Who ever thought we would see the day in which HILLARY CLINTON would fully support Israel and it's military action - an attack on Syria to take out nuclear devices - Only to find out a few days later that Bush administration's own CONDI RICE was against the measure - with the added preposterous idea that Israel is somehow going to "destabilize" the Middle East.I don't see why this should come as a surprise, seeing that Clinton is a politician running for office who takes little risk approving an action that has already been taken--just see how she tried to avoid answering the question whether she would approve of Israel taking out Iranian reactors. Rice on the other hand is the Secretary of State--and has to deal with the diplomatic consequences of Israel trespassing Syrian airspace and destroying its target.
Not that I am a fan of either Rice or the current US policy towards Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. However, if Clinton is such a friend of Israel, it would be nice to see her not place it safe and give her support to an action against Iran--a far greater threat to Israel.
Technorati Tag: Israel and Hillary Clinton.
3 comments:
clinton is very clear on iran, so clear that she is upsetting the extreme lefties.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/08/clinton.iran/index.html
Rice is only interested in her arab oil investments. she could care less about israel
According to the article you link to:
Clinton then reiterated her position that the president does not have authority to launch an attack on Iran and said she was working on legislation with Democratic Virginia Sen. Jim Webb to put that into law.
Along with the attempt to eliminate force as an option, Clinton
...argued the measure calls for the terrorist label so sanctions can be imposed. The sanctions, she also said, will "send a clear message to the leadership" and lead to stronger diplomatic efforts.
So instead of calling Iran part of the "axis of evil" they will now be called a "terrorist state"? Kind of derivative, no? Sanctions are already being tried--but if Clinton succeeds in hamstringing the President, what message actually is being sent to Iran?
Also, according to Clinton--should Israel also be engaging in diplomatic options as well? If not, why not?
In any case, the only lefty upset is the guy who asked the question--and Clinton made clear she would not attack Iran. So why should the "lefties" be upset?
romney is the most ambiguous on iran
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/romney_all_business_well_have.html
Post a Comment