 | Edwards Stumps in Chicago | |
| In Today's Video Vault | |
| Grassley Swings at (and Misses) Obama | |
| Richardson's Interview | |
| This Just In.... |
| In Defense Of Incrementalism | |
| The War Comes Home | |
| Roe, Not Giuliani, Is The Real Abortion Muddle | |
| Rudy's Party Or Reagan's? | |
| Blair's Influence To Outlast His Iraq Stand |
|
July 22, 2006
Hillary the Hawk
By Tom BevanAt a rally in support of Israel in New York City on Monday afternoon, Sen. Hillary Clinton asked the crowd: "Imagine if extremist terrorists were launching rockets across the Mexican or Canadian borders. Would we stand by or defend ourselves against the extremists?"
Good question. Turns out it's virtually identical to the one conservative firebrand Newt Gingrich posed on "Meet the Press" the day before: "Imagine we woke up this morning and 500 Americans were dead in Miami from missiles fired from Cuba. Do you think any American would say, 'Now, we should have proportionate response. We shouldn't overreact'? No. We would say, 'Get rid of the missiles.' "
Hillary and Newt on the same page with the war in the Middle East and the war on terror, you ask? Pretty darn close. Clinton didn't go quite so far as Gingrich (who said on Sunday we are witnessing the "early stages" of World War III) but she did serve up an unabashedly hawkish defense of Israel, saying, "America will support Israel in her efforts to send a message to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians, to the Iranians -- to all who seek death and domination instead of life and freedom -- that we will not permit this to happen and we will take whatever steps are necessary."
It wasn't always this way. In 1998, then-first lady Clinton angered the Israelis by getting out in front of her husband -- and the United States government -- in advocating the creation of a Palestinian state led by Yasser Arafat. A year later, Clinton caused even more of an uproar on a trip to the West Bank by embracing Arafat's wife, Suha, after listening to her give a speech accusing Israel of poisoning Palestinian children with toxic gases resulting in increased rates of cancer and birth defects. Only after the vehement denials of the Israeli government did Clinton offer a weak condemnation of the bizarre claims, issuing a statement that said, "I do not believe any kind of inflammatory rhetoric or baseless charges are good for the peace process."
However, by the time Clinton officially entered the campaign for Senate in New York -- where 12 percent of the voting population is Jewish -- she had dramatically repositioned herself into a staunch defender of Israel and critic of Arafat. Naturally, Clinton was accused of political expediency and blatant pandering, but in the end she won her race easily, picking up 54 percent of the Jewish vote along the way, and she's maintained a solid record of supporting Israel throughout her term in office.
Clinton has undergone a similar evolution while in the Senate. Never known as an ardent supporter of the U.S. military, Clinton secured a coveted seat on the Armed Services Committee upon entering the Senate and has worked diligently on military issues. In the wake of Sept. 11, she became devoted to homeland security and supported military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It's no secret critics suggest Clinton's transformation to foreign policy hawk is a calculated move designed to help achieve her ultimate goal of becoming the first woman president. There is probably some truth to the charge, as there was with claims of pandering to Jewish voters in 2000. As a female running for president, Clinton may feel she bears an extra burden on the issue of national security and must demonstrate she could be just as strong and tough as anyone in the role of commander in chief.
It's also no secret that Clinton's hawkish views, in particular her refusal to recant her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq and her unwillingness to sign on to Democratic proposals setting an arbitrary deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, have put her at odds with the antiwar base of the Democratic party. Clinton's estrangement from Democratic activists is no small concern, given that they hold such a tremendous influence on deciding who wins the party's presidential nomination.
Whether Clinton's evolution to hawk is a matter of true conviction, political expediency, or a combination of both, she's stuck to her guns in the face of serious criticism from within her party and declining public opinion regarding the war in Iraq. Only time and events will tell if she has chosen the right path.
| Sponsored Links |
