Hillary as lead balloon

2003-11-30T10:20:48Z 2003-11-30T10:20:48Z Hillary as lead balloon 2003-11-30T14:09:28Z

Both <a href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/004046.html" title="HILLARY'S COLD SHOULDER">James Joyner</a> and <a href="http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/005585.html#005585" title="Unhappy With Hillary">Dean Esmay</a> note Deeds’ account of <a href="http://deeds.blogspot.com/2003_11_01_deeds_archive.html#107009874065802833">Hillary Clinton’s unpopularity with the troops in Baghdad</a> (as noted here at <cite>Signifying Nothing</cite> on <a href="http://blog.lordsutch.com/?entryid=947">Saturday morning</a>); James and Dean find Hillary’s snubbing justifiable, both due to her (and her husband’s) record in supporting the military and her party’s position on the conflict, while <a href="http://www.howardowens.com/index.cfm?action=full_text&ARTICLE_ID=1641">Howard Owens</a> and <a href="http://www.instapundit.com/archives/012768.php">Glenn Reynolds</a> think she deserved better treatment from the troops, as she has been a relatively consistent supporter of the war in Iraq. However, I think it’s instructive to look to what Deeds wrote: <blockquote> Given Hillary’s constant trashing of the Administration’s policies and the work being done in Iraq, her advance people get a flunking grade on setting up a lunch to be with the “troops” and other Americans in the CPA mess hall. That was not the right thing for Hillary do to. </blockquote> While Sen. Clinton may have supported the war, let’s take a look at what press accounts said about her visit to Baghdad. From Sunday’s <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2003/11/30/clinton_meets_with_iraqi_officials/"><cite>Boston Globe</cite></a>: <blockquote> Clinton and Reed arrived in Iraq on Friday, a day after President Bush made a surprise trip to Baghdad. Clinton, who represents New York, and Reed, of Rhode Island, spent Friday with military brass and troops, occupation officials, and aid workers. They said Friday that the costs of rebuilding Iraq should be spread among more nations. “I’m a big believer that we ought to internationalize this, but it will take a big change in our administration’s thinking,” Clinton said. “I don’t see that it’s forthcoming.” </blockquote> From the <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-hillary30.html"><cite>Chicago Sun-Times</cite></a>: <blockquote> Clinton and Reed said the expense and political burden in administering Iraq would be made easier with the U.N.’s stamp of legitimacy and help in transferring power to Iraqis. </blockquote> From the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3248466.stm">BBC</a>: <blockquote> Both the senators said the governance of Iraq would be made easier with greater UN involvement. </blockquote> In other words, the senator was in Iraq, criticizing the performance—and competence—of the Coalition Provisional Authority, and saying the UN would do a better job. No wonder her visit was as popular among CPA staffers as Deeds indicates. One Fine Jay, in his trackback below, has some interesting thoughts on the larger meaning of Sen. Clinton’s visit for the Democrats. I still stand by my original belief that her visits to Afghanistan and Iraq are good things; however, I think she shouldn’t be surprised to get a cold shoulder from people working for the CPA after criticizing their competence from afar. That being said, she probably deserved a little better response than that documented at <cite>Deeds</cite>. Then again, senatorial visits have rarely met with great appreciation from the military; when former senator Jim Sasser, then the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, visited RAF Fairford in Britain once, I don’t recall anyone being particularly excited he was there. (If it sounds like I’m equivocating, it’s because I am; I really don’t know what to make of the Clinton visit at this point.) http://blog.lordsutch.com/archives/951 http://blog.lordsutch.com/atom.cgi/entryid=951