Yes, hell has frozen over and the New York Post has praised a stance of Hillary Clinton in a lead editorial. Specifically, Hillary believes we need to expand the Army by 80,000 soldiers. The Army has resisted in recent years because soldiers are expensive. If they add 80,000 new troops (which need to be housed and fed and paid, etc.) they'll have to sacrifice buying some of their shiny new toys. Massively expensive new weapons are fun, of course, but as Iraq proves you secure the peace with boots on the ground.
Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman are doing what members of the loyal opposition are supposed to do.Now, Hillary isn't "repositioning" herself -- as a First Lady and advocate on social issues, Hillary didn't have a record on the military. So she's not backtracking on any former stance. All one could do is imply that her husband was anti-military, but that would be a lie. Besides, as the NY Post points out, she happens to be right.
They are stepping up to the plate with a legitimate proposal that neither the administration nor the Republican congressional majority can reasonably ignore.
Good policy makes good politics.
It would be ironic if Mrs. Clinton converted herself into the candidate most earnestly committed to ensuring that the U.S. Army has the tools necessary to win this war. But if it happens, the president and his party's leaders will have no one to blame but themselves.
So conspiracy theorists, put on your thinking caps:
1. The New York Post wants Hillary to be the Democratic nominee so it's lying.
2. Hillary is lying so she can "pretend" to be tough on terror, get into the White House and go back to being the super-left liberal we always thought she was.
3. As Senator of New York, Hillary is dealing with a state that faced the biggest attack on our soil in this nation's history. She's become an expert on military issues and this sober, reasonable proposal reflects that. Hillary is being honest and straightforward. And the NY Post agrees with her. Or is that too boring?
