Hillary is notorious for the alleged rude treatment she inflicted on her Secret Service detail. An ex-agent even wrote a book about her antics.
But before she captures the prize that she and “First Laddy wannabe”covet, she will have to explain to the voters why she has flipped on so many important issues depending upon whom the audience is that is listening to her.
The latest flap is over her position on Iran’s rush to develop nuclear capability. When speaking to a Jewish group she said there are no options taken of the table when it comes to stopping Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. But recently in Iowa she was questioned about this “hawkish” position, regarding her “Revolutionary Guard” vote. The person asking the question assumed she had given President Bush the “green light” to attack Iran.
Senator Clinton responded in a letter to Iowa voters this way. She says she “decided to support the resolution after Democrats removed language that according to Hillary could have given Bush the green light for military action”, the New York Post reports.
“Only then did I and a lot of other Democrats vote for the resolution in order to pressure Iran by clearing the way for sanctions and pushing the President to get them to the negotiating table,” Clinton wrote in her Iowa letter.
“I was there, and I exercised leadership, and I explained my vote at the time,” she said, in an apparent reference to Obama, who missed the vote. She had been criticised previously by Obama and Edwards for her apparent support of a Bush attack on Iran.
Hillary – who is evidently now opposed to military action – said in February that “no option can be taken off the table” when dealing with Iran.
“U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal,” she told a crowd of Israel supporters. “We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In dealing with this threat … no option can be taken off the table.”
Long time White House Correspondent Helen Thomas had the following to say about Senator Clinton in an article printed recently in The New York Times Union. “Clinton has blown hot and cold on Middle East issues, including Iraq and the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. She is at best pragmatic. Principles? Well, that’s another story.
Before and during her early years in the White House, she supported Palestinian statehood, but she apparently forgot this after successfully running for senator from New York as a Democrat.
The rest is history. She obviously had to cater to a new constituency, make the ritual trip to Israel and forget any sympathy she once had for the Palestinians. But is her 180-degree flip-flop on that festering issue a portent of her leadership if she attains the White House?
As for Iraq, she voted in October 2002 to authorize President Bush to do what was necessary to unseat Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Unlike former Sen. John Edwards, she has refused to say she made a mistake when she voted for the war.
She cannot claim she was misled. During the lead up to the war when she was briefed on the latest U.S. intelligence about Iraq, Bush was shouting from the housetops that he was going to attack Iraq.
Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld often strutted before reporters at the Pentagon two years before the invasion and bragged about the attack the U.S. would wage against Iraq.
Clinton is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a post that will allow her to embellish her credentials as a possible future commander-in-chief to show she would not hesitate to make tough military decisions.
As a member of that committee, she visited Iraq in 2005 and said U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake. But she also criticized the administration for making poor decisions about the war.”