UAV circling somewhere over Iraq. That July day the Predator appeared to be flying above an irrigation canal.
The biggest display, that morning and every morning, was a spooling date-time list describing scores of military and police actions undertaken over the last dozen hours, Examples: “0331: 1/5 Cav, 1st Cavalry Division, arrests two suspects after Iraqi police stop car”; “0335 USMC patrol vicinity Fallujah engaged by RPG, returned fire. No casualties.”
The spool went on and on and on, and I remember thinking : “I know we’re winning. We’re winning because –in the big picture– all the opposition has to offer is the past. But the drop-by-drop police blotter perspective obscures that.”
Collect relatively isolated events in a chronological list and presto: the impression of uninterrupted, wide-spread violence destroying Iraq. But that was a false impression. Every day coalition forces were moving thousands of 18-wheelers from Kuwait and Turkey into Iraq, and if the “insurgents” were lucky they blew up one. However, flash the flames of that one diesel rig on CNN and “oh my God, America can’t stop these guys” is the impression left in Boston, Boise, and Beijing.
Saddam’s buddies and Zarqawi’s klan were actually weak enemies –”brittle” is the word I used to describe them at a senior planning meeting. Their local power was based on intimidation–killing by car bomb, murdering in the street. Their strategic power was based solely on selling the false impression of nation-wide instability– selling post-Saddam Iraq as a dysfunctional failed-state rather than an emerging democracy .
Only July 19 I attended a meeting in Najaf where the governors of Najaf and Diwaniya told the corps commander that they needed clean water and better sewer systems. Citizens in the city of Najaf wanted Marines in the area to start spending money. As I said, we were winning. Were there severe security issues? Absolutely– in August Najaf was the scene of a most curious battle. The Mahdi militia took over the Imam Ali Mosque–but were slowly chewed to bits by US troops and forced to leave the mosque by the political efforts of Ayatollah Sistani and the local populace.
In World War Two forcing Nazi divisions to retreat and taking islands from the Japanese provided hard yardsticks to determine military success. Irregular warfare rarely offers such a clarifying quantitative measure. Over the summer of 2004, I had the benefit of anecdotal measures. Iraqis I talked to would tell me they intended to vote in the January elections.
The January elections would be “the big island,” the defining moment in the post-Saddam political struggle, and it would be the Iraqi people providing the public yardstick.
In the past three weeks I’ve seen a number of foreign policy editorialists become sudden fathers– success has many fathers, But track back on their columns you’ll find many of them they had the police blotter perspective, usually offered with a “quagmire” chaser and disdain for President Bush.
Don’t expect Jacques Chirac and Ted Kennedy to apologize for their defeatism– Chirac’s a crook, Kennedy a perpetual cad. But do take note that Senator Hillary Clinton now thinks Iraq is “functioning quite well.”
Today’s statement from Senator Hillary Clinton, on tour with John McCain and the Senate Armed Services Committee (here’s a link to the full AP story):
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - As 55 people died in Iraq on Saturday, the holiest day on the Shiite Muslim religious calendar, Sen. Hillary Clinton said that much of Iraq was “functioning quite well” and that the rash of suicide attacks was a sign that the insurgency was failing.
Clinton, a New York Democrat, said insurgents intent on destabilizing the country had failed to disrupt Iraq’s landmark Jan. 30 elections.
“The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure. Not one polling place was shut down or overrun,” Clinton told reporters inside the U.S.-protected Green Zone, a sprawling complex of sandbagged buildings surrounded by blast walls and tanks. The zone is home to the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy…
…The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure,” Clinton said.
When I returned from Iraq last September I concluded many Americans were suffering a failure of faith. Perhaps the emerging success in Iraq will restore their spirit.
UPDATE: Thanks for the dozens of good comments. This comment echoes the strategic point of my post:
Guys, guys ? it doesn?t matter what Hillary really thinks or what her record is. What matters is that a politician who is the soul of opportunism, and one who has the ear of the MSM (and, frankly, is much brighter than Kerry or Kennedy), is calling Iraq a success. When politicians like HRC start flocking to Iraq to bask in the light of its success, then you know that the corner has been turned. Consider this a sign of better times to come.
“Better times” (better security and greater propserity) in Iraq won’t come immediately, but they will come. In a column two weeks ago I discussed meeting Senator Lieberman in Baghdad. Joe Lieberman has demonstrated faith and spine in the War on Terror. Lieberman hasn’t even practiced “Iraqi exceptionalism,” to purloin a phrase. Eg: “I support the War on Terror except for Iraq…” Last night I watched RIchard Perle debate Howard Dean on CSPAN’s re-run of their February 17 debate in Portland. One of the panel members asked Perle about an optimistic statement Perle made in September 2003 about the situation in Iraq. Perle thought Iraq would (paraphrasing) be resolved in six months. Perle calmly told the crowd he would be a fool if he didn’t recognize the mistake he’d made — he had the wrong timetable. Now, Senator Clinton clearly plays foreign policy close to the vest. Does she talk a Dean/Guardian/Michael Moore line at hardleft chardonnay fundraisers in Hollywood and Georgetown? If she does, she’s careful about it– body language and winks, aggreement by innuendo. In public vis a vis Iraq Senator Clinton has not been an obstructionist and defeatist. That doesn’t put her in the same sentence as a hero like Lieberman. But– it doesn’t put her in the same sentence with Kennedy, Boxer, and Dean either.
See Roger Simon’s post from February 19 on how Europe is losing its smugness. The Iraqi election not only beat the police blotter (see my original post). Like a sweet acid it’s eating away at the hard shell of Bush-hate and smugness blinding Euro-elites. It is a defining moment. Hillary Clinton can’t ignore it if she wants to maintain long-term political viability. The larger point is this: the world cannot ignore it. To paraphrase Daniel Moynihan, they can have their opinions but they cannot have their own facts. The Iraqi election put a fact in place.
UPDATE 2: The Belmont Club puts the last month’s “spooling” political events in appropriate perspective.
Hilary’s no dummy. Look for her to become every more vocal in her support of the war now that she realizes Ted’s “It’s a quagmire!” line has a diminishing number of buyers.
Comment by Jerry — 2/19/2005 @ 6:50 pm
Yeah, right, next you’ll tell us that she is now against abortion on demand, plus she doesn’t believe in same sex marriage. Oh? She did? Does this mean that she is now a conservative or does she think that the American public is too stupid to figure it out? Bloggers, start your keyboards!
Comment by JoeS — 2/19/2005 @ 6:51 pm
RE: Senator Clinton As much as I use to dislike her as First Lady, her current attitudes on Iraq has softend my opinion. I think she has guts and probably has the discipline to be a bare-knuckled street-fighter (for the USA). I think it was “Instapundit” that first addressed her steeliness. While I doubt that I’d ever vote her for President- I don’t think I would be worried about her and national defense. To paraphrase President Nixon: She may be a b–ch, but, at least she’s our b–ch.
Comment by mick elliott — 2/19/2005 @ 6:58 pm
FYI: Your link to the ‘full ap story’ has an extra ‘http://’ in it. And, oddly, leads to the Microsoft.com website when I hit it.
Comment by spacemonkey — 2/19/2005 @ 7:18 pm
“Everybody says she’s the brains behind pa.”
Comment by Reactionary Guttersnipe — 2/19/2005 @ 7:19 pm
I have to agree with Mick — as much as I would HATE to see HRC as President, and as much as I believe that it would take decades to fix the damage that she would do to the economy (not to mention the Constitution), I really do think she’s tough enough to fight this war. And looking at the Donk side of the house, there aren’t too many people I can say that about. Joe Lieberman, sure. Other than Joe or Hillary, though… Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Comment by Kirk — 2/19/2005 @ 7:23 pm
“As much as I use to dislike her as First Lady, her current attitudes on Iraq has softend my opinion.” Which is exactly what it was meant to do. Remember, she will say or do anything she (or Slick) think needs to be said in order to further her cause. She wants to be President. If she has to talk up Iraq, she will. If she thinks she has to talk down abortion, she will. If she thought dancing naked in Times Square on the 4th of July would guarantee her ascention to the Presidency, she’d be layin’ down steps in the street. Do not trust what she says and does. It is all designed to further her ambition, nothing more.
Comment by Bill M — 2/19/2005 @ 7:29 pm
“As much as I use to dislike her as First Lady, her current attitudes on Iraq has softend my opinion.” With all due respect Mr. Elliot, this sentence indicates you are a dnc plant or soft in the head
Comment by Horst Graben — 2/19/2005 @ 7:29 pm
I hope Senator Clinton continues to adopt the conservative mantle, and even a more conservative lifestyle and sphere of influence. Then I hope she’ll make a nice, quiet, conservative exit from public life.
Comment by Rich Willis — 2/19/2005 @ 7:37 pm
sdasdfad
Comment by dsffasdsdfdf — 2/19/2005 @ 7:40 pm
Exactly what did Hillary do to make sure the outcome was what it now is? Exactly nothing — at best one could say she didn’t do her utmost to obstruct. Pretty thin resume fodder if you ask me.
Comment by diana — 2/19/2005 @ 7:42 pm
Credit where it’s due. Hillary has been consistently on the hawkish side of the fence since Sept. 11, 2001. You are sounding a bit like the Bush haters with the “don’t trust anything she says” bit.
Comment by Kathy K — 2/19/2005 @ 7:43 pm
I disagree with the implication that HRC has changed positions. Her latest statements are entirely consistent with her position on Iraq. You’ll find some record of these on my blog (search for Hillary in my search box). Glenn has linked to some of these posts previously. She’s pretty much the only Democrat for president. Depending on the GOP nominee, I could easily wind up voting for her. Partisanship or blind irrational hatred have no place in deciding important issues of national security.
Comment by Howard Owens — 2/19/2005 @ 7:52 pm
If Hillary approves of our current operations in Iraq, we must be doing something seriously wrong.
Comment by larry — 2/19/2005 @ 8:02 pm
Hillary and the donks couldn’t do more damage to the Constitution than the Repubs have done and are doing now. If anything is left of it by 2008, I seriously doubt that there will be much left that matters. Imagine Hillary being able to declare folks “enemy combatants”, as Bush has done.
Comment by Robert — 2/19/2005 @ 8:03 pm
I think that she will say what ever gives her advantage. That she is saying this means that she thinks that taking the US side in this is to her advantage. Just as Tricky Dick was the only one who could go to Communist China, and As Nakasone of Japan was named “the weather vane” for his lack of principle, her taking the side of the US against the moonbats and the Islamofascists shows that she will not ride the bomb down as some, such as Dean, Pelosi, Boxer, and Stwewart.
Comment by Don Meaker — 2/19/2005 @ 8:11 pm
Gad I hate politicians. Pablum. D’ja notice the Islamic militants are blowing up pilgrims to Mosques during holy season? There’s an edict against that. However, Muhammad did it. Broke a 10-year treaty after a year with the Meccans and attacked during Ramadan. Then Allah said it was OK. Funny thing about that.
Comment by Loren — 2/19/2005 @ 8:16 pm
Mrs. C- the great triangulator a(2) + b(2)=not trustworthy
Comment by richard — 2/19/2005 @ 8:35 pm
MzBill is corrupt. Her cattle-futures payoff from Red Bone was extortion. Her confidential FBI files-under-the-bed were extortion, celebrated by Larry Flynt. Her “count the spoons” exit from the White House symbolized thievery buttressed by millions from Whitewater. Her books by unacknowledged ghost-writers perpetrate continuous fraud. Nothing this creature does or says can have any possible credence. Senatrix from New York? You have to wonder, how long will this carpet-bagging farce persist? If “sanity is the most profound moral option of our time”, let’s call her public persona for what it is– not healthy political ambition, but a raging egomania that stops literally at nothing in pursuit of power. If Hillary’s species of dementia weren’t so obvious, we might be worried. But she’s already taken a firm stance in the Black Mouth of Nothing.
Comment by John Blake — 2/19/2005 @ 9:01 pm
Hillary STILL speaks from opportunity, NOT from principle. The multinational efforts, both military and humanitarian, in Iraq were right and good from their very inception. That she and other people of loose morals and shifting attitude NOW say something popular about the war effort is a sign of political expediency, NOT principle!
Comment by Carridine — 2/19/2005 @ 9:07 pm
She is Ambition Personified. Morality, principled positions, integrity - that’s simply not her cup of tea. Think Machiavelli as Dad, Lizzie Borden as Mom, and you get: Billary. When Chelsea blurted out to a reporter that her Mom and Dad hated men in uniform, that’s all we need to know about Hillary. Her latching onto a position on the Armed Services Committee is just a ploy. When we need core guts in a crisis, she ain’t got it. BTW - the plane that’ll be coming at her out of the sun in ‘08 - that’s Commander Condi.
Comment by Tinker — 2/19/2005 @ 9:10 pm
Hillelary’s comments impress me zero. Nil. Nada. Zilch. She is just using the convenient fig leaf of the moment for cover, as certain politicians always do. She is trying to better-deal where she was before, that’s all. It means nothing. Or if you disagree, perhaps you also believe that a chameleon changes its IDEAS when its skin changes color . . .
Comment by bourne2y — 2/19/2005 @ 9:45 pm
Hillary - her words are merely a TRANSPARENT attempt to move toward the political “center”. The fact that she feels the need to move to the “center” says it all.
Comment by fdcol63 — 2/19/2005 @ 9:58 pm
OK, I would like to propose a thought experiment. Let’s say we have a public figure, X. And in the past, X has been strongly, vocally liberal. Now, post Berlin Wall, post 9-11, post any number of demonstrations of the fallacies of many liberal positions, X has taken stronger and stronger stands on the conservative side of the debate — or at least, of the security debate. Do conservatives accept this at face value? Or do they presume it’s all an act? Well, if X is Senator Lieberman, he becomes the Republicans’ standard for a reasonable Democrat. If X is David Horowitz, he becomes a player in conservative media. If X is Dick Morris, he is sought out as a conservative pundit who has seen both sides. If X is Roger Simon, he becomes a mainstay of conservative blogging. So clearly, it’s not inconceivable that Senator Clinton could be abandoning her liberal convictions on some matters, in the face of compelling evidence that she was wrong. I’m not saying she HAS changed. Character counts, and she has certainly been an opportunist in the past. These public statements could be all about triangulation. But I have to acknowledge that some people DO change, when the evidence is compelling. We can only judge by a long pattern of consistent behavior. If Senator Clinton spends the next four years consistently hawkish and stands up to the obstructionists in her party, she may just achieve what I would have said was impossible four years ago: my vote for her. And then there’s my vision of an absolute blogosphere free-for-all election: in 2006, the Democrats continue their self-destructive opposition to security and freedom, and further trivialize their party to the point where they’re nationally impotent; Senator Clinton (after handily winning reelection in 2006) finds some Democrat action she can paint as simply beyond her ability to tolerate, and switches parties; and in 2008, the Democrats have to scramble to find challengers for the Clinton/Rice dream ticket. Ain’t gonna happen. She ain’t gonna switch, and too many Republicans wouldn’t take her. But the meltdown this would cause would give bloggers a nearly unlimited supply of inspiration for posts.
Comment by UML Guy — 2/19/2005 @ 10:25 pm
Remember, with the Clintons’ it is “triangulation, stupid.” Be on all sides of an issue. She was silent when the bad times were happening. Now that things are turning around, she can afford to come out on the winning side. Hillary ‘08? HELL no.
Comment by Opine6 — 2/19/2005 @ 10:31 pm
“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” — Hillary Clinton
Comment by Reactionary Guttersnipe — 2/19/2005 @ 10:35 pm
Credit where it is due. HRC was for the Iraq invasion, if I recall correctly, and didn’t back down on it, but kept her liberal credentials burnished with phony attacks on “the way” it was done. Don’t kid yourselves. Republicans had better be on the ball, come 2008. She will be a formidable foe. She’ll easily have the base locked up and, she’ll have the MSM behind her all the way.
Comment by Reid — 2/19/2005 @ 10:43 pm
Under no circumstances will I vote for that woman. I was one of a group of military personnel who was instructed by Ms Rodham (she only started using Clinton when he ran for Prez) to not wear my uniform when visiting the WH since it did not “present a proper image for the White House”. For me it’s personal. I’ve seen her disdain for the military up close and listened to her and her cronies cackling around the WH about the military. She’s as phony a “warhawk patriot” as anyone can be. Her patriotism is nothing but a front. I’ve seen her real attitude.
Comment by Faith+1 — 2/19/2005 @ 11:04 pm
If Americans were suffering a failurue of faith it was a delusion caused by reporting that generated an incorrect impression. This is also the cause of anti-americanism in Eruope and the rest of the world. The problem isn’t Americans, it’s the media.
Comment by anonymous — 2/19/2005 @ 11:20 pm
Sen. Clinton, like all people is entitled to change her opinion when faced with evidence indicating that her previous attitude was erroneous. I’d certainly hope that people do not become wedded to their political biases so tightly that those biases lead them to suicide. That having been said, however, the true test of whether Sen. Clinton has simply changed her rhetoric or whether she has undergone a more profound change of opinion, is whether she follows up her words with action and legislation. Deeds, not words.
Comment by RJ — 2/19/2005 @ 11:52 pm
Yes — Hillary latched on late to success in Iraq. I believe she had criticized setting the “early” date for the elections, and copped an entirely different attitude on her previous trip to Iraq — see Kaus Files around 11/20/03 at http://slate.msn.com/id/2091641, for instance. By the way, I wouldn’t cover for my husband if he were a rapist…
Comment by DC Analyst — 2/19/2005 @ 11:54 pm
re: comment #15 The Law of War is centuries older than the United States. To declare someone as an “illegal combatant” is a power under that Law. That Law was used by the British to try and execute Nathan Hale. It was used by the Americans to try and execute Major John Andre. It has been used (sparingly) in most of America’s wars since then. The Law of War was also expressly recognized by Congress in 1789, and by a unanimous Supreme Court in 1942 in the Quirin case. So, your conclusions that this power is either arbitrary or was invented by President Bush are just plain false, as shown by history. I know this stuff. I have practiced in the Supreme Court for 31 years.
Comment by John Armor — 2/19/2005 @ 11:55 pm
Guys, guys … it doesn’t matter what Hillary really thinks or what her record is. What matters is that a politician who is the soul of opportunism, and one who has the ear of the MSM (and, frankly, is much brighter than Kerry or Kennedy), is calling Iraq a success. When politicians like HRC start flocking to Iraq to bask in the light of its success, then you know that the corner has been turned. Consider this a sign of better times to come.
Comment by brown line — 2/20/2005 @ 12:26 am
25. UML Guy I’m not sure about all of them, but wouldn’t you say that the men you mentioned have said that they were wrong before. AFAIK, HRC would say that she hasn’t changed positions. It’s false claims of consistancy that I don’t trust.
Comment by John Davies — 2/20/2005 @ 12:34 am
“As 55 people died in Iraq on Saturday” “Clinton told reporters inside the U.S.-protected Green Zone, a sprawling complex of sandbagged buildings surrounded by blast walls and tanks. ” Doesn’t matter what she said, the AP has her remarks surrounded by the old gloom and doom negativity anyway. Just makes her sound like a fool for being so optimistic. The AP is worse than Teddy.
Comment by Syl — 2/20/2005 @ 1:16 am
[…] q — Dr.AJ @ 9:07 pm Read it here. […]
Pingback by SmartChristian Blog » HILLARY LIKES WHAT SHE SEES IN IRAQ — 2/20/2005 @ 1:19 am
Hillary’s voting record, and her official public pronouncements on the War on Terror have been among the best of all the congressional Democrats since 9/11. But — Before anyone goes off saying they’re 100 percent sure Hillary has changed, you need to check out what she’s saying to the smaller gatherings of Democratic Party loyalists. The people she talks to when the C-Span cameras aren’t on and when there are only a handful of reporters in the room. Prior to the November election that Hillary was a far more harsh critic of Bush’s foreign policy than her voting record would indicate, and for one simple reason — no one outside of political junkies are going to remember those speeches come 2008, and the big media outlets certaily aren’t going to go out of their way to try and track down the quotes to show her pronuoncements are in conflict with the way she’s voted in Congress. Post-election, and with the trends there for all to see, Hillary has taken a slightly tougher line while speaking to her core groups outside of the foreign policy area, when she made those abortion remarks a month ago. That created a mini-firestorm of its own that would have killed any other Democratic politican with presidential hopes. But in Mrs. Clinton’s case, she was given a mulligan and warned not to do it again, but outside of the far left of her party, it hasn’t cost her any key groups yet. Despite what John Kerry may think, Hillary right now has almost a lock on the Democratic nomination, as long as she doesn’t push the party’s core groups too far, and that’s what she’s trying to do now, while setting herself up or the ‘08 general election. Only if she’s willing to hold to those recent remarks on Iraq and abortion to the point that she no longer gives the faithful and wink-and-a-nod in private that she’s “just foolin’ ” and is willing to risk a serious primary battle to stand up and defend those beliefs can you start to think she may actually be serious about what she’s saying.
Comment by John — 2/20/2005 @ 1:50 am
Hillary will be just as tough in Iraq as she needs to be to win. The White House, I mean. Se doesn’t give a damn about winning in Iraq, but she’ll do whatever she must to win the White House.
Comment by Richard R — 2/20/2005 @ 1:52 am
Hillary’s opinion on how the situation in Iraq is progressing is useful for shutting up the “Bush is an idiot” liberals. However, I still despise her. She is a political opportunist just like her husband. She will take whatever position she thinks will help her get elected, just like John Kerry. But behind the facade, I know she is a Ted Kennedy liberal. Do Democrats think the American people are so stupid that we don’t notice flip-flopping postions? I actually respect Ted Kennedy more, because at least he is willing to stand up for what he really believes (even if he is totally wrong most of the time).
Comment by Bill — 2/20/2005 @ 2:14 am
Those that say they would be comfortable with Hillary are mistaken. Look at who she would select her leading cabinet and policy people from, former Carter and Clinton people. In Washington, personell IS policy, and we would see more of the same irresponsible, mulitlateral obsessed, UN focused LIBERALISM, as that displayed during Clinton I. LIBERALISM is the problem, and it cannot be made palatable by bogus displays of “steeliness.” Come on people, snap out of it. Where was her “steeliness” when Saddam tried to whack GHWB, where was it when the evidence of the first WTC bombing led back to the mideast, where was it after Somalia, Nairobi, the USS Cole, where was her competence on display concerning the INS. Recall SHE selected the underlings at Justice, GORELICK was HER creature, as was Reno. Good grief.
Comment by Dan M — 2/20/2005 @ 2:33 am
It was her husband who campaigned against GHWB for supposedly coddling the killers at Tianemen Square. Yet with what breathtaking speed he concluded these very same were our “strategic partners,” and during all of this, where was Hillary’s “steeliness?” She, like her “husband” is in search of an issue to APPEAR to move to the right on, and from that position she will affect a bogus centrism. She will pick policy creatures who worked with Christopher and Albright, the Jamie Rubins of this existence, weak, shallow creatures. How is it possible after 8 full years of Clinton incommpetence exceeded only by pusillanimity, after the full fruit of all that stupidty digested on 9/11, how is it possible for anyone to suggest that Hillary is someone not to raise the greatest of misgivings. What are some of you people thinking, or better yet, smoking?
Comment by Dan M — 2/20/2005 @ 2:42 am
[…] Perspective Austin Bay writes that despite our media’s best efforts, Iraq is succeeding. When even Hillary Clinton will state that Iraq is “functioning quite well, […]
Pingback by The Conjecturer » Blog Archive » Perspective — 2/20/2005 @ 3:18 am
With respect to what Hillary Clinton has said recently, people need to remember that what liberals say and what liberals do are two different things. Liberals will vote for a conservative bill when it looks like the conservative bill is going to win anyway or vote against a liberal bill when when it looks like the liberal bill is going to lose anyway. Ultimately, liberals show their true colors, even though they’ll lie about their leftism every step of the way to get into office, and continue to camouflage their liberal positions underneath a skein of conservative-sounding rationalizations.
Comment by Zhang Fei — 2/20/2005 @ 3:32 am
I think Hillary would be more than willing to aggressively use the military……….on US!
Comment by Elmo — 2/20/2005 @ 3:41 am
In fairness to Hillary, she’s been relatively supportive of the mission in Iraq from the word go. While she wasn’t fighting it out with the other dems when they started crying “quagmire” she at least had the good sense to stay quiet and not join the chorus.
Comment by TWAndrews — 2/20/2005 @ 4:05 am
Hill is a stone cold Marxist. “the end justifies the means”. She can say anything she needs to get elected.
Comment by Jim Rose — 2/20/2005 @ 5:20 am
I’m glad that Hillary’s rhetoric has moved to the center, but the woman has an impressively sleazy track record to live down–bad radical politics, financial corruption, and a casual attitude towards the constitutional rights of people who get in her way. It’ll take a lot more than rhetoric to convince me that she’s changed–and even then, I wouldn’t vote for her as president.
Comment by utron — 2/20/2005 @ 5:51 am
If I hear one more refrain like ” As much as I don’t want HRC to be President”, or “As much as I don’t like HRC”, I’m going to vomit. She will never change her stripes and is incapable of actually getting off her high liberal horse to help anyone but herself. -AC
Comment by alex condie — 2/20/2005 @ 7:28 am
H. Clinton has all the personality traits, quirks and pathologies of a 17th or 18th century European queen. She is singularly unsuited to be POTUS. She is equally unsuited to be a U.S. Senator but liberal New Yorkers saw her as a star. New Yorkers love their stars.
Comment by Tom Speth — 2/20/2005 @ 8:17 am
Hillary is the only Democratic to really learn from Bill. The real battle is now between HRC (backed by Bill and Big $$ donors) versus the Deaniacs and their paypal accounts. Republicans shouldn’t gloat, there are plenty of internal divisions in the GOP — specifically libertarians versus evangelicals.
Comment by David — 2/20/2005 @ 9:33 am
I seem to recall that Hill came back from a trip to Iraq at the beginning of the war and said that the people were less free than under Saddam. That doesn’t sound like support to me. She is a phony.
Comment by sharon graham — 2/20/2005 @ 10:03 am
And isn’t that just the thick of it? An assessment of HRC is not an assessment of Iraq… it’s widely known that HRC is totally insincere. But if she’s bandwagoning, then something’s up. And if a ‘68er looks willing to abandon the ‘68 agenda… then maybe we ARE seeing a historical turning point. If.
Comment by Russ — 2/20/2005 @ 10:19 am
Thank you for your service to your country. Excellent column. It’s good to hear this from one who has really been there.
Comment by Tim Burke — 2/20/2005 @ 11:17 am
we all forgot, she was a goldwater girl in ‘64, she was an opportunist to change left when the late 60’s came. the tide is back to the right.
Comment by brian — 2/20/2005 @ 11:35 am
The folks in the voting middle were turned off by the left’s obsessive attacks on Bush. Previously the same folks were turned off by the partisan right’s attacks on the Clintons. If Hilary runs the right will resume their histrionic attacks and the folks in the middle will recoil. Hilary is poised to take on the illegal immigration issue. She will align with the Republican immigration caucus and win the election. Both parties have underestimated the passion on this issue (particularly in the West).
Comment by Linda — 2/20/2005 @ 11:49 am
COL Bay, Thank you for a great, insightful column. Major Bill
Comment by Major Bill Chunko! — 2/20/2005 @ 11:58 am
I agree that after what we all listened to for a couple of years, Hillary seems to be a voice of sanity. Then I remember. Okay, maybe she changed. Changed a core that allowed such sleazy behavior as the trashing of the WH or AFI? Folks, when you steal the sofa, someone should look very closely. Also agree both with her having disdain for the military but think she would not bat an eye to use them. I am very appreciative of her voice on Iraq, and yes, it softens me. Then I remember what really happens with the UN in charge. Hollywood viewpoints. N Korea treaty. Putting a signature on the ICC. Thanks Hillary but no thanks.
Comment by owl — 2/20/2005 @ 12:17 pm
#30 — I’d LOVE to hear more details of that. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Democratic Party with howlin’ Howie trying to keep his base involved and Hillary running around in a caterpillar ballcap at NASCAR races…
Comment by richard mcenroe — 2/20/2005 @ 2:47 pm
RE: Post #8 comment on my Post #3 “As much as I use to dislike her as First Lady, her current attitudes on Iraq has softend my opinion.” With all due respect Mr. Elliot, this sentence indicates you are a dnc plant or soft in the head Comment by Horst Graben — 2/19/2005 @ 7:29 pm Dear Mr. Graben: No, I am not a dnc plant. (Hmm, “dnc plant”- would that be a Peace Lily or a Bleeding Heart? Certainly not an Elephant Ear Plant.) I must be soft in the head since I mispelled a word or two. My point was better made by someone else concerning that it’s good news when someone that the MSM loves, says what HRC says about Iraq. The battle for control of the democratic party begins. Send in VP Rice for 2008!
Comment by mick elliott — 2/20/2005 @ 3:32 pm
Oh yeah. I also never said that I would vote for Senator Clinton, anyway.
Comment by mick elliott — 2/20/2005 @ 3:35 pm
Hillary is a Total fraud and alsways most likely a has been. We are returning to the days when military heroes run for Congress and the Senate. That factor alone will eliminate the Democrats in the future.
Comment by leaddog2 — 2/20/2005 @ 5:06 pm
Don’t forget, John Kerry talked about cutting taxes, shooting birds and even did a little gay bashing in the ‘04 debates. The power of Bush’s foreign policiy is his deep conviction and a carefully developed philosophy, combined with impressive political skill. Hillary, with Bill’s help, has the skill that Kerry lacks, but I’m worried about what she would do at gut-check time, when shit hits the fan. What will Albright and Holbrooke be whispering in her ear during the coming showdown with Korea? She’s wishy washy, just like Bill, Kedwards and the rest of the Dems. Sure, she is posturing herself to the right. But I’d like to see what her fundamental convictions are by way of think-tank addresses, op-eds and the like. But it’s not in her political interests to do so at this point. I’m still very, very skeptical.
Comment by pissant — 2/20/2005 @ 5:59 pm
I think you guys don’t get it. Hillary has been consistently supportive of the war though she made some stands that angered the no criticism allowed supporters, for example a call for more troops a year and a half ago; but then again we did put in more last spring. To claim that this support is new even when several commenters point out otherwise shows that many of you are as big liars as you claim the Clinton’s are. Or perhaps it’s a faith based reality, Clinton can’t do anything you agree with thus facts don’t matter.
Comment by learn reality — 2/20/2005 @ 7:39 pm
fdr,truman, washington, lincoln, bush 1 and 2 made decisions about war that came from strong character, greater vision, faith, sterling leadership, and honor. hillary clinton has never shown herself to have any of these deeply seated qualities or integrity. we learn more all the time, as honest and brave people come forward about hillary (and bill), that she is not a person or statesman or politician of this caliber. her integrity and character are challenged throughout her life and have at the very least, proved questionable and less than admirable. this is not a person i would trust to have had a sudden epiphany, now moving to the center and becoming hawkish because of (newly?) found and deeply seated convictions. the clintons have clear patterns to their lives that cannot be set aside. republicans and the right/right center all need to avoid the sad idiocy such as is coming from the left, keeping our heads when all about them are losing theirs. this woman means serious business and she’s good at it, unfortunately, played on the backs of foolish and vulnerable people. hillary clinton is not made up of the stuff of greatness. her motives will always be cause for serious scrutiny, as they should be. she (and her husband) has proved that they must be. hillary has shown herself to be cold, calculating, and vindictive. she is driven. the sad thing is that it has rarely, if ever, been done in the name of anything but herself.
Comment by molloy — 2/20/2005 @ 7:56 pm
I think Hillary is a genuine hawk. I’m sure she had access to all of Bill’s intel on the Middle East, and Bill had a plan to invade Iraq on his desk, which he could not implement because he didn’t have the temperament, he was already being accused of “wag the dog” about the Balkans, and there was no 9-11 to wake people up. I believe both Bill and Hillary voted for Bush. There is no way to know, because we have secret ballots and that’s a good thing. But that’s what I think, and not because Hillary wants to run in 2008. Both of them know way too much about how the world works to vote for Kerry.
Comment by Yehudit — 2/20/2005 @ 9:03 pm
PS Full disclosure: I am one of the many many liberal hawks who voted for Clinton twice, Gore, and Bush this year. I don’t join political parties; I vote for the best candidate. I would have voted for Lieberman if I could.
Comment by Yehudit — 2/20/2005 @ 9:05 pm
It is not possible for Hillary to be anything except concerned about how to be the next President. Nothing else matters but I agree with a commenter that having her trying to bask in the glory of President Bush’s audacious plan shows who she believes is winning. Having said that I have a question about manual trackbacks to this post. I linked to it with my blog but have been unable to send a trackback no matter what manual trackback form I use. I use blogger.. Thanks for any help.
Comment by Pierre Legrand — 2/20/2005 @ 11:21 pm
I have to admit that it can only be good if the leading hopefull for the Dems in 2008 continually comes out on the side of Operation Iraqi Freedom having been a good thing. The hard left’s main crux right now is that their young supporters would forever think of “Iraq” as a mistake, just as it is accepted today that *all* of the young liberals from the 60s still agree that “Vietnam” was a mistake. If the conventional wisdom among liberals turns out to be “uhh..never mind…I guess it was good after all that Iraqis got their freedom”…then a huge number of young people will start to wonder what other pablum they’d been fed…and have more open minds.
Comment by Jennifer Peterson — 2/21/2005 @ 4:11 am
I still believe that a major politician like Bush or Hillary ought to make a speech announcing the fact that the Vietnam War did actually result in the USA splitting its two enemies (the Soviet Union and China) who were going broke financing the micro-war that their team eventually “won.” The longer we were “losing” the Vietnam War…the more opposing sponsors were bleeding in hard currency. Look at Syria now. They just spent two years and everything they had in the bank…to make Bush almost lose an election. I sometimes think that our left wing is a strategic asset in that it deliberately motivates our enemies to throw themselves up against brick walls unnecessarily.
Comment by Jennifer Peterson — 2/21/2005 @ 4:17 am
I remember seeing Hillary on Russert’s program about a year ago. She was saying how the economy and Iraq were a “disaster” and how this was the most important election “ever”. Russert pointed out that she was the most popular Democrat and just let it hang. What he didn’t ask her was how she could be the most powerful leader of a party during “the most important” election and during a “disaster” and wasn’t running. It made absolutely no sense. She’s a “leader”, the favorite of her party, and the country was in a crisis. So what was she doing? Nothing. Right, Hillary is a “leader”. She is an even worse opportunist than Kerry (I know, that’s hard to concieve). Anyone who thinks anything she utters is “genuine” needs a major reality check. Whatever it takes baby, whatever it takes.
Comment by jag — 2/21/2005 @ 9:08 am
All I can say to those who trust Hillary with anything except maybe taking out the garbage, is hit your knees and ask for God’s wisdom as to who might be President of the United States. She hates anything to do with capitalism, personal freedom, the Constitution, the Military or winning the War on Terrorism. Anything that does not line her pockets, boost her self-esteem, and get her what she wants DOES NOT COUNT with Hillary. She is an empty vessel when it comes to principles, morals, and integrity. This is what the “sheep” in this country voted for when we got Slick Willie for 8 years and believe me Slick Hillie would be ten times worse than him. She planned his drive for the Whitehouse so that she could have a platform from which to spring herself into the same address. SHE IS NEVER TO BE TRUSTED, PERIOD.
Comment by Arlene Kruse — 2/21/2005 @ 2:56 pm
PS I spell it Dumbocrat for a reason.
Comment by Arlene Kruse — 2/21/2005 @ 2:58 pm
[…] 17;] failure.” Can you guess who this person is? if not look here (near the bottom). Hat Tip LT Smash […]
Pingback by » Holy Crap! pigs comeing in 12 o’ clock high — 2/22/2005 @ 1:32 am
This is what really scares me…. after all these years of being Hillary, she can come out with a few appropriate comments and suddenly “well, she’s not so bad after all!” This is what they count on, that most people by ‘08 won’t even remember anything about what she is really like, just what she says she is like. The country right now is ripe for the picking by any politician wise enough to say what most of them won’t but most of us are thinking…. like that we need to secure our borders or abortion is not in the constitution.
Comment by barefoot serpent — 2/22/2005 @ 5:41 pm
[…] iting columns about Iraq’s “success.” They are very late in coming. (See this post relating some of what I saw in Iraq in July 2004.) Diehl compares the current Middle East si […]
Pingback by Austin Bay Blog » Glory Be: NY Times and Washington Post Discover Democracy “Strategery” — 3/1/2005 @ 12:17 am
You really need to lighten up.
Comment by hellsing anime download — 3/5/2005 @ 5:47 pm
Hillary Clinton was on Wal-Mart’s board of directors WARD HARKAVY, VILLAGE VOICE, 2000 - Twice in three days last week, Hillary Rodham Clinton basked in the adulation of cheering union members. Her record of supporting collective bargaining, however, is considerably worse than wobbly. Pity the thousands of unionists at last Tuesday’s state Democratic convention who chanted her name, and the hundreds of retired Teamsters at Thursday’s luncheon in midtown who had interrupted their Founder’s Day meal to hear the corporate litigator turned union-loving Democrat deliver a campaign speech. They would have dropped their forks if they had heard that Hillary served for six years on the board of the dreaded Wal-Mart, a union-busting behemoth. If they had learned the details of her friendship with Wal-Mart, they might have lost their lunches. . . In 1986, when Hillary was first lady of Arkansas, she was put on the board of Wal-Mart. Officials at the time said she wasn’t filling a vacancy. In May 1992, as Hubby’s presidential campaign heated up, she resigned from the board of Wal-Mart. Company officials said at the time that they weren’t going to fill her vacancy. So what the hell was she doing on the Wal-Mart board? According to press accounts at the time, she was a show horse at the company’s annual meetings when founder Sam Walton bused in cheering throngs to celebrate his non-union empire, which is headquartered in Arkansas, one of the country’s poorest states. According to published reports, she was placed in charge of the company’s “green” program to protect the environment. But nobody got greener than Sam Walton and his family. For several years in the ’80s, he was judged the richest man in America by Forbes magazine. . . Was Hillary the voice of conscience on the board for American and foreign workers? Contemporary accounts make no mention of that. They do describe her as a “corporate litigator” in those days, and they mention, speaking of environmental matters, that she also served on the board of Lafarge, a company that, according to a press account, once burned hazardous fuels to run its cement plants. . . The Clintons depended on Wal-Mart’s largesse not only for Hillary’s regular payments as a board member but for travel expenses on Wal-Mart planes and for heavy campaign contributions to Bill’s campaigns there and nationally. . . Meanwhile, Wal-Mart’s first lady, who also benefited from Wal-Mart stock, solicits support from union workers. Which makes her words to the elderly Teamsters last week especially poignant: “You can count on me to stand up for the right to collectively bargain!” Right on, sister!
Comment by Curtis Johnson — 2/10/2006 @ 11:11 pm