**as originally written at http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-binghamton/michael-vass**
There is no secret that Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is a political horse of many colors. As a Congresswoman she was a staunch gun control opponent and fought immigration reform. Not odd things for a Republican, but a stark contrast to the Democrats she counts herself among. Especially in the ultra-blue state of New York. But then she became the junior Senator behind Sen. Charles Schumer and quickly fell in the Democrat line, becoming what many see as a yes-woman for the Party.
This is of course old news. It was well covered in 2008 when Sen. Gillibrand was appointed to the seat vacated by the far-Left former occupant, Hillary Clinton. It was covered again in 2009 on the issue of gun control. But there is no end of the flip-flops on political positions that Sen. Gillibrand maintains.
The latest twist finds Senator Gillibrand changing course on Middle East policy. To be specific, as reported by the AP on September 9, 2014, the junior Senator is on the bandwagon to fight ISIS as well as concede that President Obama may need authorization for a prolonged effort to combat this latest terrorist global threat. A position that falls mostly in line with the goals of President Obama, as he has detailed them at the moment.
“That the answers in sustaining peace in Iraq lie in the political, diplomatic and economic solutions. Not in the military ones.”
Thus it might seem strange for the casual consumer of politics. Is Senator Gillibrand a supporter of non-military action in the Middle East? Does she seek to rid the world of ISIS by diplomacy and economics as was the case with Al Queada in Iraq? Or is she in favor of direct military action, similar to the very surge she is on record opposing?
It is a complex web that is a direct reflection of the Obama Administration’s international policy – especially when it comes to the Middle East. As we noted in our article on the Administration’s policy,
“It is a policy of retreat on one front and aggression on another. A policy of non-interference in the sovereign actions of nations, while injecting action under the call for humanitarian aid in other (and sometimes the same) sovereign nations.”
Senator Gillibrand has earned her stripes in the New York political machine. She has flipped and twisted her positions to match and generally support whole-heartedly whatever the President and the Democrat Party stance of the day may be. Thus in 2007 she was a dove, and in 2014 she is a hawk – but still a dove when it comes to other parts of the Middle East. It is anyone’s guess what she might be in 2016.
Yet, it would seem that the best (or perhaps only) way for New York constituents to get a consistent answer from their junior Senator is for the President to pick a definitive role. Of course that is an option that the world has been waiting for, and apparently will keep waiting a bit longer to get.