It’s not exactly a story you’d see out of a media that seems to be going all-in for Hillary otherwise, but it’s one I’d gladly accept:
“I support what they are doing,” Clinton said in the interview Wednesday, referring to her former colleagues in the Obama administration. “I personally believe the way they have thought this through and planned it and limited our involvement, avoids [Islamic State] achieving their objective of suckering us into their fight.”
War in Iraq is a subject that won’t go away for Clinton, whose Senate vote in 2002 to authorize the last war in that Middle Eastern country put her out of step with the Democratic base six years later. She lost her bid for president to a challenger who, as an obscure Illinois state senator, had come down on the antiwar side.
Now weighing another White House run, Clinton is faced again with the problems in Iraq and her role in shaping U.S. policy in the region. The airstrikes on the Islamic State group have inflamed the Democratic left, adding another potential line of attack against her if she decides to run for the White House.
The piece gets a lot more interesting later, when both Hillary and Bill double down on the idea that Obama’s lack of support for the Syrian rebels is what created a vacuum in Iraq. No, it wasn’t the ill-advised withdrawal of American forces that most people with actual military experience say it was. Not to the Clintons. It’s the fact that we didn’t arm people who signed a ceasefire with ISIS and vowed to continue fighting Assad for control of an entire country that led us to where we are today.
If I may be so bold: Hahahahahahahahahaha no.
Hillary in her quotes is playing both ends against the middle. “I support Obama on his strikes against ISIS” out of one side of her mouth while “Obama should have taken my advice while I was working with him” comes out of the other. That is how Hillary is, and that is what, sadly, separates her from her husband. Bill is a lot better at this kind of thing, and he honestly should be utilized a little more if she wants to actually run.
The rest of the WaPo piece goes back to defending her afterward, but it’s buried beneath some telling stuff: There is an admitted anger among the Democratic Left over the ISIS strikes, and WaPo calls out Elizabeth Warren’s opposition, noting a lot of folks want to see her run (admittedly, I’d enjoy seeing the two debate). The war-hating Left is not thrilled with the current situation, though they don’t realize that it is their own fault, either. Hillary sort of gets it, but comes to the wrong conclusion as to the source of the current issue. It must have hurt some editor to run this.
It will be a tough road for Hillary if she runs, and unlike some others, I still expect her to. Sadly, there is no record left for her to break, since the first female president is still in office.
I’m talking about Valerie Jarrett, you ninnies.