“If we can prove that a biological attack originated in a country that attacked us, then all bets are off.” – Sect. Hillary Clinton
Women can do it, too. Call her Obama’s pit bull.
Sitting next to her good friend and colleague SecDef Gates on “Face the Nation,” Sect. Clinton said what I wrote the other day after Pres. Obama announced his new nuclear policy. That “all options are on the table” at all times when it comes to U.S. national security, regardless of who is president. It’s just unfortunate she was the one who had to imply it by channeling male lingo. We get Pres. Obama creating 21st century strategic nuclear policy using 21st language, while his female secretary of state is left to rattle sabers to send messages to America, but particularly to the right, that the Obama administration isn’t soft on national security. Considering Obama is targeting an American for assassination, going one step further than Bush-Cheney, it’s astounding that the Administration feels the need to go on the defensive at all.
However, that’s where we are, which was proven recently in a Democratic poll showing that since George W. Bush left office, the security gap is back.
On national security, the poll found that 50 percent of likely voters prefer Republicans, while only 33 percent prefer Democrats. It’s the return of a “security gap” that all but vanished in 2008 because of Obama’s popularity and Bush’s mishandling of Iraq, Bennett said.
It’s Sect. Clinton’s job to defend Pres. Obama’s policies, but it’s easy to see how she got into trouble on Iraq, as her language remains moored in 20th century shaping. It’s one reason why Obama likely picked her for State, along with her world grasp of issues. But beyond her voice on women’s issues, Clinton’s language doesn’t do much for placing women beyond the 20th century macho military machine mumbo jumbo. The impression Clinton leaves behind using this “all bets are off” bravado is that women don’t own their own language, or can’t use it if they do, or they’d be considered soft.
After all, even though Pres. Obama is more like Bush-Cheney on security issues, at home and abroad, he’s got a security gap when compared to Republicans. We expect men to defend their positions using bellicose language. However, Pres. Obama is progressing forward by re-invigorating nuclear zero and putting it as a priority.
Perception is reality in politics, so get out there and rattle those sabers, Sect. Clinton, rattle them.
Even the smartest woman we have on the international scene won’t shake the 20th century language of war. As if talking about nuclear zero, plus the beefing up of conventional weaponry and other technology, isn’t enough to show toughness, without resorting to the macho, cringe-worthy swagger of “all bets are off.”
Clinton’s language is close to a defensive response to Liz Cheney speaking at the SRLC:
Cheney told the roughly 3,500 conservative activists and donors gathered for the conference that there are three prongs to the president’s foreign policy: “apologize for America, abandon our allies and appease our enemies.” “The Obama administration is putting us on the path to decline,” added Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney.
Both women, though on opposite sides and of widely different stature, seeing who can one man up the men or at least perpetuate their talking points more effectively.
Segue to Sarah, who responded to Obama questioning her nu-cular, as Mrs. Palin pronounces it, acumen, saying “all that vast nuclear nucular expertise he acquired as a community organizer, a part-time senator, and a candidate for president.”
Palin went on to say that Obama hasn’t accomplished anything regarding North Korea or Iran.
“In foreign policy now we’ve got the makings of the Obama doctrine, which is coddling enemies and alienating allies.” – Sarah Palin
To Sarah and Liz, diplomacy is “coddling,” while expecting Israel to stop settlements that are causing trouble on peace “alienating allies.” Mrs. Palin even going so far as to say settlements in Israel were just “a zoning issue.”
We have come to expect women on the right to channel Margaret Thatcher, because they don’t have a prayer with their base if their language isn’t strapped on.
There is, however, no longer any excuse for Sect. Clinton, as she has no base to keep, her political years now behind her. But still we get the unimaginative machismo of “all bets are off.” It’s discouraging as much as it is lazy.
As for our current challenges with Pres. Karzai, as I predicted, Liz Cheney made brothers of Mr. Karzai and Prime Minister Netanyahu:
Afghan President Karzai, whose support we need if we are going to succeed in Afghanistan, is being treated to an especially dangerous and juvenile display from this White House. They dress him down publicly almost daily and refuse to even say that he is an ally. There is a saying in the Arab world: “It is more dangerous to be America’s friend than to be her enemy.” In the age of Obama, that is proving true.
So, we’ve got Sect. Clinton talking about “all bets are off,” while Obama invokes nuclear zero and a progressive 21st century nuclear policy. Liz Cheney accusing Obama of “appeasement.” While Sarah Palin criticizes Pres. Obama’s reaching out as “coddling.”
Pres. Obama gets to sound progressive and forward thinking, while the women remain stuck in 20th century war rumbling.
Pres. Obama talking softly as Sect. Clinton wields the big stick may be a good mix and useful for the Administration, but Clinton’s willing acquiescence perpetuates the stereotype of a supposedly serious national security spokesperson that can only be represented through swaggering male lingo.
If Hillary, Liz and Sarah are any representation, and they’re the leading women on the scene right now, even understanding that Hillary Rodham Clinton is out of politics for good. What we’re headed for in the future is a woman acting like a man as president. But women can’t simply mimic men, talk like them, manufacture machismo in order to effect change on national security and diplomacy, and hope to win the presidency and make the first female president matter by leading differently than her male counterpart might.
So, if we get a Liz or Sarah, what’s the big deal about having the first female president some day? That goes double because the left has no anti-Sarah/Liz. At this rate, the way these three talk on national security, I’d say it would be a wash.
Unless you think that looks are all that matter.
Comments are closed.