Hillary is a wolf in dragon’s clothing. The reason she can’t spit out the rebuttal of her vote for the Authorization to Use Military Force against Iraq is because she still thinks it is a good idea, just like her colleague, Joe Lieberman. She wordsmiths her way around the issue by saying things like "If we knew then what we know now, then there wouldn’t have been a vote." I’m paraphrasing her, of course, but this is typical of the way she answers the question. She supports Bush’s authorization to use military force in Iraq because if she didn’t, in my opinion, she would just say so.
In January 2007 issue of the Blueprint Magazine, the Democratic Leadership Council’s quarterly, I read an article by Jeremy Rosner called "A New Vision for Security". In it, he touted the November election results as a turning point for voters away from the stereotyping of Democrats as defeatists to forward looking leaders, and rightly so. I bring this article to light because there are some subtleties embedded within the flow of the narrative and natural to the authors’ political stance that exemplifies the entire DLC that Hillary Clinton is leading. I want to show two examples. Mr Rosner writes:
Forward-looking agenda. Now Democrats must show they can chart a new course. To be sure, the president, not the Congress, will retain the dominant role in shaping American foreign policy. Even so, a Democratic Congress can help guide American policy away from a deepening morass in Iraq and toward real victory in Afghanistan, toward more effective homeland security, toward more effective diplomacy in dangerous hot spots like Iran and North Korea, and toward more progressive policies on global climate change and a range of transnational challenges
Versus:
Forward-looking agenda. Now Democrats must grab the bull by the horns. To be sure, if there ever was an impeachable President in the history of the United States, it is this one. The Founding Fathers intended Impeachment to be used, not scoffed. Investigations into Bush and Cheney’s black operations over the last six years must begin immediately. A Democratic Congress can change the entire horizon of American policy from the brink of military collapse, toward a rapid withdrawal from an illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq, and toward a new commitment to peace with Iran. This Congress must make a new commitment to the Kyoto Treaty and real progress on global warming.
Why does Iran have to be a "dangerous hot spot" as Mr. Rosner accuses? That phrase strengthens the right-wing framing of the "axis of evil" and suggests military action against Iran supporting the President’s agenda. Iran has every right to enrich uranium for domestic use. We signed the treaty giving them that right. Look it up.
Notice he said "climate change" instead of global warming. Where have you heard that before? Fox News? George Bush?
Mr. Rosner continues:
Second, Democrats will need to show that they have a forward-looking national security agenda and can wage a more effective fight against terror. The party seems well on the way toward achieving that goal. Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) squelched talk of Iraq-related impeachment proceedings, and helped orchestrate a "Real Security" plan that pledged House Democrats to such measures as implementing all of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, locking down dangerous nuclear and chemical materials in the former Soviet states, and strengthening the overstretched U.S. military. Obviously, the biggest test will come on Iraq. Democrats need to show they can provide a new direction in Iraq without forcing a hasty withdrawal or unconscionably surrendering the Iraqi people to even broader civil strife and slaughter.
There is no such thing as "an effective fight against terror". You can’t fight an emotion. Terrorism is a military tactic used to instill fear. When we repeat Republican phrases like "war on terror", we strengthen their framing of the issue. The truth is that Iraq is an occupation, not a war. The more we strengthen their framing of issues, the weaker our issues become. Iraq is certainly not central to a fight against terrorism considering that global acts of terrorism have continued every year since our invasion. Evidence of that is the bomb attack in Thailand today, March 14, 2007 where nine people were killed on a bus. Mr. Rosner strengthens the Republican framing by talking of the "war on terror" and repeating their claim that the Democratic Party should not force a hasty withdrawal form Iraq.
The Democratic Leadership Council stands on the side of Progressive Globalists and Hillary Clinton stands with them. Other Progressive Globalists include Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.
When Hillary, a DLC leader speaks, she talks of popular progressive issues, not of populist issues, and in these days and times there is a distinction. She calls global warming "climate change". She speaks of developing high mileage vehicles, but she doesn’t mention CAFE standards to reduce oil consumption. Her plan to make higher education more accessible addresses giving money to states based on graduation rates, combining all the "confusing" tax breaks into one $3000 credit, and a work/study program that would allow a student to go "practically free". She mentions nothing of curbing the runaway costs of tuition. She just blames Republicans for cutting student assistance. Do you see the difference between addressing the popular progressive issues and addressing what the population actually wants?
She gets much applause addressing these issues because these, and many others, are at the heart of every Democrat. But I warn you, don’t be fooled by this dragon lady. Underneath her fire-breathing persona lies something else entirely, something I don’t like.