Memory Lane: Who's the Bigger Hawk, George or Hillary?

December 8, 2006

There aren't many elected officials in Washington who want to throw the gauntlet down on Iran more than Hillary Clinton. The New York senator believes the president has been too soft on the militant Islamic country, claiming that Bush has played down the threat of a nuclear-armed Tehran.

"I believe we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Clinton told an audience at Princeton University on Jan. 18. "I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. … We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," Clinton added. "In order to prevent that from occurring … we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations."

Sen. Clinton has attempted to out-hawk Dubya on other foreign policy matters, as well. From Iraq to Palestine, the Democratic Party's leading lady argues that the current administration has not done enough to combat the threat of terrorism. And like so many other neoconservatives (yes, admit it, Hillary is a bloody neocon), Clinton will never admit that the United States has fallen right into the grasp of al-Qaeda by attempting to fight stateless terror by walloping sovereign Mideast countries.

And with the Hamas victory in the recent Palestinian elections, the U.S. policy for the region isn't exactly producing the kind of results Bush and his co-conspirators desired.

You'd have to pull out a microscope to differentiate between George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton. Both want a continued occupation of Iraq. Both want sanctions on Iran. And they both claim to want democracy in the Middle East. Yet neither will accept a democratic outcome if it doesn't favor U.S. interests.

more...

http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=8515

Any?

that article is such a piece of crap. and you should delete your op; antiwar.com is a banned link at Du.

"I believe we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Clinton told an audience at Princeton University on Jan. 18. "I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. … We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," Clinton added. "In order to prevent that from occurring … we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations."

As it turns out, the intelligence community downplayed Iran's nuclear program, isn't the threat it was hyped to be. So is Hillary saying, and apparently she is, that she thinks the White House should not have then downplayed the supposed threat by Iran in light of the new intelligence? If so, that is beyond the pale.

There is something very frightening about Hillary here.