Iran: Clinton takes the military option off the table
Remember how Hillary Clinton was the one who was supposed to be tougher on Iran? The New York Times even reported on Tuesday that the Obama administration's 'tougher' line on Iran was more in line with Clinton's views than with those of Obama who favored 'engagement.'Well, consider this from Clinton's interview on Monday with al-Jazeera:
MR. FOUKARA: So, Madam Secretary, now you are saying there is no plan on the part of the United States to launch an attack? Not in the immediate future, not in the middle term, not in the long term?More from Abe Greenwald here.
SECRETARY CLINTON: We are interested in changing Iran’s behavior and — now, we will always defend ourselves, and we will always defend our friends and allies. And we will certainly defend countries here in the Gulf who face the greatest immediate nearby threat from Iran. But we have pursued a dual track, not a triple track, but a dual-track approach of engagement and potential pressure, and that is what we’re focused on.
Some of you will look at this and say, "wow, Clinton's softened on Iran too." But the truth is that she has not, and that what she's saying is entirely consistent with what she said during her debate with Obama in April 2008 - if only anyone had been listening.
Take, for example, the different responses from Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama on whether they would view an attack by Iran on Israel as an attack on the United States. (Mrs. Clinton said such an attack would result in “massive retaliation from the United States,” while Mr. Obama said such an attack would be “unacceptable” and would lead him to take “appropriate action.”)For Clinton, while there always was (and probably still is) a military option on the table, it was retaliatory. For Obama, there was never a military option on the table at all. But neither of them ever supported a pre-emptive attack on Iran that could actually stop the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon.
And 78% of American Jewry voted for the Obama - Clinton ticket anyway. With their eyes and ears closed so that they would not have to even consider voting for a Republican.
What could go wrong?
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:22 PM
2 Comments:
IMO...HC has a very keen instinct for weakening politicians and gauges her moves always to give her political strength .... She wants to survive a weakening administration, even if it means running against their leader.
And 78% of American Jewry voted for the Obama - Clinton ticket anyway. With their eyes and ears closed so that they would not have to even consider voting for a Republican.
Please, and I voted for Bush twice because I allowed myself to think he was the best friend of Israel.
Anyway, please do not be surprised the Obama administration of appeasment and naivete has any option for a military strike against Iran any more than those before Obama did anything of measure to stop Iran knowing full well we would come to this day!!
Time to wake up! We have not stepped one foot beyond the decision against bombing the rail lines to Auschwitz. ( long before the smell of human flesh filled the air the world watch Jews become exterminated)
Post a Comment
<< Home