With Friends Like Hillary and Edwards...

The issue of Iran and it's pursuit of nuclear capability is of major concern both to Israel and the US--so it is important to hear what the presidential candidates have to say on the topic. Apparently, some candidates feel they don't really have to say anything at all--even while they're saying it.

That seems to be the case when Hillary Clinton addressed AIPAC, as presented by James Taranto on Monday:

How does Mrs. Clinton deal with a problem about which public opinion has not yet gelled? On Thursday she spoke to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and blogress Heather Robinson captured this choice quote:

I have advocated engagement with our enemies and Israel's enemies because I want to understand better what we can do to defeat those who . . . are aiming their weapons at us. . . . This is a worthy debate. . . . There are many, including our president, who reject any engagement with Iran and Syria. I believe that is a good-faith position to take, but I'm not sure it's the smart strategy that'll take us to the goal we share.

What do I mean by engagement or some kind of process? I'm not sure anything positive would come out of it . . . but there are a number of factors that argue for doing what I'm suggesting.

Says Robinson: "And what was it she was suggesting, exactly? Well, she never said." [emphasis his]

So on Iraq, Mrs. Clinton stands resolutely on the side of public opinion, whichever side that may be in any given year. On Iran, about which public opinion is unformed, she is maddeningly noncommittal.

Compare that with the comments by John Edwards who seems to want to actually take a stand--a stand depending on who he is speaking to. James Taranto comments on this on Tuesday:

On Sunday her fellow Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards gave an interview to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," in which he engaged in similar circumlocution:

Russert: Would President Edwards allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon?

Edwards: I--there's no answer to that question at this moment. I think that it's a--it's a--it's a very bad thing for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. I think we have--we have many steps in front of us that have not been used. We ought to negotiate directly with the Iranians, which has not, not been done. The things that I just talked about, I think, are the right approach in dealing with Iran. And then we'll, we'll see what the result is.

Russert: But they may get one.

Edwards: Yeah. I think--I think the--we don't know, and you have to make a judgment as you go along, and that's what I would do as president.

Compare this with what Edwards said on the subject Jan. 22--just 13 days earlier--when he delivered an address by satellite to Israel's annual Herzliya Conference:

Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. . . . Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel's neighborhood much more volatile.

Iran must know that the world won't back down. The recent U.N. resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate--ALL options must remain on the table.

Last week Ezra Klein of The American Prospect, a liberal-left magazine, asked Edwards about the Herzliya speech, and he sounded quite a different note:

Klein: So, I just want to get it very clear, you think that attacking Iran would be a bad idea?

Edwards: I think would have very bad consequences.

Klein: So when you said that all options are on the table?

Edwards: It would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table.

Klein: Can we live with a nuclear Iran?

Edwards: I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet. I think that we have lots of opportunities that we've . . . We're not negotiating with them directly, what I just proposed has not been done. We're not being smart about how we engage with them. But I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet. And I think the reason people react the way they do--I understand it, because, when George Bush uses this kind of language, it means something very different for most people. I mean when he uses this kind of language "options are on the table," he does it in a very threatening kind of way--with a country that he's not engaging with or making any serious diplomatic proposals to. I mean I think that he's just dead wrong about that. [emphasis his]

Both of these candidates made their pitch before Jewish groups--Clinton before AIPAC and Edwards in Herzliya. One refused to take a firm stand; the took a firm stand that he promptly diluted when having to deal with a different audience. Granted this is very early, but even granted that we are talking politics, is it really too much to ask that when a candidate touches on an issue, they actually tell you where they stand on it--and say it consistently?

Barack Obama, for his part, has suggested launching surgical missile strikes into Iran in order to prevent extremists from gaining control of nuclear bombs--at least he did back in September 2004.

Fast-forward to January 2007:

In regards towards Iran's nuclear program, Obama called for exhausting all diplomatic options but declared that U.S. must "keep all options on the table" and try to stop Iran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions, lest anyone listening think the presidential hopeful would be afraid to use America's military might should he become commander-in-chief.

Obama also warned the aministration that he and his colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will keep a close eye on U.S. action against Iran, saying that "we do not want to see precipitous actions that have not been thought through, have not been discussed, have not been authorized."

Of course, that was during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. What would Obama say in front of a Jewish or Israeli audience?

Bottom line, this whole issue is moot, considering the lock the Democratic Party has on the Jewish vote. But whatever other issues the average Jewish voter makes a priority, perhaps he should give some consideration to the issue of honesty.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and Barack Obama.