Was Hillary a secret hardliner and Hawk during her husband’s reign? IF so she hid it well. I don’t recall her calling for demolishing the nascent Alqaeda nor eliminating Bin Laden.
Did she counsel BHO to retain a force in Iraq to preserve the hard won stability? Must have been very quiet diplomacy. Was she involved in the negotiations for a SOF agreement with the Iraqis?
The problem with “remaking” Hillary is, Hillary. She clearly has a tin ear, as well as a thin skin; which leads to an indiscreet mouth.
The question of the day may be; “what happens when you cross a hawk with a dove?” The answer could be, “a Magpie”. (Merriam Webster: “a person who chatters noisily”). Another answer could be: “an empty suit”.
Copyright infringement?
Politics makes for very strange bedfellows indeed; unfortunate association.
Man, Sullivan never stops being a douche.
mikeski:
About twelve years ago he stopped for a year or two. I used to read him then. No more; waste of time. I found the above post of his while searching for something I had written and couldn’t locate.
Balanced? HAH! Biased? Boy, Howdy!
What is a hawk-dove paradigm? An oxymoron?
Sorry but I never find a slosh through the drug addled mind of the most unwise and diseased Andrew Sullivan to be at all illuminating. This bit of congealed references, cut and paste, and blather by him is no different.
There are several lefties I refuse to read because they proved long ago, and over many chances, that they have nothing of substance to add.
Sullivan is one. Ezra Klein and Paul Krugman are others.
It’s OK, though. I get exposed to their thinking anyway from the oozing seepage into the mainstream, like a fistula.
@neo-neocon,
Maybe if you sue for copyright infringement, you could do away with the tip hat.
Or take a nice vacation?
Poor Widdle Sully: So far to fall. So self-parodying. My theory for a long time now(since his segue to the very Dark Side)is that his AIDS hath rotted his once first class brain.
Andrew, Duuuude, you’ve become truly embarrassing and cringe producing.
Of all the discouraging thoughts recently, this might be the most discouraging of all even to contemplate.
It is not merely that Neo is the complete opposite of Hillary in every respect. Hillary may be the bizarro world opposite of Neo.
But come to think of it, there may be no better illustration/personification of the present situation than Neo/Hillary.
I really mean this.
What would the world look like if Hillary (to name just a single attribute) were as thoughtful as Neo?
A S is a weaker version of the rapist wannabe, John Scalzi, Democrat advocate.
Oldflyer,
The problem with the Clinton administration is they made rational ‘hardline, hawkish’ law and policy on al Qaeda and Saddam, but acted carefully in real terms when confronting the problems and therefore failed to solve the problems as they worsened.
Careful may protect a doctor from liability, but it won’t cure his patient suffering from an aggressive disease.
Bush for the most apart carried forward Clinton’s Iraq and counter-terror law and policy. The difference after 9/11 was in the degree of resolute action, not in the policy orientation to the problems.
The Congressional support for Bush on Iraq and the greater War on Terror carried forward the Congressional support for Clinton on Iraq and the greater War on Terror. In Hillary’s case, it was support for her husband.
Thus, the most disgusting political spectacle was of Congressmen and former Clinton officials, including the former First Lady, claiming they supported Bush on Iraq only because ‘Bush lied’ when in fact they had openly and loudly rung the town warning bell on Saddam for the entire Clinton presidency.
Hillary Clinton has demonstrated she will choose rank politics over principle, even in real issues of utmost importance. That disqualifies her as President and Commander in Chief.
Gates offers a catalogue of various meetings, based in part on notes that he and his aides made at the time, including an exchange between Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that he calls “remarkable.”
He writes: “Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. . . . The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”
Fix: Bush for the most apartpart carried forward Clinton’s Iraq and counter-terror law and policy.
Eric, I don’t buy it.
I am not sure what the point is of the article you cite really is. .
Clinton fooled around on the fringes of terrorism. He took no meaningful action; so, how was his policy in any way similar to Bush’s? I guess the article you cite was written for people who were not around. Maybe for people who don’t know that there was an attempt to bring down the World Trade Center in ’93, in an attack was as egregious as the attack that triggered Bush; just not as successful. Or don’t know that Sudan offered Bin Laden to Clinton, who refused. Clinton’s policy was to lob a few cruise missiles here and there. He did the silly UN mandated no-fly zone over Iraq–year after year. Was that a policy?
I am not sure what Reagan’s policy was. He gets credit for defeating the Soviet Union by outspending them; that’s good. But, he gets a free pass on sending Marines into Beirut with no defined mission; then backing out after the disaster. Our Embassy in Bierut was destroyed. (He did order a hasty, ill-conceived air strike against– nothing, which the on-scene Navy Commander objected to; and which got a friend of mine shot down. He survived.) Then, he invaded Grenada. An honest assessment might conclude that his actions gave terrorists the impression that U.S. interests could be attacked with near impunity.
Bush responded very strongly to terrorism; and established a doctrine and policy that would stand us in good stead if it had not been dismantled by his feckless successor.
Oldflyer: “Clinton fooled around on the fringes of terrorism. He took no meaningful action; so, how was his policy in any way similar to Bush’s?”
I’m differentiating between official policy and real action, although action defines an aspect of policy, too. Clinton crafted resolute policy but took weak action. After 9/11, Bush matched resolute action to resolute policy.
A significant component of Clinton setting the official Iraq and counter-terror policies is in so doing, he set in the minds of the Washington decision-makers the underlying premises of the US positions on Saddam and terrorists.
The odd man out before 9/11 was neither the underlying premises nor the policies about the dangers, but rather America’s irresolute, weak action towards the dangers.
There is a difference between the leadership of the 2 men. Bush is clearly more principled than Clinton, who is clearly more political. Bush seems to be a fundamentally decent and responsible – moral – man in a way that Clinton is not.
However, I believe the main factor in the difference between Clinton and Bush’s actions before and after 9/11 is not the different character of their leadership, but rather 9/11 itself. Before 9/11 – granted it happened only 8 months into his presidency – Bush’s Iraq and counter-terror actions were within the scope of action he inherited from Clinton, while Clinton’s actions butted up against a hard line. That line was erased by 9/11. In other words, 9/11 changed the Overton window for national security.
When I wrote my term paper on the bridge between Clinton and Bush on regime change in Iraq, I discovered that it was a strong bridge. Clinton did everything but. Clinton set up the law, policy, including threat classification for Saddam, and precedent for regime change, including active CIA-style regime change action. Clinton’s speech announcing Operation Desert Fox went beyond a narrow explanation of reaction to UNSCOM’s failure and set down a clear justification for regime change. Clinton only stopped short of resolute action to match his resolute policy. The ODF 4-day bombing campaign was ineffective and shrugged off by Saddam, but in terms of policy, the bombing campaign cleared the penultimate military enforcement step to ground invasion.
Then 9/11 happened and Bush applied resolute action to Clinton’s resolute policy.
Oldflyer: “Bush responded very strongly to terrorism; and established a doctrine and policy that would stand us in good stead if it had not been dismantled by his feckless successor.”
Agreed.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Indeed!
So many thoughts rush to mind.
Was Hillary a secret hardliner and Hawk during her husband’s reign? IF so she hid it well. I don’t recall her calling for demolishing the nascent Alqaeda nor eliminating Bin Laden.
Did she counsel BHO to retain a force in Iraq to preserve the hard won stability? Must have been very quiet diplomacy. Was she involved in the negotiations for a SOF agreement with the Iraqis?
The problem with “remaking” Hillary is, Hillary. She clearly has a tin ear, as well as a thin skin; which leads to an indiscreet mouth.
The question of the day may be; “what happens when you cross a hawk with a dove?” The answer could be, “a Magpie”. (Merriam Webster: “a person who chatters noisily”). Another answer could be: “an empty suit”.
Copyright infringement?
Politics makes for very strange bedfellows indeed; unfortunate association.
Man, Sullivan never stops being a douche.
mikeski:
About twelve years ago he stopped for a year or two. I used to read him then. No more; waste of time. I found the above post of his while searching for something I had written and couldn’t locate.
Balanced? HAH! Biased? Boy, Howdy!
What is a hawk-dove paradigm? An oxymoron?
Sorry but I never find a slosh through the drug addled mind of the most unwise and diseased Andrew Sullivan to be at all illuminating. This bit of congealed references, cut and paste, and blather by him is no different.
There are several lefties I refuse to read because they proved long ago, and over many chances, that they have nothing of substance to add.
Sullivan is one. Ezra Klein and Paul Krugman are others.
It’s OK, though. I get exposed to their thinking anyway from the oozing seepage into the mainstream, like a fistula.
@neo-neocon,
Maybe if you sue for copyright infringement, you could do away with the tip hat.
Or take a nice vacation?
Poor Widdle Sully: So far to fall. So self-parodying. My theory for a long time now(since his segue to the very Dark Side)is that his AIDS hath rotted his once first class brain.
Andrew, Duuuude, you’ve become truly embarrassing and cringe producing.
Of all the discouraging thoughts recently, this might be the most discouraging of all even to contemplate.
It is not merely that Neo is the complete opposite of Hillary in every respect. Hillary may be the bizarro world opposite of Neo.
But come to think of it, there may be no better illustration/personification of the present situation than Neo/Hillary.
I really mean this.
What would the world look like if Hillary (to name just a single attribute) were as thoughtful as Neo?
A S is a weaker version of the rapist wannabe, John Scalzi, Democrat advocate.
Oldflyer,
The problem with the Clinton administration is they made rational ‘hardline, hawkish’ law and policy on al Qaeda and Saddam, but acted carefully in real terms when confronting the problems and therefore failed to solve the problems as they worsened.
http://www.e-ir.info/2012/12/02/the-myth-of-george-w-bushs-foreign-policy-revolution-reagan-clinton-and-the-continuity-of-the-war-on-terror/
Careful may protect a doctor from liability, but it won’t cure his patient suffering from an aggressive disease.
Bush for the most apart carried forward Clinton’s Iraq and counter-terror law and policy. The difference after 9/11 was in the degree of resolute action, not in the policy orientation to the problems.
The Congressional support for Bush on Iraq and the greater War on Terror carried forward the Congressional support for Clinton on Iraq and the greater War on Terror. In Hillary’s case, it was support for her husband.
Thus, the most disgusting political spectacle was of Congressmen and former Clinton officials, including the former First Lady, claiming they supported Bush on Iraq only because ‘Bush lied’ when in fact they had openly and loudly rung the town warning bell on Saddam for the entire Clinton presidency.
Hillary Clinton has demonstrated she will choose rank politics over principle, even in real issues of utmost importance. That disqualifies her as President and Commander in Chief.
From Robert Gates, former defense secretary, offers harsh critique of Obama’s leadership in ‘Duty’, by Bob Woodward, in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/robert-gates-former-defense-secretary-offers-harsh-critique-of-obamas-leadership-in-duty/2014/01/07/6a6915b2-77cb-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_story.html?hpid=z1
Fix: Bush for the most
apartpart carried forward Clinton’s Iraq and counter-terror law and policy.Eric, I don’t buy it.
I am not sure what the point is of the article you cite really is. .
Clinton fooled around on the fringes of terrorism. He took no meaningful action; so, how was his policy in any way similar to Bush’s? I guess the article you cite was written for people who were not around. Maybe for people who don’t know that there was an attempt to bring down the World Trade Center in ’93, in an attack was as egregious as the attack that triggered Bush; just not as successful. Or don’t know that Sudan offered Bin Laden to Clinton, who refused. Clinton’s policy was to lob a few cruise missiles here and there. He did the silly UN mandated no-fly zone over Iraq–year after year. Was that a policy?
I am not sure what Reagan’s policy was. He gets credit for defeating the Soviet Union by outspending them; that’s good. But, he gets a free pass on sending Marines into Beirut with no defined mission; then backing out after the disaster. Our Embassy in Bierut was destroyed. (He did order a hasty, ill-conceived air strike against– nothing, which the on-scene Navy Commander objected to; and which got a friend of mine shot down. He survived.) Then, he invaded Grenada. An honest assessment might conclude that his actions gave terrorists the impression that U.S. interests could be attacked with near impunity.
Bush responded very strongly to terrorism; and established a doctrine and policy that would stand us in good stead if it had not been dismantled by his feckless successor.
Oldflyer: “Clinton fooled around on the fringes of terrorism. He took no meaningful action; so, how was his policy in any way similar to Bush’s?”
I’m differentiating between official policy and real action, although action defines an aspect of policy, too. Clinton crafted resolute policy but took weak action. After 9/11, Bush matched resolute action to resolute policy.
A significant component of Clinton setting the official Iraq and counter-terror policies is in so doing, he set in the minds of the Washington decision-makers the underlying premises of the US positions on Saddam and terrorists.
The odd man out before 9/11 was neither the underlying premises nor the policies about the dangers, but rather America’s irresolute, weak action towards the dangers.
There is a difference between the leadership of the 2 men. Bush is clearly more principled than Clinton, who is clearly more political. Bush seems to be a fundamentally decent and responsible – moral – man in a way that Clinton is not.
However, I believe the main factor in the difference between Clinton and Bush’s actions before and after 9/11 is not the different character of their leadership, but rather 9/11 itself. Before 9/11 – granted it happened only 8 months into his presidency – Bush’s Iraq and counter-terror actions were within the scope of action he inherited from Clinton, while Clinton’s actions butted up against a hard line. That line was erased by 9/11. In other words, 9/11 changed the Overton window for national security.
When I wrote my term paper on the bridge between Clinton and Bush on regime change in Iraq, I discovered that it was a strong bridge. Clinton did everything but. Clinton set up the law, policy, including threat classification for Saddam, and precedent for regime change, including active CIA-style regime change action. Clinton’s speech announcing Operation Desert Fox went beyond a narrow explanation of reaction to UNSCOM’s failure and set down a clear justification for regime change. Clinton only stopped short of resolute action to match his resolute policy. The ODF 4-day bombing campaign was ineffective and shrugged off by Saddam, but in terms of policy, the bombing campaign cleared the penultimate military enforcement step to ground invasion.
Then 9/11 happened and Bush applied resolute action to Clinton’s resolute policy.
Oldflyer: “Bush responded very strongly to terrorism; and established a doctrine and policy that would stand us in good stead if it had not been dismantled by his feckless successor.”
Agreed.