Condemning Hillary Clinton's war views on Kos may be an exercise in preaching to the choir, but since she's making anti-war noises -- and because I'm flabbergasted at how baldly cynical they are -- I think it's worth taking a moment to review Clinton's latest maneuvers. The fact is, she'll manage to peel off some Kossacks who lose their nerve about standing up to this right-wing Democrat. Consider this a bid to keep those defecting numbers as small as possible.
In today's New York Times, Clinton makes an "effort to bolster her credentials as a critic of the war," according to Patrick Healy. Clinton's big idea? A troop cap. As in, 140,000 soldiers are acceptable for the maintenance of the empire, but 160,000? Unthinkable! Pro-war types would be correct to call this stand craven, dishonest, and dangerous -- by calling for a troop cap, she endorses a weak presence that exposes all the troops to greater risk even as it drives the civil war that killed 34,000 Iraqis last year. All in or all out, Clinton. And if you want anti-war votes, it's all out.
Mrs. Clinton offered sharp criticism of the administration while also staking out two positions that might alienate antiwar Democrats: She said that she would oppose cutting off any funds for American troops and that she would not rush to set a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq.
Hell, that ought to alienate 8th grade logic students. How does Clinton propose ending a war? By taking a stand for funding it indefinitely. That'll show 'em! I'd like to see this approach extended to global warming -- perhaps Clinton could show her support for alternative energy by taking a stand for limitless coal subsidies for as long as big coal wants 'em.
"Don’t be mistaken, I am for ending this war as soon as possible.”
Duly noted -- the senator is not among those who advocate extending the war longer than necessary. Bold.
Aides to a third likely Democratic contender, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, cried foul, saying that Mrs. Clinton’s plan to propose a cap seemed to copy a similar proposal by Mr. Dodd.
Paraphrase: "Hey, that's my lame idea!"
“I am cursed with the responsibility gene.” Clintone said. “I am. I admit to that."
This kind of honesty inspires me. Kossacks, I have a confession of my own to make: I am cursed with incredible good looks. There. I said it. And I don't care who knows it. File that under "political courage."
Mrs. Clinton also took her own glancing shot back at Mr. Edwards, saying in the interview that it was important for political candidates in 2008 to avoid “finger-pointing, hot rhetoric” on Iraq.
Maybe her responsibility gene had to recuse itself for conflict of interest.
At different points in that speech, Mrs. Clinton made the cases both for and against the war resolution, saying it had “appeal to some” but was also “fraught with danger.”
This, you'll recall, is the resolution that does, uh, nothing. Clinton was for it before she was for it, but she might be against it, after she's for it. She can't help it -- that damn responsibility gene!
In conclusion, I bring you no news. If you're opposed to the war, you already knew you were opposed to Clinton. Just, please, don't forget it. She's a brilliant person, and a first-rate politician. It's genuinely tempting to vote for her just to set the precedent of a woman running the White House. But if liberals and leftists get into "compromising" with her, we'll lose. And the cost will be high.
It's not just about this war. Clinton's been among the most violent-minded hawks with regard to Iran. A vote for Clinton may well end up as a vote for war. Enough of this, "What if..." wondering about what to do if Clinton wins the nomination. Let's make it plain now: no votes for Clinton, no matter what.