Hawkish Hillary?
By Denise Best | Related entries in In The NewsSenator Hillary Clinton has taken the Bush administration to task for not taking an aggressive lead in dealings with Iran.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton last night criticized the Bush administration for its response to Iran’s nuclear program, saying it had chosen to “downplay” the crisis over the past several years.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.”
Since 2002 Britain, France and Germany have led talks meant to assure that Tehran’s nuclear program would not give it the capacity to build weapons. The three countries last week declared that Iran’s decision to resume nuclear research had brought the talks to an end, and, with the United States in support, asked that the matter be sent to the United Nations Security Council for possible action.
“… downplay the threats …”
“… standing on the sidelines …”
This administration??
The administration that has been accused of being too aggressive in exerting power and control? Hmmm .. this is an interesting tactic by Hillary.
Given the bias that is perceived in our relationship with Israel, how was it an error in allowing other interested nations to take the lead and attempt to diffuse the situation in Iran?
Was the U.S. in as strong a negotiating position as Britain, France *biting tongue* (ok, I’ll concede that one!) and Germany?
It’ll be interesting to see how many other Democrats join on this particular bandwagon.
This entry was posted on Friday, January 20th, 2006 and is filed under In The News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Hey Denise,
Daniel Drezner has an interesting post on the Iran situation. I don’t feel it addresses Hillary’s points, but it certainly points out some issues about some on the left side of the blogosphere’s views of Iran. And Drezner doesn’t pigeon-hole the entire left, so I wonder what it’s response will ultimately be.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Sounds like she’s setting the trap. That game is so much fun - a bi-partisan decision to go to Iraq, then “Bush lied”, and what is your exit strategy? If she can get Teddy and others to join in, we’ll see if Dubya can stick by his montra - “Fool me once”…”You can’t fool me again”
January 21st, 2006 at 2:25 am
She has always been a hawk in terms of the war on terrorism If you examine her record, you will see someone who does not strictly follow the liberal line.
She is going to be tough to beat in 08.
January 21st, 2006 at 11:57 am
I can already feel my wallet melting.
January 22nd, 2006 at 4:49 am
Well since we are in this War how come Bush did not ask the American people to sacrifice for this war as other Presidents have done in past so called Wars??
Granted even the most conservative person will the how this war has blown a hole in our budget. I think if Bush had come to the American people at the start of the war and say he has to raise taxes to pay for this, the people would have agreed. Also he could have encouraged the American people to conserve gas and energy.
And he could have caught UBL first and then built the case to go into Iraq.
If that woman reporter is killed and there is video/audio of the death and if it is a beheading, Bush will hear screams of get out of Iraq louder than he has EVER heard them before.
Bush WILL be blamed for this, it does not matter that she was there on her own working or not. That fact is that we are in the middle of a civil war that Bush has caused and this young woman paid the person for Bush’s war with her life.
Isnt it about time that this freedom loving and equality loving country finally elect a woman as President?? Again take a look at her record in NY as Senator and you will NOT see a liberal idealogue.
January 23rd, 2006 at 5:59 pm
I’m certainly not surprised that Clinton sounds hawkish. The degree to which she is not a liberal ideologue is measurable. (Link above)
A while back I measured Clinton’s language from her Senate page; the results suggested that she held relatively few moderate positions, and that order was her preference on more issues than equality. References to liberty were conspicuously absent in much of her rhetoric.