There was hope that a post Bush administration would see a turnaround in US foreign policy. That hope is being crushed daily as the Democratic frontrunner displays her willingness to continue major policies existing today.
Instead of seeking ways to strengthen the Peace Process in the Middle East, she seeks ways to do just the opposite… all this to appease the Lobby and their support for her.
I am not in favour of any nation having nuclear weapons, I am in favour of the safe destruction of all that presently exist. But this is not the issue at hand, the issue is, is Hillary running for President of the United States or President of Israel (an office that is presently open for grabs)?
It’s time for AIPAC to realise that the President of the United States has to answer to the American people, not only to them. It’s also time for the office of President to realise that there are millions of voters out there, not all of whom are supporters of AIPAC’s policies.
Again, reading from right to left is a report from The Forward on Hillary’s speech to an AIPAC gathering last week…

Hillary to Aipac: Talk to Tehran, But Keep All Options Open
‘We Must Not Permit’ Iran to Get Nukes, Senator Says

Jennifer Siegel
In a speech before a packed pro-Israel crowd in New York, Senator Hillary Clinton made a forceful, if measured, case for the need to engage with Iran and Syria, while reaffirming her commitment to denying Tehran nuclear weapons.

“If we are having to pursue potential action against Iran, then I want to know more about the adversary that we face,” Clinton told the 1,700 people gathered for the February 1 Northeast regional dinner of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “I want to understand better what the leverage we can bring to bear on them will actually produce. I want to get a better sense of what the real power centers and influentials are, and I also want to send a message, if we ever do have to take more drastic actions, to the rest of the world that we exhausted all possibilities.”

Clinton, a Democratic frontrunner for the 2008 presidential nomination known for her methodical, lawyerly approach to complex problems, built her case for engagement carefully. Acknowledging that “there are no easy answers to the complex situation we face today,” she called President Bush’s steadfast rejection of talks with Iran and Syria a “good-faith position to take” that was, nevertheless, perhaps not the “smartest strategy.” She had “no expectations whatsoever,” she admitted at the outset, that “anything positive would come” from talks.

Still, Clinton argued, engagement is a way to gain more information about a formidable adversary, as it was with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In addition, she said, opening a diplomatic track could make it easier to build support among allies should America decide that military action is needed.

Democratic hopefuls have been in agreement about the importance of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In a January 22 speech to American and Israeli security officials and experts, another 2008 contender, former North Carolina senator and vice-presidential nominee John Edwards, said, “Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons.”

His address, in contrast with Clinton’s speech, made no mention of engaging with Iran. But when an audience member asked afterward, “Would you be prepared, if diplomacy failed, to take further action against Iran?” the former senator said he supported talking with Tehran.

“As to what to do, we should not take anything off the table,” Edwards said. “More serious sanctions need to be undertaken, which cannot happen unless Russia and China are seriously on board, which has not happened up until now. I would not want to say in advance what we would do, and what I would do as president, but there are other steps that need to be taken. For example, we need to support direct engagement with the Iranians, we need to be tough. But I think it is a strategic mistake to avoid engagement with Iran.”

At Clinton’s speech, while a faint smattering applause could be heard as the senator referenced Bush’s policy of shunning all talks with Tehran, hearty clapping greeted her own call for diplomatic engagement. The night’s strongest, most sustained response came earlier in Clinton’s speech, when the senator echoed the pro-Israel community’s longstanding position that a nuclear Iran would be a grave and impermissible threat.

“U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal,” Clinton told the crowd. “We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table.”


  1. lennybruce said,

    February 4, 2007 at 12:42

    Hillary is a scary person. Sharing her husband’s intellectual depth, she is unfortunately a political opportunist above everything else. And that makes her a dangerous person. Where her husband may have used political opportunism, it was still frequently in service of his ideals. Ms Clinton uses political opportunism first and foremost to further her own political career. This article is a perfect example. Woe to us.

  2. DesertPeace said,

    February 4, 2007 at 12:45

    Thanks Lenny… you are absolutely right… Woe to us…. ALL of us.

  3. Servant Savant said,

    February 4, 2007 at 17:07

    There’s no hope with Hillary. She has made a deal with the devil, and we have all seen that movie enough times now to see how it ends.

    I listened to some of the big DNC convention on Friday via C-SPAN. Dennis Kucinich – the closest thing we have to a socialist candidate here in the United States – talked about his visit to Lebanon with his wife Elizabeth. He talked about walking through graves and looking at pictures of smiling children who were now dead. He brought a message from one of the parents whose child had been killed – Please tell Americans that we don’t hate America. We love America. We want peace. We want to be left alone. Tell them we are not terrorists.

    Dennis has a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting elected, but he’s my candidate. Anyone who can stand up at a DNC convention and talk about Israel’s attack on Lebanon gets my vote. He won’t make it to the final four. He’ll be weeded out by the AIPAC subsidaries just like Howard Dean was torpedoed by the media because he said America should be an honest broker in the Middle East – i.e., Israel doesn’t get a free pass on murder.

    But Kucinich has clearly declared himself the anti-Hillary candidate. There’s not a dime’s width of daylight between Hillary and the rest of the field. They’re all pandering to Israel – making hawkish noises – because they know that Jew York City is the campaign funding epicenter of the United States.

    If Hillary gets nominiated, it means the United States is an Israeli occupied country. It means that the national agenda is dictated by the corporate interests which operate primarily out of the state of New York, which is Hillary’s corporate funding base.

    If Hillary gets nominated, I’ll be voting green or libertarian. I won’t waste another vote on a Democrat for president.

  4. DesertPeace said,

    February 4, 2007 at 17:41

    Good to see you Servant..
    In a case like Dennis Kucinich running, I’m sure that he too knows he can’t win… but his programme will force the other candidates to take a more realistic and progressive position on various issues.
    If that will be the case, we all win.

  5. shy guy said,

    February 4, 2007 at 17:50

    i’m concerned about the ridiculous 11 million she’s been raking up to spend on her campaign, i hope her negative numbers continue as i do not want her anywhere near the presidency especially after i heard her declare every U.S. citizens support for Israel. I was actually concerned for her mental well-being after i heard that.

    and also, if you ask any N.Y. State resident they can tell you that you that she has done nothing for N.Y. and has been campaigning for president ever since she got there. and if you ask me, she would be the Republicans best bet because she caters to them more.

    Let’s hope we dont have another Clinton or Bush in the office. 😦

  6. DesertPeace said,

    February 4, 2007 at 17:57

    I think her campaigning started long before she was elected a Senator in New York… she’s quite a clever gal…. almost as clever as she is dangerous..
    But, you are right, her nomination would mean a sure win for the Republicans… I’m sure that deals are already being made.

  7. ab said,

    February 4, 2007 at 17:59

    How about we finally start saying:
    We must prevent Israel from having nuclear weapons.

  8. DesertPeace said,

    February 4, 2007 at 18:02

    some of us have been saying that for a long time ab…

  9. Servant Savant said,

    February 4, 2007 at 18:37

    Crap. I just lost thirty minutes worth of comment diatribe. F’n Blogger comments.

    Oh well. You lucky bastards. It was just more of the same: Hillary sucks.

    Shy Guy is onto something that Hillary is more of an RNC person than a DNC person. There is literally no support for Hillary in the netroots. Whoever is giving her all that money defintely is not beholden to the grass roots. It’s another coup – like putting Lieberman on the 2000 ticket. Who the hell thought of that? Same people giving money to Hillary, that’s who. I don’t know a single person who likes her. She’s a corporate shill pure and simple. And anyone who votes for her is either an idiot or they just fell off the political turnip truck.

    The most important thing I was ranting about – before Blogger comments decided to send my comment to dev/nul – was I want to support all the feministas out there who want to see a woman president. Me too. But not _this_ woman.

    This woman is some kind of alien. We need a real human woman to be president.

  10. DesertPeace said,

    February 4, 2007 at 20:17

    Hillary sucks??? Isn’t that the way her hubby likes it?

  11. Servant Savant said,

    February 4, 2007 at 20:50

    He he. er – uhm – well. maybe you got something. if she did go down maybe the Republicans wouldn’t have had that ammunition and maybe Bush wouldn’t have been elected. that’s another reason I don’t like her. I think I’m up to about a hundred reasons by now. By 2008 I’ll have a million.

    grrrrrrrr… why do I have to login to blogger over and over again. what a pain.

  12. DesertPeace said,

    February 4, 2007 at 21:28

    Hmmmmm…. a million??? I’ll try to come up with some for you.
    Logging in problems??? dunno why… I’m not having any.

%d bloggers like this: