Her supporters have been alluding to her "testicular fortitude", a metaphor and campaign theme she has evidently grabbed onto with gusto rivaling that of early Michael Jackson.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/...
What I did not realize until recently was the neoconservative nature of those 'balls'. Her use of the neoconservative buzz words like "unipolar" gave me concerns about whether her foreign policy was based on the neoconservative world-view. Her previous support of the Iraq war and refusal to acknowledge the error of that support were also of concern.
But her recent announcement of the Iranian "obliteration" campaign theme along with the simultaneous announcement of her new sweeping pledge to extend U.S. nuclear protection to friendly Arab nations against Iran's nuclear ambitions has revealed some interesting neoconservative connections in her foriegn policy.
For starters, one of the key spokes-models on this issue appears to be a card-carrying neocon.
The Sunday Washington Post article Analysts Divided on Clinton's Arab Defense Plan discussed the various reactions to Hillary's "Who's Your Daddy" proposal:
Martin S. Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, one of the originators of the idea and a Clinton supporter, said that Arab states would probably need to promise to recognize Israel for such a treaty to win congressional approval.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Isn't it interesting that the Clinton surrogate out in front to explain this new, more muscluar Middle East policy is also one of the few Democrats to join in the neoconservative Project for a New American Century in PNAC's March 19, 2003 Statement on Post-War Iraq which toes the neoconservative line with steel toed boots:
Everyone - those who have joined our coalition, those who have stood aside, those who opposed military action, and, most of all, the Iraqi people and their neighbors - must understand that we are committed to the rebuilding of Iraq and will provide the necessary resources and will remain for as long as it takes. Any early fixation on exit strategies and departure deadlines will undercut American credibility and greatly diminish the prospects for success.
...
American leadership - and the long-term commitment of American resources and energies - is essential, therefore, but the extraordinary demands of the effort make international support, cooperation, and participation a requirement for success.
...
The successful disarming, rebuilding, and democratic reform of Iraq can contribute decisively to the democratization of the wider Middle East.
Right along with folks like William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Max Boot there's Martin S. Indyk's signature.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/...
Makes it sound like Indyk has drunk deeply of the Neocon Koolaid that assumes that 'creative destabilization' of Iraq can lead to the viral spread of democracy throughout the Middle East - a basic tennet of neoconservatives.
All the ususal suspects, including Indyk, also weighed in on PNAC'S March 28, 2003 Second Statement on Post-War Iraq :
We must help build an Iraq that is governed by a pluralistic system representative of all Iraqis and fully committed to the rule of law, the rights of all its citizens, and the betterment of all its people. Such an Iraq will be a force for regional stability rather than conflict and participate in the democratic development of the region.
...
Building a stable, peaceful and democratic Iraq is an immense task. It must be a cooperative effort that involves international organizations - UN relief agencies, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other appropriate bodies - that can contribute the talent and resources necessary for success. It is therefore essential that these organizations be involved in planning now to ensure timely allocation of resources.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/...
PNAC, and Indyk, evidently felt the need to assure the Corporate Crusading Chicago Boys of their (exclusive) inclusion in the 'Post-War reconstruction' to guarantee that political freedom would not interfere with unfettered corporate access to the 'free' market to be constructed in Iraq. (It seems like no coincidence that Wolfowitz went to the World Bank to carry on his adventures.)
Indyk is also the same guy who wrote later that year (2003) in the DLC rag, Blueprint Magazine about Bush's Squandered Opportunity in Iraq - taking the McCain position that it was not the vision but its implementation that was lacking.
Clinton [President William J.] had chosen the engine of peacemaking to drive the train of transformation; Bush used the engine of war-making. In the post-9/11 circumstances, his overall strategy and objectives were laudable. It was right to seek regime change in Iraq, to promote political and economic reform in the Arab world, to press Iran and Syria to end their sponsorship of terror, and to promote a two-state solution to the Palestinian problem. Democrats were and are right to support those goals.
But in launching a war process rather than a peace process, Bush was making a radical departure from policies pursued by previous administrations, Democratic and Republican alike. They had all regarded stability in the Middle East as a vital interest. The Bush administration, by contrast, concluded that it was actually the pursuit of stability that helped generate the attacks on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. Therefore, if the use of force was necessary to transform the Middle East, and that created some instability along the way, so be it.
In fact, there is nothing in itself wrong with promoting a little instability. With the benefit of hindsight, we now recognize that previous administrations, including Clinton's, were wrong to allow a preoccupation with stability in Egypt and Saudi Arabia to blind us to the consequences of allowing those governments to export their Islamic fundamentalism problem to our shores.
...
But if an American administration is going to pursue a strategy that generates instability in an already volatile region where the United States has vital interests at stake, then it needs to make sure that it prepares the ground well. It has to plan for the unexpected, build broad international support, and put in place safety nets to guard against the inevitable unintended consequences of its actions.
With hindsight, the importance of doing those things is all too obvious. There is a symbiotic relationship among the four objectives adopted by the Bush administration. The president argued correctly that if we achieved regime change in Iraq, it could help our efforts to make Israeli-Palestinian peace, reform the Arab world, and pressure the rogue states to end their evil ways. But the reverse proposition was also true, and he should have been mindful of it: If you stumble on the first objective -- if you get into trouble in Iraq -- you hinder all your other efforts.
http://www.dlc.org/...
So, to sum up, Hillary's spokesman on her new proposal on 'Who's Your Daddy Now' Nuclear Umbrella for all Arab countries that are "with us", is one of the same neoconservative nutbags that are at the core of McCain's foreign policy.
What that would give us is Dumb and Dumber in November. I think not.
More can be found on this illicit relationship between Hillary's LINOs and the Necons in Tom Barry's 2005 article:
Liberal Hawks Ally With Project for the New American Century
Neocons and Liberals Together, Again
Tom Barry, International Relations Center, February 16, 2005
http://www.worldpress.org/...
As well as Leon Hadar's 2006 article:
A New Kind of Neocon?
by Leon Hadar
October 12, 2006
http://www.antiwar.com/...
For anyone who still thinks that Neocons are boogiemen seen only in the nightmares of lefties like us, I highly recommend the comprehensive description of and stinging rebuke to this misguided philosophy of foreign policy delivered by two mainstream conservatives in:
America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order
by Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke
It is available now and well worth the read.