James Joyner, this morning: [1]
Glenn Reynolds links [2], with praise, to an article about Hillary Clinton [1] claiming that she would go to war with Iran [3] if they attacked Israel.
Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on “Good Morning America” Tuesday. ABC News’ Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel [1] with nuclear weapons.”I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran [1],” Clinton said. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
It is, of course, a good thing from time to time to remind folks that an attack on one of our allies is something that we would retaliate against. To that extent, I have no issue with what Clinton said.
Still, one thing that I think bears mentioning is that the tone of her response is a little too aggressive for my taste, considering that Clinton isn’t talking about retaliating against an attack on the United States, but rather Israel. For one thing, I’m a little disappointed that Clinton didn’t take GMA to task for the premise of the question. Namely, the fact that Iran doesn’t actually possess any nuclear weapons to attack Israel with.
Secondly, I find it a little problematic that Clinton offered an unequivocal commitment to “obliterate” Iran in the event that Iran attacked Israel. What if Israel attacked Iran first? Would we back them unequivocally then? No matter what the cause or reason for Israel’s attack?
I’m not sure I share James’ concerns with her aggressive tone. First of all, the aggression seems called for, given Iran. Anything less than a “Hands off, or you’re molten glass’ will be taken as an open invitation. Well, it would be worthwhile with anyone but Clinton, which is the second point. Can we trust her NOT to toss caveats in once things start rolling? I think we all know better than that.
As usual, Clinton has concerns other than the stated, for playing the line she is… such as mollifying the Jewish vote, who has until now, had no reason other than Barrack Obama, to vote for Hillary Clinton. Of course, they might, with a little strain, be forced to remember that she’s a known pathological liar, and that thereby her statements are to be taken with a shaker of salt.
And there’s the rub; The Iranians know this, too.
If I’m a Democrat and a Jew, I’m going to think long and hard before pulling the lever for either Democrat. for that reason.
The Democrats, you see, have a long an undistinguished history of empty rhetoric on Israel, that in the end, nobody pays any attention to here in the states, much less in the world at large. Take for example her statements as regards “Standing with Israel against Terrorism”, from her website [4], posted last fall sometime:
“Hillary Clinton believes that Israel’s right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, secure from violence and terrorism, must never be questioned.”
Note, please, the phrase “an undivided Jerusalem as its capital”. While this seems a rather hard line, nobody here in the states even noticed it. Also unmarked is the idea that this position matches AIPAC’s position on the matter, word for word. I guess they were too involved in watching her fellow Democrats like Jimmy Carter, auctioning off that “undivided Jerusalem ” to the highest bidding Palestinian terrorist group, to notice. Or, perhaps, we’re just so used to seeing Hillary Clinton play to the PACs, telling them what they want to hear, that it’s just par for the course. Or, perhaps the reason nobody noticed it we’re sick to death of having to parse everything she says, anymore.