Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Deja Vu?

As a last effort before voters head to the polls in PA today, the candidates are doing their best to differentiate themselves as the best choice for president. As part of her effort, Hilary Clinton highlighted and underlined her position on Iran according to this BBC news report. In short, she would "obliterate" them if they launched an attack on Israel. Now, I am not about to argue against protecting our interests in this region, but we have to do it as prudently as possible. Our current situation in Iraq is an example of why. Perhaps this attitude on display now serves as a reminder of the same gung-ho pro-war/retaliation attitude that made Hilary Clinton vote for the Iraq war in the first place. Or perhaps it shows how she can be swayed by what she sees as the most politically prudent thing of the moment. I surmise that when she voted on Iraq, she did it partly so that she wouldn't seem weak in a post-9/11 U.S. (especially as she would be running for President in a few years). When the war because unpopular, and the evidence of its misdirection became blatant, she suddenly turned into a staunch critic. And when President Bush made comments similar to her current ones about retaliation on Iran if they obtained and used nuclear weapons, she was all up in a dander about his statements and how it would have to receive new authorization by Congress.
So, what is it, Hilary? Is President Bush wrong for suggesting forceful retaliation against Iran or right?
I also find it interesting that she complains about her media coverage, and suddenly the media is focusing on Obama's "bitter" comment in great, minute detail and ignoring her war-mongering comments--both this one and her umbrella retaliation brought forth in the latest debate.

Are we so enamoured with political melodrama and gossip that we are willing to overlook these serious diplomatic policy statements? Am I the only one worried that all this haste for "obliterating" feels mighty familar?

No comments: