1 Boring Old Man

Hillary Strangelove

 

… Still, there are some red lines that should never be crossed. Clinton did so Tuesday morning, the day of the Pennsylvania primary, when she told ABC’s "Good Morning America" that, if she were president, she would "totally obliterate" Iran if Iran attacked Israel. This foolish and dangerous threat was muted in domestic media coverage. But it reverberated in headlines around the world.

Responding with understatement to a question in the British House of Lords, the foreign minister responsible for Asia, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, said of Clinton’s implication of a mushroom cloud over Iran: "While it is reasonable to warn Iran of the consequences of it continuing to develop nuclear weapons and what those real consequences bring to its security, it is probably not prudent in today’s world to threaten to obliterate any other country and in many cases civilians resident in such a country."

A less restrained reaction came from an editorial in the Saudi-based paper Arab News. Being neighbors of Iran, the Saudis and the other Gulf Arabs have the most to fear from Iran’s nuclear program and its drive to become the dominant power in the Gulf.But precisely because they are most at risk from Iran’s regional ambitions, the Saudis want a carefully considered American approach to Iran, one that balances firmness and diplomatic engagement. The Saudi paper called Clinton’s nuclear threat "the foreign politics of the madhouse," saying, "it demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished Bush’s foreign relations"…

A presidential candidate who lightly commits to obliterating Iran – and, presumably, all the children, parents, and grandparents in Iran – should not be answering the White House phone at any time of day or night.

My take on her comment came from a different angle, but the conclusion was the same. One of the things I recall from the pre-Iraq War days was being stunned that Hillary Clinton voted for the War. It was during those magnetic flag days when all of us were a little crazy still after 9/11, but a lot of us were not crazy enough to doubt the prewar intelligence we were receiving and doubt the wisdom of invading Iraq. She should have known better, I thought. I decided that it was a political vote. I decided that she must have felt that voting against the war might hurt her chances in some future run for the Presidency.

I was disappointed in her. I wanted to like her more than I did when she voted for the war. More than in anyone else, she knew that Bin Laden was the problem. How could she not have known that? She was in the White House when husband Bill was having to try to figure out how to deal with al Qaeda. I saw it as a "weakness of character" that changed my mind about her Presidential possibilities. Up until then, she had been my choice for a future Democratic President. Later, as she began her Presidential run, I thought the same thing – that she was answering questions based on how she thought the answer night play with the voters, rather than answering from a conviction.

So, I heard that Nuke Iran comment as her trying to show how tough she is, not as something she had thought about from a strategic or humane point of view. That’s the way I hear most of what she says, as reactive to how her opinion will be heard. What’s called "sniper-gate" [her untrue tale of landing in Bosnia while under seige] seemed like a minor gaffe to many, but it was her final death knell with me. It was simply a politically expedient lie. I’m kind of mad at her for not running an authentic campaign, but we have to make our choices based on what we see. But I’m not that put off. I’ll still vote for in a second if it’s between she and McCain.