Hilary Clinton, the front running Dem for Pres 08, supported Israel’s attack on a suspected Syrian Nuke facility:

hc_wonder.jpg

During a presidential debate on NBC Wednesday night, the Democratic hopeful said: “What we think we know is that with North Korean help, financial and technical and material, the Syrians apparently were putting together, and perhaps over some period of years, a nuclear facility, and the Israelis took it out. I strongly support that.”

Other Dems are mighty upset and think Hillary is hawking it too much even, they say, setting the stage for an attack on Iran. So is Hilary a hawk or a dove? She wants to use violent means to stop evil, but is she willing to put soldiers in harms way? Or is she the kind of hawk that her hubby was – send in the cruise missiles and see what is left afterwards to mop up?

She also voted to call Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard a terror outfit:

But Clinton argued that the Guard Corps was “promoting terrorism” by aiding insurgents in Iraq and supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, the Jerusalem Post reported.

She said that designating the group as a terrorist organization would “give us the options to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders.”

Democratic Senators and presidential candidates Joe Biden and Chris Dodd voted against the resolution, and John Edwards criticized it. Barack Obama abstained from the Senate vote.

UPDATE: Obama was NOT THERE…He didn’t even show…

What in the world is Obama doing here abstaining? Take a stand Obama!? The Iranian Guard are a bunch of bad dudes doing very bad stuff. By designating them a terror group the US can effectively try to pinch them financially, and restrict their people from making trips to the US etc. Why the abstention? Who is advising you on Int Affairs? What Would Dennis Ross Do?

As I have written before, Obama is vague and simply uninformed on the Middle East and most international issues. I am not endorsing Hilary—she will have to at least promise me an appointment to get that and hire Jewlicious as her official liaison to the Jewish community:-)—but her approach to international events at least invokes the tone of someone who is informed. Even if we may disagree.

About the author

Rabbi Yonah

23 Comments

  • You are absolutely right — Obama was not there.

    I still say..take a stand. I am not sure I would have voted for this either after just reading it. But I am not running for president. Not yet at least.

  • I don’t know what stand I would take, either. On the one hand, yes, the Iran Revolutionary Guard is aiding terrorism by Hamas and Hezbollah and is thus a terror group. On the other hand, the amendment amounts to a de facto declaration of war, and I don’t think the US can stomach a war on three fronts, especially after the Iraq debacle and absolute desertion of Afghanistan. What should have been done instead was propose a bill that goes after Iranian foreign bank accounts, just like the US did with North Korea. Hopefully Obama does put together a bill with this in it, because I feel he is more sincere than Hillary, who is just all over the place.

  • hahaha, its hilarious to read about Jewish liberals comparing which politicians are more pro-Israel.

    They restrict the politicians to democrats only, because otherwise every other republican (except Ron Paul and John McCain) would be more pro-Israel than them.

    hahaha, I love it!!!!!!!!!!

    Go Carter Go!!!

  • The discussion does not include Republicans because why bother? They’re not going to win the next Presidential election. Why waste the pixels?

  • Why is it considered “hawking it up” when someone calls a spade a spade? At least she took a stand for once….This reminds me of the numerous arguments on Daily Kos urging people to keep mum about Ahmedinijad’s Holocaust denial the other day, b/c it will be used to justify a strike on Iran. Absurd…

  • The choices are dismal. I wouldn’t know who to vote for. If Hillary does become president, one can only hope that she will stay focused on the job, unlike her husband who was too busy getting blow jobs to worry about that pest, bin Laden.

    ck, if you are voting Democrat and discussing the candidates, fine. Beyond that any political discussion should include the other party, regardless of who you think is going to win the presidency. You don’t really want a one-party system, do you? 😉

  • z-baby: I’m Canadian. And Israeli. It’s not likely that I am going to vote for either party. One does not need to mention the Republican candidates every time there is a discussion on the Democratic ones.

  • ck: “It’s not likely that I am going to vote for either party.”

    Me neither, and I’m American (amongst other things).

  • So will you join me in voting for the Pantherim Ha Schorim next time there’s an election in Israel? If you’re in Israel that is…

  • What do you mean, if I’m in Israel — didn’t I get orders not to leave?

    Black Panthers could be kinda sexy. I’m in.

  • Thanks Yoram! We will all do some homework! Because until now, we’ve all been talking out of our asses!

  • Hey! Speak for yourself! I know … nothing.

    Great link. I think I’m especially impressed because it’s from al-Ard. Looks like Rudy may be my man after all. Or maybe Mitt.

  • Do you hear that?

    It’s the war drums beating, isn’t this fun! Afghanistan and Iraq have been so successful, our glorious leader and his friends have decided to attack Iran.

    Hillary essentially guaranteed that she will not be receiving my vote. Barack either. Any candidate that can’t show up to vote on a de-facto declaration of war against Iran is not going to receive my vote. This is too important. Once again my former party has screwed the pooch and let this criminal Administration move a step closer to starting war with a sovereign nation.

    And can someone PLEASE tell me how bombing Iran makes Israel more secure?

    Funny story, the Iranian majlis just announced their decision to name the CIA and the US Army terrorist organizations. Boy, Premier Bush sure knows his diplomacy!

    As for the “Israel Factor”, I can only say that ranking Chuck Hagel as the worst for Israel because he:
    “Believes that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to bringing about Middle East peace.”
    Should probably give folks an idea of how silly Rosner is. …unless you are under the impression that resolving the conflict is bad for Israel, or that Middle East Peace is bad for Israel.

  • Ahhhh, the pleasures of a cool dip in the cesspool of Republicanism. Once again, of its assorted endearing characteristics, the most notable are its dishonesty and sheer intellectual degeneracy. My very favorite is this: ”one can only hope that she will stay focused on the job, unlike her husband who was too busy getting blow jobs to worry about that pest, bin Laden.”

    Of course!! See, while Clinton was president, all it took to take out bin Laden was simply paying attention and wanting it to happen, so the reason bin Laden wasn’t captured then is that Clinton just didn’t do enough. But since Bush has taken office, the entire United States military has been mobilized in an actual war for a longer period of time than it took to defeat Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, and still the imbecile still can’t do a goddamn thing about bin Laden. The 9/11/ attacks not only took place nearly a year after the Republicans had stolen the election, but Bush received a specific and explicit warning about their intended plans and still did nothing. Every American murdered on 9/11 is the direct responsibility of Republican fanaticism, incompetence and corruption, and the only challenge in determining responsibility for the event is to assess whether Republicans are most allergic to honesty or personal accountability.

    Elon is precisely correct, this and similar recent legislative efforts are nothing more than the noise of the neocon propaganda machine and the endless campaign for war in Iran. The Democratic Party is, indeed, a aggregation of gutless collaborators whose central purpose is to co-opt and diffuse widespread public disgust with Republican warmongering. Fortunately, that purpose ultimately will be at least somewhat frustrated, given the fact that – as ck rightly notes – there is simply no chance whatever that a Republican has even the remotest possibility of being elected president next year. Everyone with a brain knows it, and yet every member of the media and both political parties has an obvious vested interest in pretending that isn’t the case, the media to maintain the illusion of objectivity, the Democrats to keep the contributions coming in, and the Republicans to prevent the complete dissolution of the party on a national level.

    The only point with which I’d quibble is the assertion that the neocon priorities regarding Israel are “silly.” Yes, the designation of Hagel as “anti-Israel” because he believes in the importance of achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians is incredible and obscene, but it isn’t in any way “silly.” What it is, instead, is the perfect manifestation of neocon ideology. The egregious mistake is imagining that the neocons have any interest in peace whatever. Accordingly, the answer to Elon’s question, “can someone PLEASE tell me how bombing Iran makes Israel more secure?,” is that of course it doesn’t, a fact of which the neocons are completely aware. The most obvious reasons are twofold. First, just as is the case in America, the real objective of the Israeli right is to keep control of the government out of the hands of their domestic enemies, a goal accomplished by maintaining a constant state of war and national emergency. Moreover, disrupting even the possibility of peace allows the Israeli right to avoid its most terrible nightmare, i.e., the day of reckoning when they may be required to relinquish their repellent kosher empire in the West Bank. Politically, that eventuality can be put off indefinitely so long as the right can sustain the fiction that the Palestinians and Muslim world as a whole are Nazi’s whose only goal in life is the extermination of the Jewish People.

    Finally, like so many deformed political movements before them – fascism, bolshevism, syndicalism – the neocons love war. But while the followers of those earlier ideologies at least had the basic human decency to participate in their own wars, what distinguishes the neocons is their appalling chickenhawkery.

    Thus, we have the question, ”So is Hilary a hawk or a dove? She wants to use violent means to stop evil, but is she willing to put soldiers in harms way? Or is she the kind of hawk that her hubby was – send in the cruise missiles and see what is left afterwards to mop up?”

    Ahh, yes, that Bill Clinton, what a pussy! I’m not sure what kind of hawk Hillary Clinton is, but I can sure as hell tell you what kind the neocons are. They are bloated, pig-faced sacks of shit like John Podhoretz or bloodsucking vampires like Rudolph Giuliani, whose personal cowardice and consuming ambition always made them just a hair too busy to do any fighting themselves, but who never let that circumstance interfere with the intensity of their empty macho posturing. And they are like the billionaire founders of the new war cheerleading oiutfit Freedom Watch, who – like Mitt Romney – have a real taste for sending the children of ordinary Americans to die in their crusades, while their own children stay home and count their goddamn money.

  • Yes, Chuck Hagel would be the worst for Israel if he:
    “Believes that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to bringing about Middle East peace”

    because anyone who believes such nonsense is too naive to run our country. Does he actually believe resolving the I/P conflict will reunite the Sunnis and Shias in a warm embrace? This sounds too much like the garbage coming out of Bush’s or Blair’s mouths…

  • Does he actually believe resolving the I/P conflict will reunite the Sunnis and Shias in a warm embrace?

    I don’t think Sen. Hagel has actually said he believes resolving the I/P conflict will cause a Utopian wet dream in the middle east, I think he was characterized as believing that resolving the conflict was CENTRAL to bringing about peace in the region. That is to say, you won’t have peace WITHOUT the conflict being resolved.

    The Sunni/Shia divide is manifesting itself VERY strongly in Iraq, but it is doing so in a radically political way. There is not another example of this happening anywhere else in the world; Iraq is a special case for a number of reasons. It should be noted that despite how they use their money to attack each others interests, the Saudis and the Iranians have normalized relations. The religious foundations of the conflict between the two is minimal, the political exacerbation of that conflict is obviously much more concerning. These two epicenters of power, one Shi’i, one Sunni are trying to position themselves as centers of the Muslim world, not because they hate the other’s theology, but because they want that POWER.

    I would say that outside of Israel (which is all that Rosner was talking about), obviously resolving the DISASTROUS Iraq situation is also CENTRAL to Middle East Peace. Unfortunately, I/P seems to be the EASIER of the two to actually resolve. This is saying a lot.

  • It’s the child-of-divorce fantasy. Children of divorce fantasize all their lives that mommy and daddy may some day reunite. No one in the US, or at least on the vote-rich coasts, has not been affected, painfully, by at least one divorce.

    The country, or some of it, therefore wants Hillary to be seen: as a sitting President, known to be asking her husband Bill for help with the Presidency at difficult moments, or at least for his visible support of her presidency. He himself has recently said he would be a roving ambassador for her.

    This is the fantasy need. They need to see the First Family healed. It is a drama people crave, because of their own personal dramas.

    If Bill were not around – either deceased, or sick enough to not be mentally aware, Hillary’s candidacy would lose its usefulness to this unconscious psychological symbolism. It would vanish in a moment. Indeed, she would be expected to retire to take care of him, to fulfill the same fantasy.

    (She would retain some supporters who want a woman president, or just like her, but the real point is the child-of-divorce fantasy.)

    IMHO

Leave a Comment