One O’Hanlon Does Not Make a Hawk

Michael Goldfarb is mightily impressed by Tin Lady Clinton’s taking on Michael O’Hanlon, co-author of a pro-surge op-ed, as a foreign policy advisor. That confirms, he says, that she “has staked out a nuanced position on the surge” and “is no friend of the antiwar left”. In fact, “it isn’t at all clear that the senator’s position on the war is all that different from the president’s”.

Okay, if “nuanced” is a synonym for “self-contradictory”, there is something to that analysis. The large, glaring fact is that Senator Clinton has given no support to the war effort, has criticized the Iraqi campaign incessantly, declares that her answer to Islamofascism will be “Diplomacy is back!” and asserted that to believe General Petraeus’ report on the situation in Iraq requires “willing suspension of disbelief”. She has never come within a country mile of endorsing the Pollack-O’Hanlon view that “there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008”.

The President’s position on the war is that we are faced with an implacable and immoral enemy and have no good alternative to victory. The Tin Lady’s is that this brouhaha a long ways off is a domestic political problem to be managed and triangulated. Her addition of a single moderate hawk to her long list of “advisors” (and how often do you suppose they give actual advice to the candidate?) is evidence that the triangulation is in process. If she were a genuine convert to the Bush doctrine, she would join Joe Lieberman in berating the follies of her fellow Democrats.

Comments

[peter Hodges]

"A bit rich that a guy who writes, "The Bush Crowd's position on the war is that it's a good opportunity to cash in big time" complains about ad hominem arguments."

Exactly. You stoop (?) to name calling. I assert that Bush & Co. are war profiteers. Former CEO of Haliburton initiating a war in Iraq? That's not ad hominem, that's a fact.

"How seriously can one argue with people who think that the next President will take over before 2008?"

I didn't say that. I said:

"Anyone taking over the Presidency after the eight year Bush Debacle needs to keep her options open."

The operative word being "after".

Are you so used to misrepresenting your opponents that you can't even read anymore?

"Or who characterize 9/11 as merely "destroying a pair of skyscrapers"?"

Right, I left out the Pentagon strike.

But, seriously, So What?

If the Bush Crowd had been doing their job before 9/11 they might have responded to the dozens of warnings of imminent attack by placing our armed forces on alert. In fact, however, they did nothing.

Then, when the attack finally came, they exaggerated its effect for their own purposes.

Which mostly had to do with war profiteering.

You, meanwhile, lather on about Islamo-fascists when the real fascists go unrestrained.

All I ask is, what have these so-called "threats" to our nation actually managed to do?

The answer is, when you get right down to it, not much.

Real estate prices in lower Manhattan ROSE after 9/11. And they continue to rise. There is more new construction on this island than at any time in its history. While you continue to freak out about the Islamo-Boogeyman, New York continues to be the destination of choice for anyone visiting or moving to the US.

And, by the way, I live two blocks from the World Trade Crater; I work directly above the pit; I was in my apartment when #7 came down and I had friends who died that day, so don't presume to lecture me about the cost of that event.

But what have we really done to apprehend the perpetrators of that disaster?

Not much.

To date, we have done infinitely more harm to ourselves than any enemy could ever do.

And so I ask you again, where is Osama and why haven't we apprended him?

pbh

[Tom Veal]

A bit rich that a guy who writes, "The Bush Crowd's position on the war is that it's a good opportunity to cash in big time" complains about ad hominem arguments.

As for the substance of Mr. Hodges's initial screed, I'd respond to it if it existed. How seriously can one argue with people who think that the next President will take over before 2008? Or who characterize 9/11 as merely "destroying a pair of skyscrapers"?

[Peter Hodges]

"Naturally the first thought that occurred to a run-of-the-mill leftist"

What occurs to this leftist is that once again you have ignored the issues raised in your typical preference for ad hominem.

pbh

[Tom Veal]

In case any one is wondering about Mr. Hodges' statement that I am blocking his comments: A couple of weeks ago, in response to a deluge of over 100 pornographic spam comments, I turned comment moderation on. Thus "Post a comment" is now followed by the cavet, "Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them." Naturally the first thought that occurred to a run-of-the-mill leftist when one minute passed without his comment's being approved was that I didn't want to world to see it, not that I might be away from my computer for a few hours on a Sunday afternoon. Perhaps this incident has a moral.

[Peter Hodges]

I see that you are blocking my response.

Typical.

pbh

[Peter Hodges]

"She has never come within a country mile of endorsing the Pollack-O’Hanlon view that “there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008”."

Nor should she. Anyone taking over the Presidency after the eight year Bush Debacle needs to keep her options open. That said, it hardly seems likely that immediate disengagement is highly probable, despite the desires of 70% of the country.

"The President’s position on the war is that we are faced with an implacable and immoral enemy and have no good alternative to victory."

The Bush Crowd's position on the war is that it's a good opportunity to cash in big time.

There is no other rationale for their conduct.

"The Tin Lady’s is that this brouhaha a long ways off is a domestic political problem to be managed and triangulated."

Well, really, other than destroying a pair of skyscrapers, what have those islamo-knuckleheadz actually accomplished on their own?

And BY THE WAY, why is Osama still at large?

pbh