Clinton's Hawkish Stance Unwelcome

The Nation: Democrats Should Be Wary Of Their Front-Runner's Militarism

(CBS)  This column was written by Robert Scheer.

---

What in the world was Sen. Hillary Clinton thinking when she attacked Sen. Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in going after Osama bin Laden? And why aren't her supporters more concerned about yet another egregious example of Clinton's consistent backing for the mindless militarism that is dragging this nation to ruin? So what that she is pro-choice and a woman if the price of proving her capacity to be commander in chief is that we end up with an American version of Margaret Thatcher?

In response to the 9/11 hijackers, armed with weapons no more sophisticated than $3 box cutters, American military spending, with Senate Armed Services Committee member Clinton's enthusiastic support, has catapulted beyond cold war levels. Senator Clinton has treated the military budget as primarily a pork-barrel target of opportunity for jobs and profit in New York state, supports increased money for missile defense and every other racket the military-industrial complex comes up with, and still feels no obligation to repudiate her vote for the disastrous Iraq war.

Given her sorry record of cheerleading the irrational post-cold war military buildup, do we not have a right, indeed an obligation, to question whether Clinton is committed to creating a more peaceful world? Don't say that we weren't warned if a President Hillary Clinton further imperils our world, as she has clearly positioned herself as the leading hawk in the Democratic field. What other reason was there for first blasting Obama for daring to state that he would meet with foreign leaders whom Bush has branded as sworn enemies, and then for the attack on Obama's very sensible statement that it would be "a profound mistake" to use nuclear weapons in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the attempt to eliminate bin Laden?

Isn't that a no-brainer — or can Clinton conceive of an occasion where even the threat, let alone the actuality, of a nuclear attack in the immediate neighborhood of nuclear-armed Pakistan and India would send the right message? And what about the dangerous message of Clinton's assault on Obama: "I don't believe that any President should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons." Huh? Just exactly how does one make a compelling case to other nations against the proliferation of nuclear weapons when members of the nuke club, particularly the President of the one nation that has killed hundreds of thousands of people with two of these ungodly weapons, will not, at the very least, promise to abstain from first use of a weapon that could quite easily eliminate most life on this planet?

Of course Obama was right, and it was no different than Senator Clinton's statement in April 2006, when she said, "I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," in relation to preventing Iran from developing such weapons. Back then, she recognized that nuclear weapons are weapons against civilization, not a means of ensuring its survival. "This Administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age," she said. "I think that's a terrible mistake." Yes, indeed — and Hillary's supporters will no doubt insist that this statement reflects her true feelings on the matter and that "militarist Hillary" is just an act to get elected.

Act or reality, it's working. Pundits for the National Review, The Weekly Standard and other pro-war outlets have come to applaud Clinton. A host of political scientists and other campaign hustlers have also approved this image makeover; as a recent Boston Globe headline put it, "Tough talk drives Clinton effort: National security stance seen adding to image of strength." One political scientist from Texas stated: "She's come off as credible and serious on national defense — an issue that two years ago most of us would have thought would be a liability for her." The Globe noted that "When Geraldine Ferraro was the Democratic candidate for vice president in 1984, she was dogged by questions about whether she could 'push the button' to launch an attack if the Cold War turned hot." The paper then quoted Ferraro as saying that Clinton, whom she supports for President, has passed that test: "You can't do that with Hillary Clinton. Hillary is in a totally different place."

Great, so forget the hope that a woman President might prove to be more enlightened than macho men in the matter of peacemaking, and instead rest assured that Hillary would have the cojones to "push the button" that would kill us all. Once again, the old Clintonian tactic of triangulation: positioning oneself politically instead of taking a position of integrity.

[cfin5]

Hil''liar''y''s achilles heel is her "sealed up till after ''08 election" white house papers. Because if she wins the election, that pesky little problem will uhm,.....vanish. If she drops out (aint gonna happen) or loses, its a machs nichts issue. Now to balance the reprimand with some fairness if I may. Regardless of Mr. Rove''s optimism for the GOP, I see the absolute greatest betrayal of Americans and the GOP since Benedict Arnold in this North American Union/SSP thing. Congress had better start breaking some new ground in the "presidential power limitation department" real quik......In other words, I''m wondering why he wants to keep the troops over there defending the "family farm" here yet so ready to give up the farm to another form of government. Davy Crocket to President Bush-----It aint yours to give.

[formrusmcsgt]

At least with Hillary, we know we will get some good and it wont be all bad. If the Clinton''''''''''''''''s administration past record is any indication. I take my chances.
Posted by j27play at 01:37 PM : Aug 19, 2007


God help us all.
Posted by katg21 at 04:13 PM : Aug 19, 2007

Agreed. As P.T. Barnum said, "There''s a sucker born every minute"...

[formrusmcsgt]

...without Iraq as an issue, Americans are still a center-right country; not a liberal one.
Posted by fredgrad2000 at 05:25 PM : Aug 19, 2007

Based on?

[fredgrad2000]

Giving Hillary credit for the ''90''s is like blaming Laura for the Iraq War. In the 1990''s Hillary was hostess-in-chief, not an administration member; she''d like everyone to believe she has "experience" so quotes the "clinton years" like she had a hand in them; the truth is; all she has in the way of experience over Obama is 4 extra Senate years - neither of them are experienced; the Dems experienced candidates (Richardon, Biden, Dodd) have all been relegated to "2nd tier" (or 3rd).

But even IF Hil had helped Bill, Bill Clinton INHERITED the 90''s due to Reagan and Bush 41 toppling our only real enemy and the R&D tax credits of the 1980''s generating the tech boom of the 1990''s - all Bill had to do was not screw it up; which he did, and as perhaps the best politician of the modern age, get us all to believe he was the reason for it!!

[fredgrad2000]

The only thing 100% certain in the 2008 election is that whoever the Democratic nominee is will have HAD to have lied through their teeth in either (or both) the primary or general election campaigns. This is due to the Democratic party''s fear and beholdence to the MoveOn.org/DailyKos/Center for American Progress crowd; they need to march in lock-step with that crowd to win the primary, but Americans as a majority are nowhere near this crowd on the spectrum; as such, Clinton/Obama/Edwards/Richardson et al will have to either lie to get the nomination or Lie on their long crawl back to the center to win the general (unless of course the GOP chooses another polarizing Southern Conservative, or worse a Mormon flip-flopper, as their nominee).

[fredgrad2000]

"I once respected the Repub''''s policies of small government and fiscal discipline until the neocons hijacked that party. "
Posted by formrusmcsgt

We don''t agree to often, but I''m with you here; only I''ll add that the hijacking was a multi-party affair, the religious right has also been a party to the hi-jacking of the GOP''s historical commitment to federalism, smaller federal government, fiscal discipline, and a realistic foreign policy based on national interest as opposed to "ideals". What often confounds me however is how much the Dems have maligned neo-conservatism, considering some of its leading tenets (Sen Daniel Moynihan for one) were liberal Democrats and its basis is on NOT accepting dictators and other tyrannical gov''ts just because it suits our national security interests, but rather focusing on democracy and civil rights as "weapons" to fight (that''s in the very basic sense, a very liberal position). The Dems hi-jacking in 06/08 by the MoveOn.org/DailyKos wing could be the biggest mistake the Dems make; Americans voted AGAINST Iraq; not FOR far-left liberal policies or pacifism - without Iraq as an issue, Americans are still a center-right country; not a liberal one.

[katg21]

At least with Hillary, we know we will get some good and it wont be all bad. If the Clinton''''''''s administration past record is any indication. I take my chances.
Posted by j27play at 01:37 PM : Aug 19, 2007


God help us all.

[formrusmcsgt]

Sounds to me like the NeoCommies and MoveOn.org have hijacked a Democrat party that I once knew and respected.

...

Posted by processor2 at 02:22 PM : Aug 19, 2007

As I responded when you posted this same comment earlier, I know how you feel.

I once respected the Repub''s policies of small government and fiscal discipline until the neocons hijacked that party.

[formrusmcsgt]

At least with Hillary, we know we will get some good and it wont be all bad. If the Clinton''''s administration past record is any indication. I take my chances.
Posted by j27play at 01:37 PM : Aug 19, 2007

Just like Bush #43 is not Bush #41, Hillary is not Bill, j27play.

[processor2]

Since comparing Republicans vs. Democrats is an argument that never goes anywhere,
let%u2019s instead compare Democrat vs. Democrat,, let%u2019s say Clinton(s) vs. J.F. Kennedy.

The Clinton(s) and current Democrat philosophy on governing/government is:
%u201CBig Government will provide for you%u201D, &
%u201CFrom cradle to grave, Big Government will take care of you%u201D, &
%u201CIt takes a Village%u201D(Big Government)

Whereas J.F. Kennedy said :
%u201CAsk not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country%u201D

These two philosophies (both Democrat) are complete polar opposite of each other.

I would much rather be a J.F. Kennedy democrat than a Clinton democrat.

Sounds to me like the NeoCommies and MoveOn.org have hijacked a Democrat party that I once knew and respected.

...

[j27play]

Do the math people! Idealism and integrity has its merits, if this country wasn''t so divided in so many ways, but it is. Anytime a few million dollars ads can sway votes, then triangulation is the way to go I say! As Jack Nicholson said in "A few good Men",
"You can''t handle the truth!" The American people can''t handle the truth!" They were dupe in voting for the last president, playing on their fears and their religious inclinations, rather than using their brains. So the way I see it, the public needs to be save from themselves. At least with Hillary, we know we will get some good and it wont be all bad. If the Clinton''s administration past record is any indication. I take my chances.

[formrusmcsgt]

People need to stop damning her for being successful in a political world created and dominated by men.
Posted by destardi1 at 01:07 PM : Aug 19, 2007

Frankly speaking, I don''t see anyone condemning her for being successful, but rather, for her methodology used in achieving success.

A person, man or woman, who merely tells people what they might wish to hear to get elected and then doing as they please is not worth electing.

Didn''t you manage to learn at least that much from the results of electing Bush?

[formrusmcsgt]

So formrusmcsgt, you think this is just a ploy by Clinton to get the hawks on her side. What does that say about her honesty and openness and how she was treat the office the presidency?


Posted by Vet_SK at 11:43 AM : Aug 19, 2007

I think it speaks for itself. Hillary will never receive my vote either, bro.

First of all, replacing one president who speaks out of both sides of his mouth for a female version of the same is no improvement, in my opinion.

Secondly, ending the twenty year dynasty between the Bush and Clinton families is a neccessity, in my view.

It''s past time for an end to a bought and paid for family in the White House.

[destardi]

1)Compare Hillary Clinton''s and Barack Obama''s voting records side by side; their votes are IDENTICAL aside from 4 minor votes.

2)This is politics; did anyone notice how the audience during the labor union''s debate went wild and crazy with talk of "protecting America" via violence? This is "liberal" voters? The author of this has taken issue with non-issues as far as I''m concerned; her answers are nuanced, but they make sense.

3)Obama is insulated because he was able to talk big at the local level during the Iraq resolution vote, but if anyone is going to try to tell me after examining the way he votes as identical to Hillary Clinton, that he wouldn''t have felt the same national pressure to appear solidified with the rest of the Country right afer 9/11 and vote for the resolution, I''m going to say you don''t understand politics at all.

I know what Hillary and Bill Clinton stand for; I''ve looked at their efforts all the way back to Clinton''s Arkansas days...Hillary Clinton will never start an illegitimate war, PERIOD.

People need to stop damning her for being successful in a political world created and dominated by men.

[vet_sk]

So formrusmcsgt, you think this is just a ploy by Clinton to get the hawks on her side. What does that say about her honesty and openness and how she was treat the office the presidency?

And are we supposed to believe that she will do this to just get elected and then become a reasonable person who does not use nukes looking for a single person.

You know we tried this last with Kerry - playing Bush-lite. If anything let''s change the debate.

Unless Hillary does a 180, she will never get my vote and I suspect large portions of the progressive vote.

[formrusmcsgt]

Shame on me for not including the support of principle federal contractors who will assured of continuing to feed like gluttons at the federal teat......

[formrusmcsgt]

Clinton''s hawkishness is due to the following factors in my view:

A pre-emptive positioning to diminish the effectiveness of neocon claims that she''s "soft" on terrorism;

To maintain support from her Jewish constituency;

To try to draw support from disenchanted Repubs;

To try to avoid the portrayal of her as being "weak" because she''s a female.

[cfin5]

processor2,.....Here is a good one that the Constitution Party sent me from a famous democrat....."They (who) seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers call this a new (world) order. It is not new and it is not order".-----Franklin D. Roosevelt

[formrusmcsgt]

Sounds to me like the NeoCommies and MoveOn.org have hijacked a Democrat party that I once knew and respected.

Posted by processor2 at 08:30 AM : Aug 19, 2007

I know how you feel, processor2. I once respected the small government approach and fiscal discipline of the Repubs until that party was hijacked by the neocons.....

[processor2]

Since comparing Republicans vs. Democrats is an argument that never goes anywhere,
let%u2019s instead compare Democrat vs. Democrat,, let%u2019s say Clinton(s) vs. J.F. Kennedy.

The Clinton(s) and current Democrat philosophy on governing/government is:
%u201CBig Government will provide for you%u201D, &
%u201CFrom cradle to grave, Big Government will take care of you%u201D, &
%u201CIt takes a Village%u201D(Big Government)

Whereas J.F. Kennedy said :
%u201CAsk not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country%u201D

These two philosophies (both Democrat) are complete polar opposite of each other.

I would much rather be a J.F. Kennedy democrat than a Clinton democrat.

Sounds to me like the NeoCommies and MoveOn.org have hijacked a Democrat party that I once knew and respected.

...