Neocon Hillary

Commentary By Ron Beasley

As a follow up to Robert Greenwald's post below I'm going to re-publish a post I did at my old site, Middle Earth Journal, in March of 2006.  It should come as no surprise that Hillary Clinton is a hawk.

--------------

George W. Bush has certainly brought some unlikely characters together. I had just become used to seeing liberals and progressives on the Libertarian site LewRockwell.com but I was shocked to see that Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com had done the cover story for The American Conservative. In Hillary the Hawk Justin takes on not just Hillary but as an added benefit he cuts Marshall Wittmann to shreds as well. Let's start with more Bull than Moose, Marshall Wittmann.

When �the Moose� talks, Democrats listen�just like the Republicans did when he was flacking on their behalf. And the Democrat listening the closest to this Trotskyist-turned-neoconservative is Hillary Rodham Clinton, supposedly the leader of the party�s far-left wing. With his reputation for giving good quote, �the Moose,� a.k.a. Marshall Wittmann, formerly John McCain�s communications director and now a bigwig at the Democratic Leadership Council, is a legendary character in Washington circles. Once a member of the Trotskyist Spartacist League and an officer in the Young People�s Socialist League, Wittmann, like many admirers of the Red Army�s founder, moved rightward during the Reagan era and eventually wound up as the Christian Coalition�s political director. From this strategic vantage point he jumped on McCain�s Straight Talk Express�and then jumped ship entirely, falling into the arms of the DLC and landing, as always, on his feet. From Leon Trotsky to Ralph Reed to Hillary Clinton is a long, torturous road to follow, yet the chameleon-like Wittmann�who styles himself a Bull Moose progressive in the tradition of his hero, Theodore Roosevelt�has navigated it expertly.

After this none to flattering bio of "The Moose" he he does a perfect segue into his crucifiction of Hillary.

Eager to overcome her reputation as the leader of the party�s left wing, Hillary is �repositioning� herself, in modern parlance, as a �centrist,� i.e. a complete opportunist. She could have no better teacher than Wittmann, who from the pulpit of his �Moose-blog,� advises her to �seize the issue of Iranian nukes to draw a line in the sand.� While paying lip service to multilateralism, she should �make it clear that while force is the last resort, she would never take it off the table in dealing with the madmen mullahs and the psychotic leader of Iran.� This advice was proffered on the morning of Jan. 18. By that evening, when Hillary gave her scheduled speech at Princeton University�s Woodrow Wilson School, it had clearly been taken to heart: �I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran,� she averred. Accusing the White House of choosing to �downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations,� she disdained Team Bush for �standing on the sidelines.� �Let�s be clear about the threat we face now,� she thundered. �A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime�s pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not�must not�permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons.� To be sure, we need to cajole China and Russia into going along with diplomatic and economic sanctions, but �we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran�that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.� [....] Hillary�s newfound centrism isn�t completely insincere. Her bellicose interventionism has a history: it was Hillary, you�ll recall, who berated her husband for not bombing Belgrade soon enough and hard enough. As Gail Sheehy relates in Hillary�s Choice: Hillary expressed her views by phone to the President: �I urged him to bomb.� The Clintons argued the issue over the next few days. [The president expressed] what-ifs: What if bombing promoted more executions? What if it took apart the NATO alliance? Hillary responded, �You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?� The next day the President declared that force was necessary. Together with Madeleine Albright�who famously complained to Colin Powell, �What good is it having this superb military you�re always talking about if we can�t use it?��Hillary constituted the Amazonian wing of the Democratic Party during the years of her husband�s presidency. Her effort to outflank the Republicans on the right when it comes to the Iran issue is a logical extension of her natural bellicosity.

There is a lot more and it's worth read so go check it out.

-----------

Little has changed in the last five years with Hillary but at least Marshall Wittmann seems to have disappeared.