The Journal News

Clinton facing anti-war backlash
By GLENN BLAIN

(Original publication: August 5, 2006)

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's call this week for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign marked her strongest criticism yet of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war.

Yet the timing of her attack on Rumsfeld, coming as she faces a primary challenge from an anti-war Democrat and amid speculation about a possible presidential campaign in 2008, raised questions about the political motivations of her move.

Not lost on some pundits is the plight, just to the northeast of Clinton's Chappaqua home, of Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who appears to be losing ground in a primary against an anti-war Democrat, Ned Lamont.

"Clearly, the extent of the reaction and the effectiveness of the reaction to Lieberman has a lot of pro-war-vote Democrats real nervous," said Doug Muzzio, a political science professor at Baruch College in Manhattan. "And she is the most prominent of those folks."

Unlike Lieberman, Clinton appears to be in little danger of being toppled this year. Her poll numbers are very strong, and her campaign war chest is exceptional.

At the same time, she has faced increasing criticism from liberals for voting in favor of the Senate resolution authorizing force in Iraq and could be looking to shore up that support nationally — or forestall any significant erosion — as she continues to present herself as centrist.

In the meantime, the former first lady is being challenged by Jonathan Tasini, a former union organizer and fierce critic of the Iraq war, in a Democratic primary in September. Tasini yesterday criticized Clinton's attack on Rumsfeld as little more than bluster.

"If you're a senator who voted to authorize the invasion, who has continually supported the war and occupation, has continually voted for war funding, has continually undercut fellow Congressional Democrats, like John Murtha, when they move to extricate our country from the Iraq disaster, then she should not be allowed to get away with pointing fingers at others," Tasini said in a statement yesterday.

The two Republicans seeking to challenge Clinton in November — former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer and former Pentagon official Kathleen Troia "KT" McFarland — also took issue with Clinton's Thursday move.

"First Senator Clinton voted for the war in Iraq," Spencer said in a statement. "Now, fearing a primary challenge from the left, she's attempting to cover her tracks. That's hypocritical, it's wrong and it hurts our nation's mission against terror."

McFarland, while conceding that Rumsfeld had made mistakes in his handling of the war, said in a statement that Clinton should not "undermine the Commander in Chief's Defense Secretary while troops are in the field."

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson yesterday rejected the notion that politics played a role in her call for Rumsfeld to step down.

"New Yorkers know that Senator Clinton has been a forceful, effective and consistent critic of the way this administration has conducted the war," Wolfson said.

In comments to The Associated Press on Thursday, Clinton said: "I am frankly tired of hearing the same stories from the administration's national security team. ... I think it's time for him to change his security and defense team."

Her comments came just hours after she offered severe criticism of Rumsfeld during a meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on which she serves.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said yesterday that Bush still believes Rumsfeld is the best person to lead the Defense Department.

Muzzio and other analysts yesterday cautioned that while politics may have played a role in Clinton's move, it's uncertain whether it was a major factor.

"If you are politician, you can look at the situation and say, 'Let's throw a little red meat to the anti-war group,' " said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "But I don't think she is changing her positions. She is doing what she has done for years. ... She's sort of staying in the middle or a little left of the middle."