Yes, you missed a lot. “How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk,” by Mark Lander, New York Times Magazine gives some history to it. It’s not a “smear,” by the way; many of her allies and admirers readily acknowledge it.
If you really want to document that I’ve missed a lot of evidence that Clinton is a hawk–as I put it in my post:
–then you are going to have to provide support other than this article.
The author packs in special pleading and militaristic metaphors aplenty (“deciding which wire to snip” and “like a grunt at boot camp” are particular highlights). He offers lots of mind-reading on, well, Clinton’s mind (“the sinewy worldview she has held since childhood,” “her reflexive support” of generals, etc.).
But other than that, he can offer only instances of Clinton supporting the recommendations of others (“Clinton strongly seconded it;” “she would side with Gates;” “Hillary was adamant in her support of what Stan asked for,” etc.). Other than that, all he has is “evidence” that Clinton gets along with some generals (horrors!) and that she has been observed to be interested in fully understanding overseas situations (“She was full of questions;” “asking detailed questions;” and so on. Again: horrors!)
When people who oppose overseas military adventures castigate a politician for being a “hawk,” they mean that they believe the politician will send American troops into harm’s way for reasons having little to do with actual national security: to secure and promote the financial interests of corporations (Exxon et al); to assuage wounded pride (a la W revenging himself on Saddam on behalf of his father); to beef up the profits of the “defense” industry. I share the determination to prevent these sorts of undertakings. I find them irresponsible in the extreme.
But your linked article provides no evidence that Hillary Clinton is prone to making such reckless decisions, or even likely to make rash statements that could lead to nasty consequences (such as Trump’s repeated calls to ban all Muslims from entering the USA). On the contrary, and possibly despite the hopes of the author, the article reveals a thoughtful candidate who is notably well-informed on the international situation, and willing to listen to counsel.
If you want to make the case that “hawk” is a reasonable label for Clinton, you will have to find some argument more cogent than that contained in the Landler article.
That’s some lame handwaving, dude. “Oh she wasn’t hawkish, she just strongly sided with all the hawks”. I mean really, who could swallow that?
That is not generally what it means, in my experience. It means someone who is very ready, perhaps eager from a certain point of view, to reach for military action as a solution. The reasons may be good, bad, mixed, or unclear. The point of the concept, “hawk” versus “dove,” is the person’s temperament and general attitude about the use of military force; as a characterization of a person, it is explicitly not about the merits of particular situations.
Hillary Clinton has had this reputation around government and journalistic circles, to my knowledge, since her time in the Senate, and certainly Secretary. And again, not only with opponents of military action. This reflection following on the Landler piece calls Clinton’s hawk rep a “defining piece of conventional wisdom.” Open to discussion perhaps, but clearly not a matter of simple partisan sniping.
In any case, I’m not interested in arguing about it; I thought you wanted help.
I find it hilarious that conservatives call Hillary out as a hawk.
What is that, anyway? “She’s taking away our job!”
Let’s just check something here. Republican votes (Yea-Nay) on the Iraq War Resolution:
House: 215-6, 2 not voting.
Senate: 48-1.
Guess that’s another reason not to vote Republican, according to the anti-Hillary rationale.
Which conservatives are calling her a hawk?
It is a reason that she can’t expect to mobilize the anti-war vote. And without that, there is not a viable Democratic coalition.
Trump doesn’t have to not be a hawk to win, just as Hillary doesn’t have to be anti-abortion to win. But since 2003, the Democrats have only ever won Congress with the support of anti-war voters. And that’s mostly true of the White House as well. (Obama didn’t solidly have the anti-war vote in 2012, but Romney’s LDS membership cut into the evangelical vote enough that he couldn’t keep the in the GOP tent).
She’s toast.
Compared to Trump, sure. Not compared to O’Malley and arguably not compared to Sanders. Her elected experience is 8 years, her elected experience plus appointed experience is 12. First Lady only sorta counts, because there are no responsibilities, she could just do whatever she felt like doing. And she would have had no clearances, nor sat in on the actual important stuff during that time. Arguably Bill’s Secret Service detail gained more relevant experience during those eight years.
I think that’s wrong, because half of anti-war voters are anti-war only if a Republican wages it. Democrats consistently get majority support for wars because Republicans approve and Democrats trust Democratic Presidents(mostly). Same goes for issues like surveillance. The same surveillance policies that were controversial under Bush became uncontroversial under Obama, at least for Democratic voters.
The anti-war vote is great for mobilizing Democrats to vote AGAINST Republican Presidents, but plays pretty much no role in assuring continued Democratic presence in the White House.
Clinton herself would probably find this suggestion pretty funny. Or are you forgetting the attempt to pass healthcare reform?
Almost certainly not true. As I understand it the President is the one who is the ultimate decider of security classification and clearance. He / She can decide on a case by case basis to share classified information with someone not cleared, because he / she is the President. I also believe the President and other top elected officials don’t actually go through the vetting process for clearances, you’re cleared because you need to know to do your job and the people have chosen you for that job.
Imagine a situation where Sanders won the Presidency and got denied Top Secret clearance because of his association with communists when he was young. Doesn’t work that way. Also I’m pretty sure the President can also just say “I want to discuss classified information with my wife, she’s a top adviser, get her a clearance” and it will happen.
Is this really all the opposition research there is? Where is the rancid corruption? No conservatives or Republicans here to really let it fly? I need to know.
She got to do something she felt passionate about, whereas her husband had to deal with things whether he liked them or not. Her first experience in a role with actual accountability was the Senate in 2000.
The Republicans denouncing her as a hawk (ie Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul etc.) are the same ones that opposed the Iraq War.
Not many Republicans are denouncing her as a hawk, just observing that she’s likely to agree with us on foreign policy issues more often than Democrats. She’s no dummy. She’s observed just as I have that Democratic voters don’t care about foreign policy when a Democrat is in office. They are content to let Democratic Presidents do pretty much whatever.
Sure, but that doesn’t explain the cognitive disconnect.
Unless the point is that Republicans’ votes don’t matter — they’re just assumed to be stupid.
The opponents to this “War on Terror” were right.
She is the worst kind of hawk. A chicken hawk.
Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State set the wheels in motion for dealing with Iran - an enemy - through diplomacy rather than force.
Based on the tremendous pushback from Republicans and Isreal (and a handful of Democrats who were against the treaty) this doesn’t happen with a Republican administration.
As a liberal, I am not fond of her Hawkish tendencies, however like her being cozier with Wall Street than I like, Republicans are as bad, if not worse, and she is way better on most other issues.
Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk
I’m on record in N.Y. Times opinion pieces in 2002 and 2003 of opposing the Invasion of Iraq. Trump first opposed it in late 2004 when it had already turned very bad.
Hillary was not alone: Most Democratic Senators believed the lies of Cheney-Bush. And did you see Johnny Ace’s synopsis of GOP votes for that foolish adventure?
It’s so amusing that the worst criticisms of Hillary (and Obama) are for the very sins that GOP politicians have committed, but in spades.
I think Hillary has health issues they are hiding. She seems to always be coughing and had a concussion last year.