Exclusive: Presidential Candidates ’08: National Security is Worth More Than Posturing
Walter Anderson


Author: Walter Anderson

Date Published: 2007-01-10



FSM readers will be mighty curious to know what the presidential candidates think about national security and how they plan to enact policy that will protect us both here and abroad.  FSM Contributing Editor Walter Anderson reveals some thoughts of his own to begin this all important process of evaluating how each candidate stands on the most important issue of our time.

Presidential Candidates ’08: National Security is Worth More Than Posturing

 

In the December 25, 2006, issue of Newsweek Magazine, Jonathan Alter says:  “Hillary's now-consistent hair and hemline won't be issues; her muscular national-security approach and her famous husband will”. While Obama as an Illinois state senator opposed the Iraq invasion in 2002 as a "dumb war," she voted in favor of the resolution giving President Bush the authority he sought. Unlike John Edwards and Sen. Chris Dodd, she has not said her vote was a mistake.  Instead, Hillary has clung to a nuanced view that she was voting to get the United Nations inspectors back into Iraq.  "Like it or not, I guarantee you that's her heartfelt position," says former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke, a Hillary supporter.  “Democratic primary voters won't like it, an advantage for Obama (and for Wesley Clark, the only other candidate who opposed the war).  When you lack experience, it helps to have been right on the biggest issue of the day.”

Please remember the underlined portions of the above quoted passage as you read the balance of this column, especially the first 5 word underlined statement.  I will give you some background and current information on Senator Hillary Clinton and her feeling toward the military and national security that may, in light of that statement, surprise you.

When Hillary Clinton was in college and even afterward when she became a lawyer, she like her husband, former President Bill Clinton, openly protested against the Vietnam War.  She protested while in Boston, and he protested while in England where he’d fled to escape U.S. military service.  She at that time had even gone so far as to associate with the Communist movement in the United States by working with a former lawyer for the Communist Party and other radical leftists.  It was because of anti-war activists like Bill and Hillary that we lost the war in Vietnam.

Jump ahead to 1993 in Somalia.  Bill Clinton was President and sent troops on a mission to kidnap an Al-Qaeda warlord in Mogadishu. The troops were understaffed and ill equipped. The result was 18 dead and 80 wounded Americans and no warlord.  On top of that we did not strike back when attacked, demonstrating to Osama Bin Laden that we could be pushed without retaliation.

December 2003, Hillary Clinton, now a U.S. Senator blasts the Bush administration for sending our troops into battle without proper support and sub-standard equipment. She must have forgotten where that lack of proper support and substandard equipment came from.  Her husband, during his term as President, cut the defense budget in half and took up where former President Jimmy Carter left off in slashing much-needed, even vital, military programs with their budget cuts.  Sadly for American citizens, the liberal Clinton agenda virtually destroyed every program that President Reagan instituted.

During the Clinton administration there were numerous enemy attacks against American citizens and never was there a strong retaliation.  More than likely the problem was met with diplomacy, just as Jimmy Carter would have done.  Avoid any confrontation, don’t ruffle any feathers or you may have to fight.  America as a world power was being destroyed from within.  While the military was being dangerously cut back, Bill Clinton also ordered the agencies that provided intelligence services to cut back in personnel and activities.  We had no spies in the field to determine what our enemies were doing which is, of course, the very problem we have now inherited in our fight against radical Islam where we are many years behind where we need to be.

You may ask why I included the brief but telling background on the detrimental actions the Clinton Administration took, thereby gravely harming our national security system.  I did because Bill and Hillary are a team.  Remember when she said “WE are the President”; and if you recall, Alter’s column in Newsweek stated Bill Clinton IS an issue. There is nothing to show that the liberal ideals that Hillary possesses will change, because she does change her story on any issue, including national security and the War as needed.  She probably voted for the War because the mood of the country at that time was…go!  The Clintons have always been known to lead by following the public’s fancy, not by following leadership principles.  She is no different from most spineless politicians; she goes along with her Party or tells people what they want to hear and/or couches an answer to a question so as to not really have given an answer.  It is unthinkable that she, or her husband or countless other politicians, could ever show the moral courage of a George W. Bush.

Meredith Vieira, host of the Today Show, interviewed Sen. Clinton, Dec. 18, 2006 on her show. Clinton said she would not support a short-term increase in troops for Iraq unless it was part of a comprehensive plan to stabilize the country (which is exactly how the current President thinks).  Clinton was also asked about her 2002 agreement to give the president the authority for war in Iraq.  She said, “Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn’t have been a vote,” she also added, “I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way.”  Brave, huh?

It seems that either the Newsweek article mentioned in the first paragraph was written before Sen. Clinton’s appearance on the Dec.18th Today Show or the author of the article was unaware of the show’s content.  My point is that Sen. Clinton does change her stories and quickly; so quickly that sometimes her posturing catches up with her with an inadvertent error like this.  Hillary does get the largest press coverage of any candidate (Obama is approaching that also) and therefore the opportunity is greater.

In contrast if you look at the two Republican challengers most seriously thought to have a chance of winning the Republican nomination, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rudy Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York, their stand on national security and the War in Iraq has been constant.

Sen. McCain is all for sending more troops to Iraq and has spoken to that for quite some time.  He is a war hero and did vote in agreement to authorize President Bush to engage Iraq and never stated that he would rescind that vote if he could.  He has even gone so far as to state the provisions of the Iraq Study Group, recently released, would be a blueprint for the U.S. to lose the war!  Now this IS a brave position.

Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of New York is in all probability the most popular of the Republican possible candidates in regards to the national security issue.  His unwavering stance on the Iraq War and support for President Bush may hurt him, but that stance is all part of his determination and the leadership capabilities he exhibited during the aftermath of 9/11.  People remember and respect that; the McCain/Giuliani kind of leadership is what our nation desperately needs.  

All of the candidates I’ve mentioned on both sides have other issues that may or may not help to ingratiate them with the voters; there will be more discussion of these in the future.  In these pages today, I have tried only to illuminate the basic national security issues that involve our military and our intelligence: two vitally important bulwarks America needs to survive the 21st Century, and two areas where the We-Presidency of the Clintons went a long way towards destroying.   


FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Walter Anderson is a grassroots political activist, researcher, and commentator who focuses on family issues and politics.

 

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

 

If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to Miramx1@aol.com.

 

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of Family Security Matters.

 

Click here to support Family Security Matters