How much can we count on Hillary's ruthlessness?
Mark Steyn addresses an argument one hears a lot these days -- that Hillary Clinton will be tough on terrorists because she's been tough on political opponents and others (think White House travel office) who stand in her way. Steyn disagrees:
I yield to no-one in my respect for the Clintons’ ruthless brutal demolition of Newt, and that guy who succeeded Newt for 20 minutes, and Gennifer and Kathleen and all the rest. But there’s no evidence to suggest either Clinton has any interest in applying these techniques to tougher adversaries beyond these shores. There’s a world of difference between the politics of personal destruction and the geostrategic kind. Beating up breast-cancer survivors [the reference is to Elizabeth Edwards] is no indication you’ll do the same to Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il.
I'm far from convinced that Hillary would fight terrorism with the same abandon she fights the vast right-wing conspiracy. However, her ruthless nature might at least translate well enough to make her tougher on terrorists than the other Democratic contenders. Ask yourself which contender would be most likely to approve the next terrorist surveillance program or harsh interrogation tactic. My money is on Hillary.
JOHN adds: When Paul says, "which contender would be most likely to approve..." I'm sure he means "which Democratic contender." As Sherlock Holmes once said of Scotland Yard's Gregson and Lestrade, Hillary may be the "best of a bad lot," but I would much rather count on any of the Republican contenders to protect our national security.
PAUL adds: Indeed.
To comment on this post, go here.
