Thursday, January 19, 2006

I completely disagree with Hillary Clinton

From the New York Times:
In a speech at Princeton University, Mrs. Clinton, a New York Democrat, joined the Bush administration's call for sanctions against Iran, and also said that the threat of military action against nuclear sites should not be ruled out.

But she was critical of the administration for letting European nations take the lead in negotiations over the last several years.

"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Ms. Clinton said, according to a transcript of the speech published by The Daily Princetonian. "I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines."
Clinton is way off base on this one. Letting the European powers take the lead on Iranian negotiations was a smart move on a number of levels. First, Iran has a long standing antipathy toward America. Placing the EU3 in the lead was a smart move JUST for this reason. More, if one approaches Iran with a level of mistrust, as the Bush administration does, then it is beneficial to have those more prone to trust the adversary deal with their b.s. Lastly, our military situation is not favorable for any unilateral military action. The Neo-Con ilk in the blogosphere that state a limited air strike as an option act moronic. That strike would result in a counter attack on U.S. forces in Iraq and perhaps elsewhere. The U.S. must work with the EU3, and those two groups have been remarkably cooperative.

This is the most serious of threats. Hillary needs to zip it.


Blogger Bassizzzt said...

Hillary, in particular, needs to zip it. She always seems to forget that Vietnam was a liberal mess in the first place.

It really irks me how people like herself actually believe that she is qualified to even bring up foreign policy when she has no experience with it whatsoever. Good blog here and excellent points all along.

12:24 PM  
Blogger Bassizzzt said...

To add, I agree that a limited airstrike against Iran would be a big mistake. Best that we let Israel take care of that, because I seriously think it is coming soon.

12:26 PM  
Blogger Ezzie said...

Ah yes, let Israel get all the nasty press. Though I do think it will eventually come to that - and I think it important that Israel does so, once the EU et al fail.

7:28 PM  
Blogger copy editor said...

But you need to remember that an attack from Israel will be viewed as an attack from America in Tehran.

As such, neither Israel nor America should act alone in this.

I hope the EU3 do not fail, but I am not certain what success will look like.

In other news, I take some vacation time and then time off because I'm sick (standard winter sickness, nothing serious) and my blog views go from 50 + to 20... F that. Thanks for still dropping in though, you two.

8:11 PM  
Blogger Ezzie said...

glad you're all right. that's the way it works with traffic - our readers are fickle! i didn't post much for a couple days, and i sunk from 600+ to 400+. Ah well.

1:04 AM  
Anonymous Spair Chnge said...

Re: bassizzzt
I agree: Good Blog
I disagree: forgein policy should be debated on the home front by anyone who wishes to speak. However, I would be willing change my views: Sen. Clinton reducing her public appearances in exchange for FoxNews trading their talk shows for news, or any news that wasn't taken from the AP and doesn't involve monkeys escaping. I imagine that at some point during Clinton's education at an elite college, years in a political life, running for senator and living in the White House or perhaps reading a newspaper that Clinton picked up some sort of informed opinion on forgein policy. At the very least, she has been exposed to the ideas of people who have dealt with the area. Or, she could follow Laura's example and lead a parade.

An airstrike in Iran by Isreal would require the cooperation of at least one other arab nation or, the invasion of the airspace of a nation that doesn't start with an "I" and end in a "ran". I guess one option would be to fly through Turkey and then cross Iran the long way. I bet no one would see that coming.

3:07 AM  
Blogger zen said...

I don't view a hiatus as a bad think. It's sometimes better to listen and observe than it is to speak.

10:16 AM  
Blogger Bassizzzt said...

I don't necessarily agree with an airstrike from Israel, but they've pulled off attacks like this before, and you're right, EC, it would be viewed as an attack from the US as a whole.

Further, Iran holds the oil card, and unfortunately, this makes America desperate.

10:24 PM  
Blogger Bassizzzt said...

"I don't view a hiatus as a bad think. It's sometimes better to listen and observe than it is to speak."

I agree. Good point and very philosophical - but in your case, silence was golden.

10:30 PM  
Blogger copy editor said...

Iran and the oil card will be a major deal, I believe. Plus, oil hikes help Russia's newly natonalized oil industry. It is kinda in their interest to let this play out for a while -- which is alarming.

Zen's point was interesting.

12:40 PM  
Blogger zen said...

Some would be wise to heed the advice of a notable, liberal president..also a Republican.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
Abe Lincoln

1:27 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home