Column

Uniter? Divider? Try great Evader

By PHILIP GAILEY
Published September 30, 2007

This is the second of two columns on Hillary Clinton, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. The first ran on this page on Sept. 23.

Hillary Clinton's recent appearance on all five Sunday news shows on the same day and her performance in last week's Democratic presidential debate showed the front-runner at her best and at her worst. Her evasive answers and political contortions are maddening, but she keeps widening her double-digit lead in national polls.

It can be said of Clinton that she is faithful to ever-changing principles, especially when it comes to the war in Iraq.

Clinton has voted to fund the war at least 10 times, but now she says "I will vote against funding this war as long as it takes." She will soon have a chance to show that she means business. Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked Congress to approve nearly $190-billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Gates said the money is necessary to buy vehicles that can protect U.S. troops against roadside bombs, repair military equipment worn out by combat and consolidate U.S. bases in Iraq.

Will Clinton really vote against funding these military needs? Most Americans want an end to the war, but not at the expense of denying U.S. troops armored vehicles and other combat equipment.

"I understand we're going to have a vote shortly about funding, and I will vote against it because I think that's the only way we can demonstrate clearly that we have to change direction," she told Tim Russert, host of NBC's Meet the Press.

It was not that long ago that Clinton opposed efforts by antiwar Democrats in Congress to set a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. The New York senator explained: "We don't want to send a signal to the insurgents, to the terrorists that we're going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain. I think that would be like a green light to go ahead and just bide your time."

Now her campaign is distributing brochures in New Hampshire that tell voters: "Hillary will begin an immediate phased withdrawal with a definite timetable to bring our troops home." The candidate, however, won't say what her timetable is.

Russert also pressed Clinton to explain why, before voting to go to war, she opposed an amendment by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., that would have required the president to first exhaust all United Nations options before invading Iraq.

The former first lady said she voted against the amendment because she did not "want to give the United Nations a veto over actions taken by the president."

The Levin amendment would have done no such thing, and Clinton knows it. The measure would have required the president to first seek a U.N. resolution approving the use of force against Iraq, and, if that failed, to come back before the Senate for another vote on going to war.

In her interview with George Stephanopoulos, host of ABC's This Week, Clinton was asked if all U.S. combat troops would be out of Iraq by the end of her first term as president. Even though she is committed to a timetable, she would not make that promise, saying, "I'm not going to get into hypotheticals and make pledges, because I don't know what I'm going to inherit."

It was a prudent and responsible answer for a presidential candidate, and Barack Obama and John Edwards echoed Clinton's position in last week's debate in New Hampshire.

Finally, Clinton still refuses to criticize MoveOn.org by name for its infamous ad referring to Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, as "General Betray Us." She told Russert the general was "a man of great honor and distinction who has served admirably" and that she does not condone any effort to impugn the integrity and patriotism of those who serve their country in uniform.

But not even Russert, an aggressive questioner, could get a straight answer from the Great Evader on how she could square those words with her vote against a Senate resolution condemning MoveOn.org, a liberal activist group, for its attack on Gen. Petraeus' integrity.

Presidential candidates in both parties play this game, but some commentators actually praise Clinton for her evasiveness and consider it one of her political strengths. It would be nice if voters knew what convictions she would bring to the presidency.

[Last modified September 29, 2007, 22:29:03]