SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: kumar who wrote (18412)12/2/2003 7:37:26 PM
From: John Carragher  Respond to of 793955
 
i channel surf also but not the abc, cbs , nbc evening news.



To: kumar who wrote (18412)12/2/2003 10:06:46 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793955
 
Hillary's Convenient Critique
Is her anti-Bush Iraq sniping principled or positioning?
By Mickey Kaus
Updated Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2003, at 4:55 PM PT

Hillary's convenient semi-neocon critique: Senator Clinton has fleshed out her criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq policy. She attacks the "artificial deadline" of a June 30 transfer of power as unrealistic, dictated by President Bush's "political calendar." She would increase the number of American troops, invite help from allies, and assume the transition to sovereignty will take longer. It seems "hard to imagine" that by "next summer, Iraq will be sovereign," she told reporters. "We have to be prepared for a much longer run to accomplish our goals than we've been discussing." Bush's deadline risks "raising false expectations."

This is a serious critique. It may even be right, although there are obvious counterarguments (e.g. the deadline is there not just to give Bush a pre-election accomplishment--he wouldn't need to broadcast the deadline in advance if that was the purpose--but to reassure potentially resentful Iraqis, and Americans, that we are indeed going to end our occupation fairly soon. And it's not a deadline for American troop withdrawal. We'd be staying on as "guests").

But does Hillary really mean her critique?

There are two possibilities:

1) She's being sincere and principled. She voted for the war, and now wants to see it through. She's worried, along with many conservatives, that President Bush is going to Iraqify the war and prematurely retreat, a strategy that didn't work very well in Vietnam. Since she's sincere and principled, we can now expect her to criticize equally sharply any of the Democratic presidential candidates who plays on resentment of long troop deployments and reserve callups, or who calls for a rapid withdrawal. After all, she wants to deploy even more troops and reserves and stay longer. If Iraq's a "quagmire," she'd wade in (with allies) and drain it.

2) She's positioning. Her criticism gives her a way to blast Bush--"[C]learly what we're doing now is not an effective strategy"--while not seeming too soft or McGovern-like. Her left-wing acolytes will hear only the Bush-bashing, not the plans for escalation and a longer occupation, while her right-wing enemies won't have substantive grounds for attacking her in any upcoming campaign. If Iraq turns into a disaster, she can always say Bush went about it all wrong. If Iraq stabilizes, she can say it was in part because Bush belatedly heeded her warnings. It works for her!

The jury is out, but I tend to favor #2. ... Again, imagine that Bush had set no artificial deadline, had stuck to his plan to write a constitution before Iraqi elections, and had said "they'll be ready for sovereignty when they're ready." Do you think Hillary would have saluted and fallen into line? Or do you think she might have sniped about the adminstration's sloth, plodding inflexibility, and unwillingness to cede control? Why, after all, would Bush have "political" reasons for wanting to complete the handover by next June? In large part to blunt criticism from Democrats--including, just possibly, from Senator Clinton. ... 4:08 P.M.

Mickey Kaus, a Slate contributor, is author of The End of Equality.

Article URL: slate.msn.com