Soccer Dad

Too cynical for david broder

Like the good Democrat that he is, dean of political columnists David Broder gives us the lowdown on Senator Clinton's performance with Gen David Petraeus, in Clinton's Partisan Presidential Posturing

She began by blaming the Iraq crisis on a "Congress [that] was supine under the Republican majority, failing to conduct oversight and demanding accountability, and because the president and his team, particularly the former secretary of defense, refused to adapt to the changing circumstances on the ground."

From that partisan opening, Clinton went on to decry "the failures of the Iraqis to step up and take responsibility for their own future." She said that the escalation Bush ordered was too little and too late and instead called on Congress to "threaten to cut money for the Iraqi troops and for the security for the Iraqi leadership," as a way to break the political gridlock in Baghdad and force efforts at national reconciliation.

She wound up the speech by saying that despite her disagreement with the policy, she wanted Petraeus's assurance that "we have every possible piece of equipment and resource necessary to protect these young men and women" going into battle.

"I'll do that, Senator," Petraeus said, and after that four-word response, Clinton was finished. She had no questions to ask.

Did I say good little Democrat? No he wasn't; he was pointing to Sen. Clinton's cynical grandstanding and he seemed none too pleased with it. As Joe Klein observes

And given Broder's civility, it is really noteworthy when he hauls off and delivers a column like this about Hillary Clinton.
I know that most of the media attention has been devoted to whether or not she told a joke on Bill and how she was received by Iowa voters, But I'm with Broder: her failure to ask General Petraeus a single question was a big mistake--especially given her level of knowledge about military matters and, especially, counterinsurgency.

But that isn't Senator Clinton's only recent bit of anti-war posturing lately. At her Conversation with Iowa, Senaton Clinton reversed her case for the war according to the NY Times:

One person in the audience pressed Mrs. Clinton on her vote authorizing military action in Iraq in 2002, saying she allowed “the president to go to war,” and asked for specific steps she would take to end the war. She replied by selectively quoting from her speech in 2002 about her vote, saying it was not cast “for pre-emptive war,” but rather as leverage for the president to work diplomatic channels. (She did not mention that she also said at the time that she cast her vote “with conviction.)

Actually that's not accurate. Here's what Senator Clinton said back in 2002.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

While she made it clear in 2002 that she preferred diplomacy, she's pretty clear that if diplomacy would - and it did - she would support going to war. I don't see any other way to interpret her statements.

Nor do I buy her explanation that was fooled by the Bush administration. The careful case that Senator Clinton made that Saddam was threat is lacking in any sources that were unique to President Bush.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed.

Unless Hillary was lying outright in 2002 she then saw Saddam Hussein as a threat to America and American interests. So what's changed between then and now?

1) Soldiers are being killed at an unacceptable rate.
2) Hillary' running for President with a consituency that opposes the war.

So instead of arguing the United States should stay the course Senator Clinton argues that President Bush must pull out of Iraq before the end of his term, because if the war's still going on she'll "resent" it. As Newsbusters observes

Note that Hillary places no qualifiers or conditions on her call for Pres. Bush to "extricate" us from Iraq. No matter how bad the situation might be as we approach the next election - or how promising - Hillary is apparently calling for us to disengage in less than two years. That's the kind of irresponsible radicalism that should bring a smile to the Kosmonaut wing of the Dem party.

Another aspect of Clinton's statement also merits consideration: its stunning solipsism. "I really resent" the president's policy, she informed us. Hillary, it's not about you.

The NY Times recorded the answer she gave as to why she thinks she's qualified to be President.

“On a slightly more serious note, I believe a lot in my background and a lot in my public life shows the character and toughness to be president.”

Toughness? How is demanding that President Bush retreat from Iraq else it cause her to be resentful showing toughness? How is blaming her vote on President Bush a demonstration of toughness?

Or as Dan Riehl put it (h/t Jules Crittenden)

“How can someone think they deserve to be President if they’re going to resent inheriting a tough job?”

The adjective defining Hillary is not "tough" it is "cynical." And even David Broder can see it.

UPDATE: Lee Harris has an excellent take on Sen. Clinton's "resentment"

But that, we must remind ourselves—and Senator Clinton--is the nature of the American Presidency. If you become President, the chances are very good that you will have to start by taking responsibility for someone else's mess.

Outside the Beltway adds this observation to Harris's example and general argument

Clinton, like James Buchanan to Lincoln, left his successor with a lit fuse to a major war. As in 1860-61, it’s only fully obvious in hindsight that more decisive action should have been initiated earlier. Still, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are legacies of that unfinished business. Indeed, “regime change” in Iraq was Clinton’s goal, too.

(via memeorandum)

Blogdigger tags: Hillary Clinton, General Petreaus, Iraq.