And Now Clinton…

Not to be outdone by Obama and Edwards, Hillary Clinton has just endorsed the Bush line on Iran. This was of course expected; Clinton leads the pack when it comes to not taking a principled stand on any progressive issue that polls under 60%, and is especially weak on Israel. Says Haaretz,

Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel’s greatest threats, U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday no option can be taken off the table when dealing with that nation.

“U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,” the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. “In dealing with this threat … no option can be taken off the table.”

Clinton spoke at a Manhattan dinner held by the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in the U.S., the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Paraphrasing Clinton, let me say this: Iran isn’t, and won’t be a threat. Its real leader is Ali Khamenei, a conservative cleric who’s been in power for almost 20 years and has no interest in launching a first strike against a nuclear power. A few months ago, the approval rates of its radical mouthpiece, Ahmadinejad, hit rock bottom; since then, they’ve started digging. His approval rate could well be higher in Israel than in Iran.

Edwards and Obama have excuses for their statements, based mainly on their total lack of experience with foreign policy. Clinton has no such excuse; she only has six years of experience in elected office, but she’s likely discussed her positions with her husband, who has somewhat better experience.

For sure, Clinton makes the obligatory remark about negotiation and diplomacy. That doesn’t distinguish her from the pack; Obama made some vague statement about “clarity and transparency” only a few days ago. She’s still a warmonger who voted for the war on Iraq because she was against second-guessing the President. That makes her even worse than Edwards and Obama, since someone who sympathized with unitary executives when out of power will probably goven based on the unitary executive theory when in power.

11 Responses to And Now Clinton…

  1. Matthias says:

    So who do you consider the least bad candidate at this point, all things considered?

  2. Alon Levy says:

    I’m not sure, honestly. I suppose Edwards is the least bad at this point, though it depends on what position Obama will take on Iran. I’m willing to attribute his pro-war statements from 2004 to Bush derangement syndrome, since at the time many anti-Iraq war people used Iran as an example showing that a) Bush was attacking the wrong country, and b) they were not pacifists. If he comes out against the Iran war, I’ll support him somewhat. If he doesn’t, or comes out for it, I’ll keep supporting Edwards as tepidly as possible.

  3. SLC says:

    Re Levy

    As I stated on an earlier thread, Mr. Levy, based on his anti-war against Iraq/Iran position and his Israel bashing proclivities, should be supporting Hagal who is against the potential war in Iran, as well as being critical of the war in Iraq and is far more critical of Israel then the other candidates. I will practically guarantee that Hagal will not make a speech such as Edwards and Hilary have done.

  4. SLC says:

    Re Levy

    Iran isn’t a threat? Bernard Lewis, whose expertise in Muslim affairs is at least equal to Mr. Levys’ own, has stated otherwise. I have posted links to an article and an interview with Prof. Lewis on other threads of this blog. Iran probably isn’t a serious threat to New York City where Mr. Levy currently resides nor to his previous residence in Singapore. The folks residing in Tel Aviv may have a different view of things.

  5. Alon Levy says:

    It’s not my only issue. Actually, Israel itself isn’t a very high priority for me. Faced with someone who wants to cut off funds to Israel but bomb Iran anyway and someone else who wants to sustain funds and talks warmly about Israel but opposes attacking Iran, I’d easily pick the latter.

  6. Alon Levy says:

    Where did you link to the interview?

  7. SLC says:

    Attached is an article about a speech given by Prof. Lewis. I can’t find the link to the interview at the moment.

    http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/10515.htm

  8. Stentor says:

    This makes me so glad I’m not registered as a Democrat, and that Arizona is a solidly red state. That way I don’t feel some pragmatic compulsion to pick among them or vote for the D in the general election.

  9. Alon Levy says:

    It all depends on who the nominees are. Most Arizonans polled in the 2006 midterm said they’d rather have illegal immigrants offered a path to citizenship rather than deported (and, granted, at the same time voted for anti-immigrant propositions). If the 2008 election devolves into an immigration fistfight between Tancredo and someone else, Arizona will bluen.

  10. […] an infinitesimal margin, because his statements on Iran are slightly less horrifying than those of Clinton and Edwards. But I harbor no illusions that if elected (and he won’t be), he’ll pursue […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: