There is no real issue here between hawks nor doves, there are none in the US government. This is simple positioning through nuance to make it appear you are against whatever the other party is for while actually having every intention of doing the same thing.
It is designed to add to the perception of differences, positioning, by driving a wedge into the thinnest of cracks. It is precisely what has kept the US moribund since at least when Obama took office. It reinforces the idea that politicians are not allowed to ever change their mind when that is precisely what you want of them, the ability to think and grow. And it engages in the propagandist's most favored tool, over-simplification; what happens today can be a result of what happened years ago, but not the same. It is extremely confusing, since America's "most trusted journalist", Walter Cronkite became so be changing his position on the Vietnam War and declared it "unwinnable".
I became a member of the Liberal Party of British Columbia because the new leader stood up and said "the [tax] was a mistake. It was an insult to the people. I will correct that mistake."
For some reason American politicians are not allowed to say that, appearing weak or something. In would sooner support the politician who said "I was wrong on the Iraq invasion. Knowing what I now know, I would not have done it. And I want to make damn sure we are never mislead like that again". Instead they simply run away from it, and that's what need's to be addressed. Instead of "they did it too" finger pointing, the electorate needs to demand accountability and focus on what's happening today, otherwise today is just another yesterday.