It's in Hillary's interest to ensure Bush's re-election
WILLIAM SAFIRE
THE NEW YORK TIMES
SENATOR Hillary Clinton, sweeping through the Sunday morning talk shows, startled her conservative detractors by emerging as a congenital hawk.
She does not go along with the notion that the Iraqi dictator posed no danger to the United States: 'I think that Saddam Hussein was certainly a potential threat' who 'was seeking weapons of mass destruction, whether or not he actually had them'.
When Tim Russert on Meet the Press gave her the opening to say she had been misled when she voted for the Senate resolution authorising war, Senator Clinton countered with a hard line: 'There was certainly adequate intelligence without it being gilded and exaggerated by the administration to raise questions about chemical and biological programmes and a continuing effort to obtain nuclear power.'
On forgotten Afghanistan, like many hawks, she was critical of the failure of European nations 'to fulfil the commitment that Nato made to Afghanistan. I don't think we have enough American troops and we certainly don't have the promised Nato troops'.
Would she support an increase of US troops in Iraq? Senator Clinton associated herself with the views of Republican Senator John McCain, who disagrees with President George W. Bush and the generals who say they have adequate strength there.
She cited Mr McCain's conviction that 'we need more troops, and we need a different mix of troops'.
And she directed a puissant message to what some of us consider the told-you-so doves who refuse to deal with today's geopolitical reality: 'Whether you agreed or not that we should be in Iraq, failure is not an option.'
Her range of expressed opinions urging us to 'stay the course' can only be characterised as tough-minded.
Of course, to the relief of Democratic partisans, she is dutifully critical. Like some neo-conservatives, she zaps the Bush administration for failing to plan adequately for the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam.
She proposes an 'Iraq Reconstruction Stability Authority' to build an international bridge to a greater United Nations role.
She also wants a close look at where US intelligence went wrong but takes a long view of the weak gathering and faulty analysis.
'This was intelligence going back into my husband's administration, going back to the first President Bush's administration.'
Consider the political meaning of all this. Here is a Democrat who has no regrets for voting for the resolution empowering the President to invade Iraq; who insists repeatedly and resolutely that 'failure is not an option'; who is ready to send in a substantially greater US force to avert any such policy failure - and yet whose latest poll ratings show her to be the favourite of 43 per cent of Democrats, three times the nomination support given front runner Howard Dean.
What cooks? One reason is that she stands aloof, hard to get, while all the others are slavering for support. Another could be that most Democrats don't yet realise she's a hardliner at heart.
A third is that her personal appeal to liberals (and apoplectic opposition from conservatives) overwhelms all Democrats' policy differences.
A fourth - and don't noise this around - could be that she speaks for the silent majority of centrist Democrats who yearn for the old Third Way without Mr Bill Clinton.
Now for a moment's mischief. If Mr Bush wins re-election, Senator Clinton would likely gain the Democratic nomination in 2008, and would run as the favourite against, say, Republicans Bill Frist or Jeb Bush.
But if Mr Dean wins nomination and the election next year, he would surely be the Democratic candidate again in 2008, and by the time 2012 rolls around, Senator Clinton would be a wizened, doddering Medicare recipient facing a tide of voter resentment after eight years of Mr Dean's executive-privilege arrogance in power (I exaggerate for effect).
Thus, envision this Republican whispering campaign soon directed to women, liberals and the legions of centrist, semi-hawkish, non-angry Democrats: If you want the Clinton Restoration to the White House in 2008, the only way to make it happen is to stay the course with Mr Bush next year.
A dirty trick? Undoubtedly. I disavow any connection to it.
straitstimes.asia1.com.sg |
