The end of Hillary as security hawk

The end of Hillary as security hawk


Excerpt:

This week's vote in Congress to fund the Iraq war without timetables or withdrawal dates is being portrayed as a "defeat" for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. No doubt it is in the short-term and partisan Beltway frame of reference, but in the larger sense it is a victory for American interests and the Framers of our Constitutional order.

Hamilton and Madison knew what they were doing when they gave the bulk of the war powers to the President, and it's hard to imagine a more telling vindication of their wisdom than this year's Iraq debate. Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid claim to oppose the war and want it to end, yet they refused to use their power of the purse to end it. Instead, they tried every legislative gimmick imaginable to hamstring President Bush's war strategy without actually having to take responsibility for cutting off funds.

....


The vote marks the end of Mrs. Clinton's post-9/11 positioning as a national security hawk. Her 2002 speech supporting war in Iraq was among the most forceful in the Senate, and for a while she admirably stuck with that conviction. But as the antiwar furies have built in her party, she has bent with them and now says and does whatever it takes to deny Mr. Obama or John Edwards any running room to her left. Perhaps this will win her the Democratic nomination, but it will complicate her Presidency if she ever does make it to the Oval Office.

....

Whatever his mistakes as a war leader, Mr. Bush at least hasn't betrayed our allies or troops in the field for the sake of reviving his poll numbers. He was also right to defend the war powers of the Presidency against Congressional micromanagement. His obligation now is to do whatever it takes to succeed in Iraq so that the men and women fighting this war will not sacrifice in vain.