[Dialogue] More about Hillary

Thu Feb 15 16:53:28 EST 2007

Thank you Priscilla Wilson, thank you Clare Whitney.  And thank to David
Brooks.  It seems to me he bends over backwards here, to confess that
earlier he had misjudged what she said.  And here, as far as I am concerned,
he is speaking not as a conservative but as a careful, honest man saying,
"Examine the record before you shoot from the hip in the blame game."  I
don't always like what Brooks says.  I don't always like what Hillary says.
I wrote the other day about admiring what I thought was John Edwards trying
to be honest and forthright.  I think that is what Brooks is doing in this
piece.  Jim Rippey

  _____  

From: dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net
[mailto:dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of Clare Whitney
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:11 PM
To: Colleague Dialogue
Subject: Re: [Dialogue] More about Hillary

Thank you, Priscilla.  I'm sure it will be in tomorrow's Denver Post, but
glad to read it today.  I am grateful for the insights he brings, because
I'm sort-of wondering if it is the Democratic left that is really having
trouble with Hillary, almost as much as the Far Right is.  Isn't there a
story about how life is circular.  Is it possible that the two are almost
touching?  Scarry!  Maybe the DemLeft thinks it can control Obama easier
than it can have an effect on Hillary.  That's also scarry.  Keep well and
keep sending stuff for us to ponder.  Clare W.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Wilson <mailto:pwilson at teamtechinc.com>  Priscilla 

To: Dialogue <mailto:dialogue at wedgeblade.net>  ica 

Cc: Community OE <mailto:OE at wedgeblade.net>  

Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:28 PM

Subject: [Dialogue] More about Hillary

To add to the conversation about Hillary. David Brooks is usually more
conservative than I am...so interesting writing. 

February 15, 2007

OP-ED COLUMNIST

No Apology Needed

By
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/dav
idbrooks/index.html?inline=nyt-per> DAVID BROOKS

Far be it from me to get in the middle of a liberal purge, but would anybody
mind if I pointed out that the calls for Hillary Clinton to apologize for
her support of the Iraq war are almost entirely bogus?

I mean, have the people calling for her apology actually read the speeches
she delivered before the war? Have they read her remarks during the war
resolution debate, when she specifically rejected a pre-emptive, unilateral
attack on Saddam? Did they read the passages in which she called for a
longer U.N. inspections regime and declared, ?I believe international
support and legitimacy are crucial??

If they went back and read what Senator Clinton was saying before the war,
they?d be surprised, as I was, by her approach. And they?d learn something,
as I did, about what kind of president she would make.

The Iraq war debate began in earnest in September 2002. At that point
Clinton was saying in public what Colin Powell was saying in private:
emphasizing the need to work through the U.N. and build a broad coalition to
enforce inspections.

She delivered her Senate resolution speech on Oct. 10. It was Clintonian in
character. On the one hand, she rejected the Bush policy of pre-emptive war.
On the other hand, she also rejected the view that the international
community ?should only resort to force if and when the United Nations
Security Council approves it.? Drawing on the lessons of Bosnia, she said
sometimes the world had to act, even if the big powers couldn?t agree.

She sought a third way: more U.N. resolutions, more inspections, more
diplomacy, with the threat of force reserved as a last resort. She was
triangulating, but the Senate resolution offered her a binary choice. She
voted yes in order to give Powell bipartisan leverage at the U.N.

This is how she?s always explained that vote, and I confess that until now,
I?ve regarded her explanation as a transparent political dodge. Didn?t
everyone know this was a war resolution? But now, having investigated her
public comments, I think diplomatic leverage really was on her mind. I also
know, from a third person, that she was spending a lot of time with Powell
and wanted to help.

On Nov. 8, 2002, the Security Council passed a unanimous resolution
threatening Saddam with ?serious consequences? if he didn?t disarm.

The next crucial period came in March 2003, as the U.S. battled France over
the second Security Council resolution. Clinton?s argument at this point was
that inspections were working and should be given more time. ?It is
preferable that we do this in a peaceful manner through coercive
inspection,? she said on March 3, but went on, ?At some point we have to be
willing to uphold the United Nations resolutions.? Then she added, ?This is
a very delicate balancing act.?

On March 17, Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to disarm or face attack. Clinton
tried to be critical of the Bush policy while being deferential to the
office of the presidency. She clearly had doubts about Bush?s timing, but
she kept emphasizing that from her time in the White House, she knew how
unhelpful it was for senators to be popping off in public on foreign policy.

At one press event in New York, she nodded when Charles Rangel said Bush had
failed at the U.N. But when reporters asked Clinton to repeat what Rangel
had just said, she bit her tongue. On March 17, as U.S. troops mobilized,
she issued her strongest statement in support of the effort.

Clinton?s biggest breach with the liberal wing actually opened up later, in
the fall of 2003. Most liberals went into full opposition, wanting to see
Bush disgraced. Clinton ? while an early critic of the troop levels, the
postwar plans and all the rest ? tried to stay constructive. She wanted to
see America and Iraq succeed, even if Bush was not disgraced.

When you look back at Clinton?s thinking, you don?t see a classic war
supporter. You see a person who was trying to seek balance between opposing
arguments. You also see a person who deferred to the office of the
presidency. You see a person who, as president, would be fox to Bush?s
hedgehog: who would see problems in their complexities rather than in their
essentials; who would elevate procedural concerns over philosophical ones;
who would postpone decision points for as long as possible; and who would
make distinctions few heed.

Today, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party believes that the world, and
Hillary Clinton in particular, owes it an apology. If she apologizes, she?ll
forfeit her integrity. She will be apologizing for being herself.

??

Priscilla Wilson

TeamTech Press

Mission Hills, KS 66208

pwilson at teamtechinc.com

  _____  

_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070215/d3a9e30f/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 43 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070215/d3a9e30f/attachment-0002.gif 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1810 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070215/d3a9e30f/attachment-0003.gif 