|
| |
“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
-- Hillary "I-Take-Responsibility-for-My-Vote" Clinton4/22/08 | sourceLabels: Hillary Clinton, Iran, War
 
|
|
|
4 Comments:
I THINK she meant that we'd attack Iran if they attacked Israel. But the question was stupid and the answer should have been prefaced by saying, "This is a stupid question. Iran has neither the capacity nor, as far as we know, the desire for such an attack." I'm hoping she is just saber rattling as a tactic, but I am worried that she could be bullied into a war as pres. to show she's tough enough.
Right. It was a stupid question, but it was a really stupid answer. And it raised precisely that question in my mind about her susceptibility to pressure to look and act "tough." Well, as Clint Eastwood once said, "Girlie, tough ain't enough."
I just couldn't believe she used the term "obliterate them," especially when the antecedent of "them" is "Iranians" in general.
Kinda makes you wonder why she's running as a Democrat. Is there a difference anymore?
Before the '80s, both parties were rated about equal on "defense issues." So, one could find hawks and doves elected from each. But, beginning with Reagan, Dems began to be branded in the public mind as "soft on defense." Thus, Dems have responded by trying to look and sound tougher.
We saw this with the Bill Clinton presidency. Bill was branded a draft dodger (though why this hasn't hurt W, I don't know), so, though he helped work for peace in Northern Ireland, he gave the military everything it asked for and then was quick to use force in foreign affairs.
Since women are even more perceived as "too soft," I really think Hillary wants to be shown as "tough." I think that's why she voted for the Iraq War. I think she could be bullied into another war.
However, some Dems have run as hawks (JFK, especially) and then worked really hard for peace. Much depends on Congress and the pressure from the people.
For Christian peacemakers, electing the best people is never enough. Our work is longterm and independent of whomever is in whatever office. That doesn't make electoral politics unimportant, though. A hawkish president or Congress will make peacemaking work more difficult--maybe even spend all our time preventing new wars, etc. instead of working in new ways for peace with justice.
(I am convinced, for instance, that we could have already achieved a 2 state solution in Israel-Palestine by 2003, if not for the Iraq War and Bush's disinterest in the fate of the Palestinians.)
In the general election, I will vote for the Democratic nominee because McCain is a super-hawk. However, I think it obvious to peacemakers that Obama is a better choice--though he also saber rattles on occasion.
Post a Comment
<< Home