Hillary Clinton told a Democrat audience recently that “I’m ready to lead.” I’m sure she thinks so, but actions speak louder than words, and on issue after issue, her actions make it clear that she is neither willing nor prepared to do what it takes to keep American families safe in a time of war.
A number of weeks ago, for example, we learned that, according to a book written by two veteran New York Times reporters, Hillary in 1992 listened in on secretly-recorded phone conversations of political opponents. But what is truly amazing is that, while she is eager and willing to listen in on political opponents, she has fought against giving our intelligence experts the tools they need to monitor terrorists who might be calling to activate their sleeper cells in the United States. In 2006, she joined the far-left of her Party to claim that the Bush Administration was breaking the law by conducting surveillance on terrorists calling into and out of the United States. A year later, when President Bush tried to meet Democrats halfway by proposing legislation to fix that loophole, she voted against it.
It is a stunning stance. Here is an individual who is willing to listen into conversations conducted by political opponents, and yet, as she vies to be our next President, she opposes conducting surveillance against terrorists as they plan to kill Americans. Can she possibly be serious?
This hasn’t been Clinton’s only flight of fancy in the foreign policy arena. Consider her rapidly-changing position on Iraq. As recently as 2005, she said an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be “a big mistake.” She said “we have no option but to stay involved and committed.” She told us that “I think the timetable still remains problematic.” She insisted that “we have vital national security interests in Iraq.” But when MoveOn.org started breathing down her neck, she turned on her heel and joined the rest of the Democrats clamoring for a quick retreat that would leave Iraq in the hands of terrorists.
Even worse, her political ambitions now apparently rank higher than supporting our brave young men and women in uniform. Earlier this year, she said that she would “of course” support funding for the troops. But then she turned around and voted against emergency funding for our men and women in uniform. And when MoveOn.org went so far as to attack the loyalty of our commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, Hillary was in the small minority who voted against a Senate resolution condemning the vicious smear.
The pattern holds on issue after issue. She’s shifted her position on using strong interrogation techniques on terrorists. She is seeking advice from Sandy Berger, a man who admitted to stealing and destroying classified national security documents. She refuses to give straight answers on questions about how she would keep rogue nations like Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
The question ultimately is whether Hillary is more serious about our safety or about winning her election. The pattern is the same over and over again. She says she wants to keep our country safe and strong. She says she supports the troops. She says she is ready to lead. But when push comes to shove, when the choice is between MoveOn.org and the safety and security of the American people, she chooses MoveOn.org.
Hillary Clinton is clearly very serious about becoming President. But she is far less serious about the grave responsibilities that come with that office. We need someone in the White House who is more interested in our safety than in the next election — and that someone is not Hillary Rodham Clinton.