« 3L1Z4B37H 3DW4RD5 | Main | Impeach! »

March 26, 2007

What Does She Really Think?

By Ankush

Michael Crowley wonders: Is Hillary Clinton a hawk?

Stated that way, the answer to the question seems blindingly obvious. Even so, it's an engaging read, if only for the moment when Crowley asks Clinton what should be made of the fact that she once tried to enlist in the military.

In the end, Crowley argues that her support for the Iraq war had much to do with the experience of seeing her husband deal with a confrontational Congress:

Ultimately, perhaps the strangest thing about Hillary Clinton's war vote is that she actually seems to have related to George W. Bush's predicament. She remembered the feeling of being in the White House, looking at a dangerous and unstable world, and imagining that the United States had the power to make it safer and more humane. She knew the feeling of having a powerful military on call. She not only believed that Saddam had WMD, but also that, by deposing him, the United States could promote freedom and democracy.

Those beliefs made Clinton receptive to Bush's arguments for war, even if it was almost certainly not one she would have initiated. But the final straw for her decision may have had less to do with a vision of U.S. power than with a vision of herself. She had seen her husband in Bush's shoes, confronting a Congress that didn't trust his foreign policy leadership. And she knew that, someday, she might find herself in those same shoes as well. In that sense, for Hillary Clinton, supporting the Iraq war may have been as much about her future as it was about her past.

I agree that makes the most sense of Clinton's vote, but, of course, that assessment is quite apart from whether you think it should mitigate her responsibility for making the wrong decision (which is not to say that Crowley makes such an argument).

Still, I continue to be less interested in these historical foreign policy exegeses than sharp assessments of where the candidates stand (or should stand) on the issues likely to face us in the future, including the urgent issue of how best to extricate us from Iraq.  It's a peculiar irony of our current political moment that it often seems as if the people most interested in extracting apologies from the liberal hawks who advocated for the invasion of Iraq are the people who were perfectly content with those hawks' premises and agreed with their application during the run-up to the war.  Granted, more forward-looking analyses have their imperfections as well (recall Bush's declaration of a "humble" foreign policy) and we would be foolish to neglect the candidates' histories, but, at a time when a huge, ill-conceived, and fumbled military action continues in progress, I'd like to see more reporters (like Ezra, to his credit) focusing on what the candidates are currently saying about the prospective foreign policy issues -- aside from just Iraq; Iran or Pakistan, for instance -- that can really test how they think about the world today.

March 26, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

I just finished one of the best articles relating to foreign policy and the Bush failures and why so many in the Foreign Policy profession and the wonks are so focused on Obama for our next president. They feel he has the nuance and the understanding to repair so much damage done. that his ability to grasp and understand the issue and his constant questions and probing makes him the best candidate to deal with the issue.

Posted by: vwcat | Mar 26, 2007 2:08:56 AM

I just realized I left the name of it out.
It's in washington monthly, on the left hand side of the page is the name "No time to be wobbly, Barack"
www.WashingtonMonthly.com
it's really long but, fascinating.

Posted by: vwcat | Mar 26, 2007 2:10:30 AM

The "real" reason she won't apologize? Besides the obvious political considerations? I can't read the article, so I can't tell how much of Crowley's theory is based on evidence and how much is just his imagination. In any case, the theory about the related question in the extract above, that she voted as she did because she was imagining this and identifying with that, is more than is needed to explain her vote. Lots of others in a similar position voted as she did, presumably not thinking of how it would be for either Bill Clinton or George Bush.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 26, 2007 2:41:07 AM

Hillary voted for the Iraq War because she thought that it would be an easy massacre of arabs, not the worst american military disaster since Vietnam. Simply that. She can´t say today that she had faulty inteligence(C´mon, most brazilians that I know knew that this story of WMD was false).

She is horrible.

Posted by: André Kenji | Mar 26, 2007 7:47:43 AM

Crowley argues that her support for the Iraq war had much to do with the experience of seeing her husband deal with a confrontational Congress

She had seen her husband in Bush's shoes, confronting a Congress that didn't trust his foreign policy leadership.

Um, since when was this Bush's predicament? He had a Republican Congress! I don't recall hostility to his foreign policy after 9/11. President Clinton's situation was completely different. He had an actual hostile Congress. If Crowley is getting this excuse from Clinton, and buying it, well, I question his credulity.

Posted by: Ryan | Mar 26, 2007 7:53:48 AM

I am not sure what to think about what I read in the excerpt. Maybe HRC was thinking of projecting power for a future presidential run, but I think what might have made HRC more receptive to Bush's arguments for war was the 66% of Americans who believed that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and the 65% who thought that Saddam was "close to having nuclear weapons" in fall of 2002. I agree completely that I am more interested in hearing about where candidates would take our foreign policy than I am rehashing mistaken votes in the past.

Posted by: jmack | Mar 26, 2007 8:05:23 AM

It all seems to beg the question - and is irrelevant. If she was fooled - the rest of the world wasn't - gullible. If not : cynical and dangerous. Not my first choice for carrying the nuclear "football".

Posted by: opit | Mar 26, 2007 10:26:43 AM

Andre, I don't like Sen Clinton, but your comment above - claiming she favored the war because "she thought that it would be an easy massacre of arabs" - is vile and idiotic.

Posted by: Chris | Mar 26, 2007 1:13:57 PM

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘

托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘


托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

Posted by: judy | Sep 27, 2007 3:18:45 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.