Hillary the Hawk

I can see I haven't convinced Kevin Drum. But I'm not sure I'm going to try any harder to "prove" that her foreign policy will be mad. Maybe it will be good. There's a lot of uncertainty. If there were some other clear reason to prefer Hillary Clinton, maybe I'd back her despite my doubts. But I don't think there is. In domestic policy and electability terms, I think all three have some strengths and some weakness. On foreign policy, every indication available to me that there's any difference between her and Edwards or Obama suggests that it'll be a difference that doesn't reflect well on her.

How sure am I that she'd be worse? Not incredibly sure. But to me the great difficulty of this race is that Clinton's established such a strong presumption that she'll be the nominee that it gets difficult to argue against her without making the case that she's somehow horrible. Either she's the devil, or else she should be president. But that's silly.

When I see a race between two politicians, one of whom got Iraq wrong and one of whom got it right, to me that establishes a presumption in favor of the candidate who got it right, no matter whose husband the wrong one is. When it turns out that the one who got it wrong also has a group of advisors heavily weighted toward the group of pro-war "experts" who helped push so many Democratic politicians into taking her wrong position on the war in 2002, that re-enforces my presumption. When the one who got it right is closer to a circle of people who were cast out of favor due to their opposition to the war or willingness to associate with Very Shrill Howard Dean, that re-enforces my presumption. Stuff like the Kyl-Lieberman vote, the funny business on nuclear weapons, the "naive and irresponsible" bit all further re-enforces my presumption.

And I think once you look at it that way, the whole race looks different. There's been a ton of commentary about how Barack Obama hasn't said or done anything to debunk people's presumption that Hillary Clinton should be the nominee. And that appears to be true. But what if you don't start with that presumption? And I don't think we should. To me, the presumption that a candidate who can say he has a record of sound foreign policy judgment that can be contrasted with Republican X's record of support for Bush administration fiascos makes a lot more sense than the presumption that Clinton should get the nomination.

Comments

I think that explains perfectly why he has as much money as she does.

I'm not sure that it explains his movement up in the Iowa polls.

Posted by bob | November 20, 2007 4:43 PM

You see, people. It is entirely possible to make the case against Hillary Clinton without dredging up a bunch of made up scandals and spewing out completely unfounded rumors about Bill's inability to "control himself".

HRC's foreign policy team is the scariest thing about her. Still, I think I prefer her to Obama because Obama is likely to go down in flames in the general when his staid, above the fray persona prevents him from responding to Republican attacks effectively and mounting his own attacks.

Posted by Rob Mac | November 20, 2007 4:58 PM

Obama is likely to go down in flames in the general when his staid, above the fray persona prevents him from responding to Republican attacks effectively and mounting his own attacks.

What have you seen that indicates any hesititation by Obama in responding to attacks? He's been very proactive in that department, as recently as this week with the Novak article.

Posted by Led | November 20, 2007 5:11 PM

...her foreign policy will be mad. Maybe it will be good.

I can't figure out if that's a typo or not.

Posted by JH | November 20, 2007 5:12 PM

Well, Drum essentially says what I said in response to Matt's post on Holbrooke. The use of force will remain a part of our foreign policy. We should not stretch the lessons of Iraq to conclude that anyone who supports the use of force (or even the possibility of the use of force) is a neocon or deranged. And we certainly shouldn't stretch the lesson to say anyone who discusses international problem spots without an explicit disclaimer that he or she isn't advocating military force is a neocon or deranged -- which seems to be the implication of Matt's earlier Holbrooke post.

I think that, as Dems, we are going off the rails by arguing that Hillary's foreign policy will be in any way akin to Bush's foreign policy. We need to keep in perspective that the latter was so incompetent and broke with so many bipartisan traditions to be truly unique (unless Rudy is elected).

All that said, I think Matt is exactly on point with this post, which seems to partake of a different tone and form of analysis than some of his others on "the foreign policy elite" and its ties with Clinton.

Posted by Chunche | November 20, 2007 5:18 PM

All good points, Matt, and this line of thinking could seal the deal in favor of Obama for a person favorably disposed toward either of the two Democratic frontrunners, if such a person is basing his/her vote primarily on foreign policy and national defense.

I know there's an argument out there that foreign policy is exactly what you should base your decision on, given the executive branch's primacy in this area, and Congress's prominence in domestic affairs. But dammit, the country's domestic political economy is might screwed up at the moment, and, personally, I'm really jonesing for sanity, competence and proper priorities in this area, too. And here -- at least from the little I've gleaned about Senator Obama's positions from following the campaign -- his instincts really seem off-kilter. Especially for someone who cut his political teeth as a community organizer. Obama's views on Social Security strike me as particularly ill-informed, and his proposal to remove millions of old people from the income tax rolls is just bizarre. His healthcare proposal is frankly awful. In a word, Obama seems to me like a real rookie when it comes to bread and butter issues.

Anyway, none of this may make much difference if a President Obama allows a more heavily Democratic Congress to set the agenda on domestic affairs, and said Congress is lead by Democrats with sound principles. But I'd feel much more comfortable voting for Senator Obama in the primary were he to show more substance on kitchen table issues -- even if that meant -- heaven forbid -- modifying some of his earlier positions and risking the dreaded charge of flip-floppery.

Posted by Jasper | November 20, 2007 5:20 PM

Good points by Jasper. But, only Obama's instincts seem to be off on domestic policies, his record in the Senate and on campaign trail on foreign policy isn't impressive either. He, simply put, hasn't been a leader. As I noted here, Edwards has.

Posted by AJ | November 20, 2007 5:35 PM

He, simply put, hasn't been a leader. As I noted here, Edwards has.

I should have noted that my state (MA) votes after Iowa and NH, and I was basing the comment above on the assumption it's become a two person race. Edwards's supporters in Iowa are very loyal, I hear, so I'm ruling out nothing. Were John Edwards still in the hunt at primary time for me, he'd likely get my vote.

Posted by Jasper | November 20, 2007 5:58 PM

it gets difficult to argue against her without making the case that she's somehow horrible.

Actually, I think the case is still easy. Anyone who hopes to be president should be accountable and that means making a case on issues. Winning the nomination should depend on a candidates ability to make a solid, intelligent case for her views. Hillary wants a presumption of excellence. She wants us each to paint our own ideas on her blank slate.

Based on their speeches and interviews I have a good idea how all the other Democratic candidates would conduct foreign policy. (The Republicans are even more straightforward). But I have no idea what Senator Clinton would do. For me, that disqualifies her.

Posted by Jinchi | November 20, 2007 6:04 PM

He, simply put, hasn't been a leader.

This is a point that can be made against both the Democratic frontrunners. I've been surprised how unremarkable Hillary Clinton's term in the Senate has been. As a celebrity Senator from a deep blue state without much fear of competition in a primary or general (Senate) elections, she's had much more freedom to make a statement on principal than most other Senators.

And we've gotten her votes for the Iraq war and flag burning legislation to show for it.

I'm still waiting for someone to make the case that she's actually a progressive.

Posted by Jinchi | November 20, 2007 6:11 PM

Chunche: "We should not stretch the lessons of Iraq to conclude that anyone who supports the use of force (or even the possibility of the use of force) is a neocon or deranged. And we certainly shouldn't stretch the lesson to say anyone who discusses international problem spots without an explicit disclaimer that he or she isn't advocating military force is a neocon or deranged -- which seems to be the implication of Matt's earlier Holbrooke post."

Yes, we should. Because that's precisely the wrong foreign policy. Period. And I'm not talking about the use of force to protect the US, I'm talking about the use of force to make changes in the world which are allegedly in response to "bad things happening" and in reality are based on somebody wanting to make a buck.

The bottom line is: does the US citizenry want the US to be the "policeman" of the world at tremendous cost and diversion of resources from more useful endeavors?

There is never a situation when the US should use force - unilaterally, without a UN mandate supported by the bulk of the international community - without a direct threat to the US.

And none of the Democrats will support that notion.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 20, 2007 6:13 PM

I recall that during the Clinton presidency, there was a worry that the First Lady's strong (even for an American) bias towards Israel would negatively influence US foreign policy. She's a hawk, much more so than her husband ever was, but specifically (and perhaps exclusively) so when it concerns the Middle East. That may be the reason why some former Clintonistas have signed up with Obama.

Posted by Hans B | November 20, 2007 6:34 PM

Very good post Mathew. I'm finding myself increasingly drawn to your blog.

Despite the left's self-characterization of itself as being more informed and "progressive", I think that a lot of Hillary supporters (My wife included) don't understand what a hawk she is. I think that Obama has trouble exploiting this issue however, without himself having the dreaded "soft on terror" label applied to him.

Posted by Berkeley C | November 20, 2007 7:01 PM

I am especially impressed by Samantha Power in Obama's camp. I saw her the other night in that documentary No End In Sight. Which is very good.

Posted by Phoebe | November 20, 2007 7:12 PM

Well, what I gather from reading Drum is that he simply doesn't feel her foreign policy will differ much from Obama's, and he doesn't think she will do something irresponsible. In other words, Obama being right on Iraq and having a better foreign policy team may give him an edge in that area, but it's not enough of an edge to sway Drum. He seems to think that she's more experienced and more politically shrewd so as to better handle the attacks she'd have to face in the general (and as President) and to him that's more important than minor foreign policy differences that probably won't matter much in the end.

Personally, I don't buy his take. She may be ruthless, but she doesn't seem to be all that effective. Her major initiative under her husband went down in a fiery inferno. She lashed out against a "right wing conspiracy" that actually existed, but managed it in a way that the idea was scoffed at the time. She won two elections in one of the bluest states, hasn't accomplished much as Senator, backed the wrong side on Iraq. None of this really tells me that she'll be particularly effective at deflecting Republican attacks, and the best hope for her is that their hatred of her causes them to overreach and alienate anyone with half a brain -- admittedly, that happened before, but that seems like an odd thing to count on. And she'll still face the most hostile press of all the candidates.

Add to that her quest to appear moderate makes her policy choices hard to predict (and does make me wonder if she could get bullied into a war with Iran), she just isn't a very appealing candidate. Certainly not when there are other viable alternatives.

Maybe I'm wrong. Obama certainly seems to be running a neophyte campaign at this point. But that just makes me lean more toward Edwards, not Hillary.

Posted by Royko | November 20, 2007 7:41 PM

But I'm not sure I'm going to try any harder to "prove" that her foreign policy will be mad.

Differences in policy are not going to determine who the nominee is. And the issue is not experience. The issue is trust, pure and simple. Fair or not, HRC's weakness -- and Obama's potential strength -- is trust.

If Obama continues to pound the message of trust, he wins Iowa. If he -- or his awful loudmouth wife -- change the subject, to some inconsequential policy difference, he loses.

Posted by Econobuzz | November 20, 2007 7:48 PM

Perhaps there is not enough empirical evidence to make a persuasive argument on this point; however I DO think one also has to look at the manner in which Obama and Clinton have each made decisions on key foreign policy issues in the past.

Matt has already discussed Sen. Clinton’s 2002 Iraq vote, her statements regarding Iran, and her chosen advisors.

However, what appears to be a key motivator behind many of her foreign policy decisions has been her fear of appearing weak on national security (and this in fact has been typical of many Democrats over the past 7 years).

Obama on the other hand has at least demonstrated more of a willingness to challenge this narrative; by (in one example) repeatedly stressing that engaging in direct diplomacy with our enemies IS what STRONG nations do.

I am also concerned about Sen. Clinton's history of staking out positions on important issues based not on the merits of a particular policy, but rather on the policy’s popularity among influential interest groups.

For example, as an American Jew and strong supporter of Israel who sees a just peace agreement (two-state solution) between the Israelis and Palestinians as a key to Israel's (and America’s) future security; I was shocked this past September to see Clinton come out in support of "an undivided Jerusalem as (Israel's) capital."

It is difficult to express how truly irresponsible this statement was, seeing that the status of Jerusalem continues to be one of the most sensitive issues yet to be hashed out between the two parties, and one in which moderates on both sides have already expressed a willingness to compromise.

And seeing that Bill Clinton himself had already worked out a preliminary deal between the two parties in early January 2001 (the Clinton Plan) that included such a division of Jerusalem, I find it hard to believe that Hillary sincerely believes that this is the "right" position to take.

Obama on the other hand, while committing himself to the long-term security of Israel and to continuing the special relationship between our two countries, made it a point in his speech to AIPAC in Chicago earlier this year, to remind his audience that we must also consider the suffering of the Palestinians in this ongoing conflict. He also stressed the importance of restarting peace talks between the two sides, and how this was crucial to Israel's long-term security.

I believe that it has been this willingness on Obama's part to take positions that are unpopular among key Democratic interest groups, and explain WHY those positions are the correct ones that makes his candidacy attractive to many of his supporters.

In addition, he has also demonstrated a willingness to question policies favored by DOMESTIC Democratic interest groups: when speaking to the National Teachers Union regarding merit pay; when speaking to Detroit Automakers regarding their failure to invest in/make more fuel efficient cars; when speaking to Wall Street investors and lecturing them on their excessive greed; and sticking to his guns on drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants (in the interests of public safety), despite polls indicating that this policy remained very unpopular in Iowa (and among most Americans). (After initially supporting this policy, Sen. Clinton reversed herself and publicly came out against it the same day it was dropped by NY Gov. Spitzer.)

I believe that the distinctions between Obama and Clinton in regards to their approach to politics are REAL, and more importantly, have resulted in very DIFFERENT real life outcomes/consequences.

A disastrous and costly war in the Middle East only serves as the most glaring example of this.

Posted by Aaron M | November 20, 2007 7:54 PM

The use of force will remain a part of our foreign policy.

No, the use of force-- i.e., MURDERING PEOPLE-- is not a "tool of foreign policy". It is a last resort to be used in the defense of this nation.

Posted by Dilan Esper | November 20, 2007 7:59 PM

"Hillary the Hawk"? You do realize this title has been used already, right Matt?

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_03_27/cover.html

Ripping off Raimondo. For shame...

Posted by DaveA | November 20, 2007 9:03 PM

I've been worried that this Clinton presumption you're talking about might become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I've even thought of registering as a Democrat to make sure it doesn't happen.

Posted by Herb | November 20, 2007 9:14 PM

I was shocked this past September to see Clinton come out in support of "an undivided Jerusalem as (Israel's) capital."...It is difficult to express how truly irresponsible this statement was, seeing that the status of Jerusalem continues to be one of the most sensitive issues yet to be hashed out between the two parties, and one in which moderates on both sides have already expressed a willingness to compromise.

Why, exactly, is such a statement irresponsible? I have absolutely no doubt Hillary Rodham Clinton, like most sane people, is cognizant of the likely outlines of an Israeli-Palestinian deal: a state for the latter carved out of the West Bank and Gaza, with some sort of shared status for Jerusalem. But spelling out in advance exactly what you're prepared to give up -- or pressure your ally into giving up -- is not necessarily the best way to eventually get a deal put together.

The people lumping Hillary Clinton's foreign policy approach with that of, er, Dick Cheney, are really overselling their case. She's a mainstream liberal Democrat, for Chrissake. Much more a Tom Friedman than a Bill Kristol, if you will. I'm all for idealism. But I like my idealism leadened with a bit of toughness and skepticism. All the bitching and moaning in the world about the surreal awfulness of the current administration doesn't change the fact that the world is still a horribly dangerous place. If I may put it a bit crudely, I'd rather have the country's security looked after by a tough, ruthless, but highly competent bitch, than either a venal, drink-addled buffoon or a starry-eyed greenhorn.

Posted by Jasper | November 20, 2007 9:51 PM

"Re-enforces"?

Posted by um | November 20, 2007 10:17 PM

"Based on their speeches and interviews I have a good idea how all the other Democratic candidates would conduct foreign policy. (The Republicans are even more straightforward). But I have no idea what Senator Clinton would do. For me, that disqualifies her."

This is my sentiment exactly, I really do feel like I have an idea of how Obama (and the other Dem candidates) would conduct foreign policy, and I tend to like it. Hillary remains a black box to me, maybe she'd be fine, but I really don't feel certain of that. To a lesser extent this is also true about domestic and constitutional issues.

G

Posted by Gary | November 20, 2007 10:32 PM

Jasper,

In your last sentence you stated that you'd "rather have the country's security looked after by a tough, ruthless, but highly competent bitch, than either a venal, drink-addled buffoon or a starry-eyed greenhorn."

One of the points I was trying to make (and one I think Obama has also made repeatedly) is that there is nothing in Sen. Clinton's past statements or votes that indicates that she is "highly competent" in regards to foreign policy. (And I also, by the way, DO NOT believe that she is a “bitch.”)

She has certainly voted and made statements that, I believe, she hoped would make her look tough (and "serious") about keeping our country safe; however, this idea of toughness, which I understand has also been adopted (and praised) by our traditional media, has repeatedly led to policies that have done anything but keep us safe.

And it was Clinton's, and other Democrats', desire to appear "tough" in 2002 that gave George W. Bush the authority to engage in the worst foreign policy disaster in the past 40 years.

Meanwhile it was the "starry-eyed greenhorn" that got it exactly right in 2002; and not simply because he opposed the war but because he opposed it for reasons that should have been evident to people who took the time to consider the potential costs and/or consequences of such a policy.

Here is Obama in his 2002 speech stating his opposition to going to war with Iraq:
(http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php)

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars......Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings."

And finally, I was critical of Sen. Clinton's statement in support of an undivided Jerusalem as Israel's capital not only because I believe the statement was irresponsible, but because she was saying it simply to gain favor of influential interest groups.

It was, I believe, a blatant and unnecessary pander to certain "pro-Israel" groups whose policy preferences more often than not result in greater insecurity for both the Jewish State and the entire region.

Posted by Aaron M | November 20, 2007 10:47 PM

THANK YOU.

I'm wondering why, given the fact that the American people regard Republican foreign policy as an unmitigated disaster, we're acting like it's not a problem that the Democratic frontrunner is still triangulating. She's using a political strategy that not only means she's not going to articulate a coherent alternative foreign policy to Republicans, but that also means she can't let anyone else do it.

At this point, she's joined with the Republicans several times in calling Democrats "inexperienced" for saying extremely sane things on foreign policy. It's not that anyone thinks, in a clean slate world, that she'd walk in and do the same kind of crazy stuff Bush is doing. But the fact of the matter is that she's not going to be operating in a clean slate world. Fox News will still be there, powerful Republicans will still be pushing a very dangerous and damaging agenda, and also trying to pin the catastrophe of Iraq on her. But her response hasn't been to point out that these people are crazy and have led us off a cliff and that she's going to lead us in a new direction.

Instead, she's triangulated, talking about how much safer we are now than we were in 2000, and she's slammed her fellow Democrats when they began to articulate a new vision. It was a bad reaction to the fact that in the past she'd supported some bad policy. In trying to turn that into a plus, she's succeeded in wedding herself to some more terrible policy, which will make it far more difficult for her to enact policies--like talking with hostile nations--that are the kind of policies she suggests she wants to be pursuing. She's making it harder for herself not only to do the things we want her to do, but the things she says she wants to do.

She's rather unique on the Democratic field--she's building an un-mandate for a new direction on foreign policy. And don't get me started on the idea that after 20 years of Bush-Clinton, what's really gonna save the day is 4 more years of it.

Posted by anon | November 20, 2007 11:01 PM

>And I think once you look at it that way, the whole race looks different.

The issue, of course, is whether that is really an accurate way to look at it. I think Hillary's foreign policy will look a lot like Bill Clinton's: cautious, business-friendly, and generally acceptable to (at least) our traditional friends. I expect Obama's foreign policy will look pretty much the same, because the differences among Democrats on foreign policy is more style than substance. Bill Clinton didn't invade Iraq (or Serbia, or, alas, Rwanda) and Hillary isn't going to invade Iran.

Matt, out of either a genuine misreading of the situation or simply because he favors Obama, insists on treating Hillary and the people around her as if they were closet neocons, ignoring for example that her list of advisors includes people like Wes Clark.

But, whatever. I'll vote for Obama if he is the nominee in next November and I've no doubt Matt will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee (though I would be happier if Edwards-or in my fantasy world, Gore or Clark-headed the ticket). There are reasons to not want Hillary. That her foreign policy will be "hawkish" is not imo one of them. Hillary is well aware that such a policy is why Bush is at 25%.

Posted by tdraicer | November 21, 2007 12:39 AM

I like Obama a lot, but worry about his ability to survive in the general election. His foreign policy is likely to be very similar to that of Clinton in my view, but if he pushes too far towards the "peace at any price" faction in the primaries, it will kill him in November.

I think a lot of people make the mistake of assuming, based on the fiasco of occupation in Iraq, that simply knuckling under to Saddam in 2003 would have been the right thing to do. We know the downside of what we did, but we don't know the down side of what we didn't do. There is good reason to believe that if Obama had been representing all the people of Illinois and to some extent the whole US in the Senate instead of a relatively tiny, relatively liberal constituency in Chicago; and had the "benefit" of high-level intelligence briefings like Hillary, he would have voted the same way she and most other Senators did in 2002.

The fact is we don't really know how ANY of the candidates in either party will react to the particular circumstances of 2009-2013. Best guess is as good as it gets.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 21, 2007 12:50 AM

@ Robert Powell, 12:50:

I think a lot of people make the mistake of assuming, based on the fiasco of occupation in Iraq, that simply knuckling under to Saddam in 2003 would have been the right thing to do.

Knuckling under to Saddam? What on earth are you talking about? What pressure or threat was he putting on us?

Posted by argh | November 21, 2007 1:16 AM

This is why we have democracy, folks.

The world's pretty much burning down over a conflict over a scrap of desert, and now YOU get to chose.

Door #1 has the candidate more like the guy who said he has a "love affair with Israel" but he wants to give "Ahmed a seat on the bus".

Door #2 has the candidate more like the guy who I can't for the life of me think of one quote that absolutely stupid, but he is, he just hides it better, and that's Bill Kristol.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 21, 2007 1:22 AM

argh--If we didn't care about wars of aggression against our allies, genocide, the development and proliferation of wmd's, state support for terrorism, compliance with ceasefire agreements with us and Chapter VII UNSC Resolutions (and by extension the credibility of the SC and the US), being implicated in genocide through the sanctions regime, or the future peace and stability of the Greater Persian Gulf region, no pressure at all. We could have just dropped the whole thing and sung Kumbaya around the burning oilfields.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 21, 2007 1:33 AM

I hate to agree with this post because it makes it looks like I agree with anyone who says "advantage, obama" but I think there is a very good point here. I think the Clinton camp decided to run Hillary a long time ago and based on Bill's experience saw the general as the big stumbling block, that the primary could be pretty much short-circuited, and then out of nowhere, who would have predicted...Obama was the only African-American in the Senate, a black president looked light years away. So to them these primary debates don't matter, flies on the windshield, any maybe they are right. levin browbeats the michigan court to cry uncle, michigan gets is primary, florida clamors me too and hillary locks up the nom. fast forward to convention time and the antirepublican fight machine is in full swing hauling in every platitude the universe has ever conceived to prove the point that hillary would be better than anything the republicans have to offer. but then when all the balloons have dropped, we have to ask ourselves, in this what is billed to have been the most wide open election ever did we ever get to ask hillary what she really thought, did we ever get to tell her we thought she was wrong, did she ever get a chance to adjust her position to better reflect the interest of the american people??? This is, at the end of the day, my big objection to the clinton campaign--they think this election is all about them, when truth be told it is about something much larger. Perhaps we will elect another president who thinks they know what's best for america, but i wish team hillary would stop for a minute to consider the consequences of their actions instead of trying to run up the score as a sign of strength in the general.

Posted by JC | November 21, 2007 2:52 AM

Powell: there were alternatives to a cataclysmic war made possible by 9/11 , based on lies, against a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. Look up the fallacy of the excluded middle. You apparently still think that it was a good idea - and you like Clinton. People like me - and, apparently, Matt - think that Iraq was one of the greatest disasters in modern American foreign policy. You like Clinton over anti-war Democrats. Guess what? You're not helping convince us of anything but that Clinton is the war candidate.

Posted by Marc | November 21, 2007 8:06 AM

Marc--
Nobody's going to war again anywhere anytime soon, which suits me and I expect Hillary too just fine. There are no countries anywhere with remotely the record and history Iraq had amassed by 2003, thank God.

What I really don't like is the prospect of a Giuliani presidency, and the only thing I'd like to convince anyone of here of is that they should consider educating themselves beyond accepting uncritically everything that comes out of the leftist echo chamber so as not to make that more likely.

Imagining that the whole Iraq story was ginned up out of thin air by a group of deviants in the White House after the 2000 election is right up there with alien abduction as a marker for irrationality, and completely overlooks a dozen years of vital history that included plenty of bi-partisan action, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents whose blood is on our hands. A good start would be to read the statements of solid Democrats who said and believed more or less the same things as the Bush people during the period in question, because that's all anyone really knew.

People who don't know the first thing about the realities of intelligence gathering in a totalitarian police state will tell you all sorts of things that were "known", but this is only good for supporting nut-bag conspiracy theories. Get the facts.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 21, 2007 9:43 AM

First she leaks unsubstantiated innuendo regarding "Scandalous Information" on Obama through conservative mouthpiece Bob Novack, then it is revealed that her attack yesterday on Obamas foreign policy experience is an almost verbatim reiteration of the internal RNC attack strategy against him, and now President Bush is revealed to be supporting Hillary as his favored candidate for the Democrats. So what party is Hillary really running for anyway? Short of a swift kick in the pants, what more proof do the American people need to see that Hillary is nothing more than a conservative wolf in liberal sheep's clothing vying to keep political power in the pocket of the big money guiding hands that have been controlling politics in this nation for decades. Am I the only one who sees this?

What's next? Will Laura Bush go out on the Campaign trail to stump for Hillary against Oprah campaigning for Obama? (I'd LOL this but am thinking I may not be too far off of the mark - I called it first!)

Wake up people.

Posted by Christopher Burgis | November 21, 2007 9:45 AM

...and now President Bush is revealed to be supporting Hillary as his favored candidate for the Democrats.

Wake up, Christopher.

Sure, various Republican personages, from Rove to Giuliani to Bush to Limbaugh, have, out of the kindness of their hearts and their love for the Democratic party, been telling us who they'd like to run against, and the answer is almost always Hillary Clinton. Yup. Real plausible.

Does that sound right to you? Me neither. Without a doubt, there's widespread consensus within GOP circles that Clinton is the most likely nominee. And some Republicans no doubt do want to run against her. But, it seems to me this very public "pining" for an HRC candidacy on the part of high-level Republicans of late has been ratcheted up in its intensity just as Obama has solidified as a credible force to defeat Senator Clinton. In other words, knowing that electability is an issue Democrats are concerned with, GOP poobahs and operatives would just love to have us think they want to run against Hillary, because they've concluded that's exactly what they don't want, because they now perceive a much better opportunity to keep the White House: running against someone they'll paint as a young, inexperienced, uberliberal with pacifist leanings.

This GOP public jonesing for a rematch against the a team that has already beaten them twice is quite obviously an effort to avoid that very thing.

Posted by Jasper | November 21, 2007 10:51 AM

Richard: "There is never a situation when the US should use force - unilaterally, without a UN mandate supported by the bulk of the international community - without a direct threat to the US."

I never said that there was. Neither did Holbrooke in the quoted passage. To react to us as if we did (and to react to any politician or foreign policy expert who even diagnoses a problem as if they did) is unsound and diversionary. The neocons are for the use of force in a wide variety of circumstances and without regard for international support. The Dem candidates (even Hillary) are not.

Posted by Chunche | November 21, 2007 2:03 PM

She's a mainstream liberal Democrat, for Chrissake. Much more a Tom Friedman than a Bill Kristol, if you will.

The entire problem is that too many people think that the views of Tom Friedman on foreign policy are "liberal". They are not. They are conservative.

If the political spectrum runs from insanely hawkish to slightly more insanely hawkish, I am sorry, but there's no particularly good reason for someone who thinks the most important issue is adopting a liberal foreign policy that makes avoiding war a priority to vote for the merely insanely hawkish candidate.

Posted by Dilan Esper | November 21, 2007 2:28 PM

Nobody's going to war again anywhere anytime soon, which suits me and I expect Hillary too just fine.

Well, Kyl-Lieberman is, for all intents and purposes, a declaration of war against Iran. I fully expect Hillary to bomb them, especially if the Republicans pressure her to.

But more centrally, we are already in 2 wars, 1 of which was a terrible idea that we must end completely as soon as possible in order to save the lives of our brave American servicemembers.

So simply continuing the Iraq war, as Hillary intends to do indefinitely, is enough to disqualify her from holding the office.

Posted by Dilan Esper | November 21, 2007 2:34 PM

Kyl-Lieberman is, for all intents and purposes, a declaration of war against Iran only in the fevered imagination of fringe isolates from reality of the sort who periodically entertain the Ghost of Elvis. If such folks think she's disqualified from holding office, it's a sound reason to support her candidacy.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 21, 2007 5:18 PM

Kyl-Lieberman is, for all intents and purposes, a declaration of war against Iran only in the fevered imagination of fringe isolates from reality of the sort who periodically entertain the Ghost of Elvis. If such folks think she's disqualified from holding office, it's a sound reason to support her candidacy.

Robert, we should not be doing ANYTHING (other than multilateral actions that have the full support of the international community) that makes a war with Iran more likely. We should be negotiating with Iran, buying their oil, and getting out of Iraq (which is the main provocation to the Iranian regime). Most importantly, we should be doing nothing to convince Iran that it might need a nuclear weapon to defend itself against a US attack.

Kyl-Lieberman is all about making a case for war with Iran-- for heaven's sake, it says that Iran is attacking our troops! If that isn't a casus belli, what is?

Kyl-Lieberman is the equivalent of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed by Hillary's husband, which did, in fact, lead to war with Iraq by giving the Bush Administration the ability to point to regime change as the official policy of the Congress.

But more importantly, what, exactly, was achieved by Kyl-Lieberman. In no world did it make war with Iran LESS likely? Further, by voting for it, Hillary at the very least signalling to those who DO support Iran that she is one of them. Indeed, no Democrat should vote for ANY bill sponsored by Joe Lieberman on any aspect of middle east policy.

Look, people who support Kyl-Lieberman are going to get more Americans killed by preventing us from recalibrating to a more dovish foreign policy. That's the bottom line here.

Posted by Dilan Esper | November 21, 2007 6:00 PM

Mr. Esper--
I agree that we shouldn't be doing anything that makes war with Iran more likely--an attack on Iran would be a catastrophe that could make Iraq look like Grenada. I also agree that we should be engaging in multilateral action/negotiations, and would add that we should immediately ramp up our contacts with the Iranian people, including issuing lots of student visas, getting involved in cultural exchanges, and laying the groundwork for an eventual normalization of relations with this big, important, traditional regional power.

I don't agree that Kyl-Lieberman makes war with Iran more likely. It says that Iran is aiding in attacks on our troops BECAUSE IT'S TRUE. Drawing the line here, and making it clear to Iran that it doesn't have a free pass for this sort of meddling in my view makes war LESS likely.

Iran and Iraq have had linked histories for thousands of years. Neither is going to go away, or control the other. Supporting the development of a reasonably democratic, reasonably stable, non-aggressive Iraq that has decent neighborly relations with Iran is perhaps our best card going forward in terms of reaching some kind of raison d'etre with Iran.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 22, 2007 3:54 AM