[Oe List ...] More about Hillary

[Wilson Priscilla]

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 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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070215/41fd435a/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logoprinter.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1810 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070215/41fd435a/attachment.gif 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: s81597675225510.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 43 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070215/41fd435a/attachment-0001.gif 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: up.nytimes.com.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 7 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070215/41fd435a/attachment-0002.gif