“Iraq and Afghanistan? Clinton and Palin back interventionism when it counts, and millions of Kurdish women are very grateful … In reality, this idea that Clinton will bring us back to the ‘peaceful’ 1990s, and that all of Hillary’s supporters reject Palin’s support of Bush’s ‘hawkish’ policies is a joke, miles removed from reality. Indisputably, they all support interventionist foreign policies. Thus, Hamad’s anti-war Hillary is pure fiction.”
I never actually stated that Hillary was “anti-war” in all cases. Once again Terpstra puts forward an overly simplistic argument. One would have to be incredibly naïve to believe that any candidate in a major American party would favour a completely non-interventionist foreign policy. However, while Clinton has not hesitated to say that she would use force “when necessary”, she has long being critical of the Bush administration’s handling of the war in Iraq.
In her interview with ABC’s Charles Gibson, Palin stated that she believed that Bush was doing the best he could to handle Islamic extremism. Clinton ran on platform that included staged withdrawal while Palin is running mate to a candidate who famously stated that the US could be in Iraq for another 100 years.
Advertisement
The major difference in Clinton and Palin’s positions on foreign policy and National security is in the approach the US should take and can perhaps best be summed up in the following quotes:
CLINTON: “Use our military not as the solution to every problem but as one element in a comprehensive strategy. As president, I will never hesitate to use force to protect Americans or to defend our territory and our vital interests ... But soldiers are not the answer to every problem. Using force in lieu of diplomacy compels our young men and women in uniform to carry out missions that they may not be trained or prepared for. And it ignores the value of simply carrying a big stick, rather than using it”.
PALIN: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [US soldiers] out on a task that is from God … That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
Regardless of whether or not Palin’s remarks explicitly state that the US is on a mission from God in Iraq, they nonetheless display an astounding naivety and idealism regarding her stance on where the US stands in world affairs and does nothing to appeal to supporters of Clinton who take a far more pragmatic approach.
Finally, to “silly” argument six and Terpstra’s claim that my criticisms (stating that the way in which he refers to Palin is detrimental to the advancement of women in the workplace) are more “excessive” than Michael Moore. The tactic of guilt by association aside, the only possible response is, it is not enough to simply call an argument “silly”, you actually have to provide a counter argument. Which, of course, Terpstra fails to do - again.
Most pertinently, he ignores the first part of my statement, where I say that the major problem in his original article was the way it focused on Palin’s gender and ignored her politics. Thus making it extremely sexist. Thus bringing us full circle once again.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
45 posts so far.