Has anyone noticed the contrast between Hillary Clinton’s position on responding to attacks from political opponents and her position on responding to insurgent attacks in Iraq?

On the one hand, the experiences of Michael Dukakis and John Kerry have convinced Clinton and other like-minded Democrats that the best response to domestic political attacks is to strike back fast and hard. “When you are attacked,” she said, “you have to deck your opponent.” To do otherwise, they argue, creates the perception of weakness, potentially encouraging more attacks. As a result, Clinton’s campaign arguably overreacted in their counter-attack against Barack Obama and David Geffen, drawing more attention to Geffen’s comments, linking Democrats with Hollywood moguls, and generally looking hyper-sensitive.

But in the debate over Iraq, Clinton and other Democrats take exactly the opposite perspective. She opposes President Bush’s plan to counter the insurgency with an increased US troop presence. And she rejects the argument that the US should not withdraw because doing so would create a perception of weakness that would invite further attacks.

It’s a strange juxtaposition.