In her latest gambit to entrap control of the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton is now asking us to appreciate her brass cojones.
For the first part of this campaign, Hillary played the Estrogen Card: “Woe is me!” “This is so hard!” “The big, mean boys are picking on me!” The waterworks pre-New Hampshire. Getting Maya Angelou to stick it to Oprah for endorsing Obama. It was “all estrogen, all the time.”
Now, her campaign is “all testosterone, all the time.” The head of a steelworkers’ union in Indiana endorsed her last week by saying he admired her “testicular fortitude.” North Carolina Governor Mike Easley claimed she made “Rocky Balboa look like a pansy.” In both instances, the crowds roared their approval, undoubtedly because they know she’s got a bigger set of “boys” than the men in the race do.
Have that prostate checked, Hillary. You’re due.
As part of her new “testosterone strategy,” Mrs. Clinton has recently — and repeatedly –said that if Iran were to attack Israel, as Commander-in-Chief she would respond by "totally obliterating" Iran.
Asked this weekend by George Stephanopoulos if she wanted to reconsider that policy, she said flatly, "No." Then: "Why would I have any regrets? I’m asked a question about what I would do if Iran attacked our ally, a country that many of us have a great deal of, you know, connection with and feeling for, for all kinds of reasons. And yes, we would have massive retaliation against Iran."
This weekend, she expanded the “testosterone strategy” to include the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries: “We’re going to go right at OPEC,” she said. “They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that gets together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world. They decide how much oil they’re going to produce and what price they’re going to put it at. That’s not a market; that’s a monopoly.”
It’s just dawning on the Smartest Woman in America that 1) Iran is a terrorist nation that actively seeks the destruction of Israel with nuclear weapons; and 2) OPEC is a monopoly.
The beauty of the Junior Senator from New York, is that unlike the Junior Senator from Illinois, she’s actually already BEEN president for two terms, so we can examine her record — and see if what she says NOW aligns with what she did THEN. After all, she’s running on the "experience" she gleaned from her first co-presidency. And by her own admission, she was in on every major policy decision.
In 1993, when the World Trade Center was bombed by Islamic terrorists, she counseled her husband NOT to visit the New York site, because it would remind voters of his lack of military service. The response from the Clinton co-presidents? None.
In 1998, U.S. embassies were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania. The response from the Clinton co-presidents? None.
In the late 1990s, Saddam Hussein was shooting at American aircraft patrolling the Iraqi no-fly zones. The response from the Clinton co-presidents? Targeted enforcement, and a signature on the Iraqi Liberation Act, calling for regime change in Baghdad. Follow-up by the co-presidents? None.
In 2000, the U.S.S. Cole was attacked by Islamic terrorists. The response from the Clinton co-presidents? None.
Several times during the late 1990s, U.S. intelligence services provided the Clinton co-presidents with credible information as to the precise whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, with immediate plans for his termination. Their response? None.
For the eight years of her co-presidency, OPEC was a cartel that conducted price extortion after getting together in “some conference room in some plush place in the world.” The Clinton co-presidents talked about getting us off foreign oil, but their response to OPEC’s monopoly? None.
Today, she attacks President Bush for not using diplomacy and allies more aggressively, but on Iran and OPEC, he has used both and they have failed. She assails him for even having a military option to consider on Iran, but she’s saying that as president (again), she’d "totally obliterate" it.
Pick a side, Senator.
When Hillary tries to claim that she’d respond to an Iranian attack on Israel by wiping the Iranians out or that she’d smash OPEC, look at her record. There’s nothing there to suggest she’d go down that road. She’s saying something else now. Just to get elected? Or would she really try it? And how to tell?
Look at her record. You can bet Iran, Islamic terrorists, and OPEC are, and they aren’t that worried.
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter