Mission Creep: War Profiteering Will Continue
Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:50:36 PM PDT
This is a link to an article from 2005:
http://www.villagevoice.com/...
This is the headline:
Mama Warbucks
Hillary Clinton brings home the dollars for New York's defense contractors
Senator Clinton said at the debate the other night that she will pull us out of Iraq as safely and responsibly as possible.
Then Senator Obama warned us about "mission creep," and worried that Senator Clinton might get carried away with it.
And then, today, a friend of mine sent me a link to this old article from 2005 about how awesome Senator Clinton has been for New York, by bringing us the honor and economic boon which comes from manufacturing weapons which make possible the massive killing of Iraqis.
When someone like Newt Gingrich commends a Democrat's service on the Senate Armed Services Committee, you know you're looking at a serious hawk. That hawk is Hillary Clinton, junior senator from blue-state New York and possible presidential candidate in 2008.
Gingrich, with an eye on his White House bid, told a group of newspaper editors last month that she'd make a formidable opponent. "Senator Clinton is very competent, very professional, very intelligently moving toward the center, very shrewdly and effectively serving on the Armed Services Committee," the GOP hard-liner said. Gringrich should know: He sits with her on a star-studded Pentagon advisory group.
When not fending off terrorists or bucking up the troops in Iraq, Clinton has been equally fierce about defending defense dollars for her home state.
Senator Obama wasn't some kind of prophet when he was speaking out against the war. There was nothing exceptional or out of left field about his predictions and conclusions. He was right. He was being logical, honest and coming to the same conclusions as many in the "liberal blogosphere" (or "guardians of truth in the corporatist age" as I like to call them). Maybe he was reading Knight Ridder. I can't honestly tell you why exactly it was Barack Obama was absolutely right about what Hillary Clinton was totally wrong about. But one thing I do suspect is that Obama didn't stand to politically profit from being a war-monger.
As with everything that Senator Clinton does nowadays, people tend to see her Armed Services work through the prism of presidential ambitions. The committee, as Democratic analysts point out, presents the perfect way for Clinton to burnish her bona fides to prepare for a 2008 bid. The seat gives her access to military information, a platform for speaking about national security issues, a rationale for visiting the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, a means to build up her own armor for attacks on her as a Northeast liberal.
"It's all part of creating a centrist Democrat image," says Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf. By virtue of her post, she has become well versed in the latest weapons and field tactics. She has backed every defense appropriation bill, including the latest $81 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee, Sheinkopf adds, "raises her national profile in a way that is out of sync with how her enemies would present her. It's important for her career."
I think we should pay heed to Obama's warning about mission creep. I think mission creep would be inevitable with a new President Clinton. But on the plus-side, perhaps everybody all across America could get a job making weapons for a war big enough to bring about an awesome economic recovery. And the troops would definitely be looked after:
Clinton's advisers take issue with the idea that the senator got on Armed Services simply to boost her résumé. They say Clinton's interest in military and defense matters dates back to her days in the White House, when she pushed for an investigation into why thousands of Persian Gulf war veterans returned with various illnesses. With New York not getting its per capita share of anti-terrorism funding, they argue, the state needs someone where Clinton is.
On the face of it, Clinton has tackled her duties with a sincerity suggesting she's in it for more than opportunity's sake. "It's not transparently obvious that what she's doing is paving the way for a presidential run," says Michael O'Hanlon, of the Brookings Institute, who tracks the committee's work.
O'Hanlon thinks Clinton has stood out, especially as a rookie member. He cites her thoughtful critique of President Bush's Iraq policy—her concern about the extended use of Guard and Reserve members, about the lack of body armor, about the exit strategy. He also cites her support for New York's military families generally—pushing for better pay and improved health benefits for the Guard and Reserve. She has also visited all 13 military installations across the state at least once, some two and three times.
"She's doing a fantastic job," O'Hanlon says, "and I'm not in any way a Hillary fan."
Permalink | 6 comments