Hypocrisy in IRAQ
Jo
Published on FoxNews.com on May 17, 2007.
Printer-Friendly Version
On Wednesday, May 24th, we learned the meaning of the word
"hypocrisy." The Senate voted 80-14 to approve funding for the next
two months in Iraq without any restrictions or mandated withdrawal of
troops. Thirty-eight Democrats voted to fund our troops, including
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). But three of the four
Democrats who are running for president -- Hillary Clinton (D-NY),
Barack Obama (D-Ill), and Chris Dodd (D-CT) -- all voted with eleven
other Senators to deny funding to the war.
If they weren't running for president, perhaps Barack Obama and
Chris Dodd, who have long been in opposition to the war, would have
voted against funding anyway. But would Hillary Clinton have voted
with the minority to cut off funds? Not on your life! Only Joe Biden
(D-Del) had the integrity to vote the way he would normally have voted
were he not a candidate and backed the appropriations bill.
The hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton in voting against funding is
stunning. In 2002, she voted for the war. When we found no weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq, she reaffirmed her backing for the war.
Dozens of times she has stated and restated that she would never agree
to a timetable for withdrawal and that she would never vote to cut off
funding while we had troops in harm's way. Now she has gone back on
all her nevers and cast precisely the vote she said she would never
cast.
As recently as January 17th , Hillary said "I'm not going to cut
American troops' funding right now - they're in harm's way." She went
onto say "I am not for imposing a date - certain withdrawal date."
In the past ten days she has not only voted for a withdrawal date but
has also voted to cut off funding for the troops if no such date is
included in the legislation.
What has changed? The polls. Surveys show Democrats supporting a
funding cutoff and a date certain for withdrawal by 3:1. With John
Edwards running to Hillary's left, using her timidity in opposing the
war as the raison d'etre of his candidacy, Hillary dared not vote her
conscience or conform to her previous positions on the war. She had
to back the left to prove her bona fides for the primaries.
John Edwards, in the meantime, dismissed talk of the "war on terror"
as a slogan for a "bumper sticker." In doing so, he inadvertently
illustrated the fundamental difference between the parties on the
terrorist issue. To Republicans, it is a real war, even more so than
World War I or Korea or Vietnam. In this war on terror, w e were
attacked by surprise just as happened at Pearl Harbor. To
Republicans, December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001 are parallel
dates.
But to Democrats of the John Edwards ilk, the war on terror is more
akin to the war on poverty or the war on drugs, a slogan meant to
emphasize how seriously we take the policy commitment. But he takes
great pains to distinguish it from a real war by consigning it to the
realm of the bumper sticker. At least one Democrat said what he
really believed.
But pragmatically, Hillary's vote probably assures that she will win
the nomination. It certainly cuts the ground out from under John
Edwards and leaves her in a two-way race for the nomination with
Obama. But by taking the ultimate step of voting to cut off funding,
Hillary is hugging the left rail on the Iraq issue and assuring that
nobody can outflank her.
On May 24th, we saw Hillary at her opportunistic worst. But we better
get used to it.