The New York Times reported that during August of 2004, Hillary Clinton and John McCain participated in a "vodka-drinking contest" while traveling together on a congressional junket to Estonia.
The after-dinner drinks went so well — memories are a bit hazy on who drank how much — that Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, later told people how unexpectedly engaging he found Mrs. Clinton to be. "One of the guys" was the way he described Mrs. Clinton, a New York Democrat, to some Republican colleagues.
While I understand Clinton and McCain's desire to drown themselves in alcohol -- both having voted to wage a war in Iraq that was going horribly awry -- their Estonian bender offers a revealing look at the choice of leadership Americans may face if these Baltic booze buddies win the nominations of their parties.
FOLLOW ME...
The Clinton/McCain closeness extends beyond the Smirnoff bottle to policy. Both sit on the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee, where they often see eye-to-eye on military matters and on Iraq...
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain went on to develop an amiable if professionally calculated relationship. They took more official trips together, including to Iraq. They worked together on the Senate Armed Services Committee and on the issue of global warming. They made a joint appearance last year on "Meet the Press," interacting so congenially that the moderator, Tim Russert, joked about their forming a "fusion ticket."
If and how much their views on the Iraq War have diverged since they both voted to invade is up for debate. McCain recently stated his desire to see an open-ended American occupation of that country, saying that a 100-year presence of American troops in Iraq would be "fine with me." I assume he wasn't drunk on Vodka at the time...
The question I have is whether his drinking buddy Hillary disagrees with this 100-year commitment.
Frankly, Hillary's positions about taking our troops out of Iraq and ending the war have wobbled all over the place, like some drunk walking a straight line after being pulled over by the cops. Here she is in December 2003:
"Now that we’re [in Iraq], we have no choice. We own this issue. There is no doubt that we’re going to be there for years," and "Whether you agreed or not that we should be in Iraq, failure is not an option."
Now she lurches over here in November 2005:
"I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately . . . We must set reasonable goals to finish what we started and successfully turn over Iraqi security to Iraqis."
Now, she teeters to this position in June 2006
"...when they rushed to war, when they refused to let the U.N. inspectors conduct and complete their mission, when they committed strategic blunder after blunder, have undermined America’s leadership in the world and have put at risk the long-term war against terrorism . . . But I have to just say it—I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment, which I think does not put enough pressure on the new Iraqi government, nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain."
With all of this reckless swerving on the road home from Baghdad, I went to Hillary's web site for a straight answer, and found her position on Iraq to be as fuzzy as her memories of that drunken Estonian night with John McCain. Here is her plan (Emphasis mine)...
Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary's First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.
Nowhere Hillary's this hazy position statement do I see inconsistency with McCain's idea of basing American troops in Iraq for the next century. They both seem to me to be drunk with the dreams of a globalist American Empire.
Today (and this seems ever subject to change) Hillary talks about a "start" to ending our engagement in Iraq's "civil war," which could mean redeploying our forces to permanent military bases in that country for 100 years. While she states a desire for a "plan" to bring our troops home and to "start" this, nowhere does she state when all our combat troops may be out...so it could be 100 years.
Certainly, the companies who are profiting the most from an extended American occupation of Iraq have supported Hillary Clinton's presidential bid more than that of any other candidate. Like a hungover John McCain, they think she's "one of the guys." Do they know something we don't know? From a Huffington Post analysis...
The defense industry this year abandoned its decade-long commitment to the Republican Party, funneling the lion share of its contributions to Democratic presidential candidates, especially to Hillary Clinton who far out-paced all her competitors.
An examination of contributions of $500 or more, using the Huffington Post's Fundrace website, shows that employees of the top five arms makers - Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics -- gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to Republicans.
Senator Clinton took in $52,600, more than half of the total going to all Democrats, and a figure equaling 60 percent of the sum going to the entire GOP field. Her closest competitor for defense industry money is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R.), who raised $32,000.
My central question is this: Why in the world would the military industrial complex fund the presidential campaign of somebody who planned to kill their cash cow, the war? Could it be that they understand that Hillary is selling a vague enough notion to the public that if elected she will not be bound to any plan of real withdrawal? Do they understand that Hillary is committed to an American expansion of power that differs little from the Bush doctrine or McCain's power-drunken dream to reign over Mesopotamia for the next century?
Tomorrow, we'll vote across this country. Many of us are looking for real leadership on Iraq and someone who can draw a believable contrast with John McCain's 100-year plan for Iraq. Or, to quote Sen. Barack Obama on this issue...
"I think it is important for us to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. And so I have said very clearly I will end this war. We will not have a permanent occupation and we will not have permanent bases in Iraq. (Applause.) When John McCain suggests that we might be there a hundred years, that I think indicates a profound lack of understanding that we've got a whole host of global threats out there. [...]
It was part of the reason that I think it was such a profound strategic error for us to go into this war in the first place and that's one of the reasons why I think I will the Democrat who will be most effective in going up against a John McCain -- or any other Republican, because they all want basically a continuation of George Bush's policies -- because I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war, thought it was a bad idea. I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place. That's the kind of leadership I intend to provide as president of the United States.
Let's not pick McCain's vodka-contest partner as our presidential nominee, fellow Democrats. Let's put forth a clear-eyed challenge to militaristic excess, not a watered down version of Bush/McCain. We need real change.
Here's Obama's position on getting out of the Iraq War. One thing you will notice is specificity.
Here's how to find out where you should vote tomorrow.